I'm confused

[-Hotplate-]

Someone please settle this argument for me. My system is old. i7-4770K and 1660Super i bought as a stop gap.
I'm trying to establish which is the bottleneck, CPU or GPU. I also have a 2K monitor.
In the latest Battlefield my CPU is 100% utilised whilst my GPU is less than 50%. FPS is 35 - 50.
Does this mean if I upgrade the 10 year old CPU I will get better performance out of that GPU?
OR is the GPU the bottle neck?
How do you tell?
TIA

 

[MrRockliffe]

So if your CPU is pegged at 100%, and your GPU isn’t using 100%, then it would imply that more CPU power would allow your GPU to extend its legs a little.

Try running a game at higher than native resolution, and see if your GPU usage goes up

 

[Tetras]

In many games your CPU will be the bottleneck. In the latest battlefield I'd say it is the bottleneck. But, the 1660 Super doesn't have huge chunks of power in reserve, so, for example: I wouldn't expect a CPU upgrade to give you double the FPS.

That said, if you can only afford one, I'd probably go CPU first and then upgrade the graphics card once the next gen cards are out.

Did I pull that conclusion out of my butt? Yes.

But, videos like these are helpful:

 

[-Hotplate-]

Update - Just tried Back4Blood and CPU was 75% whilst GPU was around the same. Game played OK.

 

[pete910]

CPU, Lots of games now are using 6/8 core chips better.

 

[FredFlint]

Reduce the resolution and test GPU %, if its still 50% or lower then the CPU is the problem. You could also OC the CPU and test if the GPU % increases.