CPU utilisation isn't the problem here, it doesn't quite work like that. The clock speed of your CPU is the issue. You can 50% load a tortoise, 100% load a rabbit, put them in a sprint race, and the tortoise will still be a tortoise.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
New 1060 barely faster than my old 960
- Thread starter bongpig
- Start date
CPU utilisation isn't the problem here, it doesn't quite work like that. The clock speed of your CPU is the issue. You can 50% load a tortoise, 100% load a rabbit, put them in a sprint race, and the tortoise will still be a tortoise.
Ah... I think I understand. I think. Maybe.
In truth, the one test that stands above the others is the Valley benchmark which scored me very similar to other 1060 owners. Thats pretty conclusively shows my card is ok.
Right, so a new CPU it is then! Amazon has the 4670k for under 200 quid. Thats going to be my target I think.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
How about knocking the game settings down a notch? Some settings use more CPU than others, sometimes you can't even tell the difference.
have you ran timespy?
that will show you your cpu score because something doesn't seem right..if your not maxing your cpu out and your gpu isn't either then surely it has to be something else holding you back,sure adding a faster cpu might help but it seems a bit of a bandaid.
that will show you your cpu score because something doesn't seem right..if your not maxing your cpu out and your gpu isn't either then surely it has to be something else holding you back,sure adding a faster cpu might help but it seems a bit of a bandaid.
You're confusing matters when it's actually pretty simple. You don't have to max your CPU utilisation before it becomes a GPU bottleneck, especially at low resolutions. In this case it's not about how heavily loaded his CPU is, it's that it's not processing that load quickly enough to max GPU utilisation. Hence the bottleneck.
No, it becomes an FPS issue. Frametime is something else.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,644
- Location
- Southwell
Try using some DSR and upping the res
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 58
4460 i5 v 4670K i5 approx. 10% improvement? Not really worth the investment.
As to your specific 960 v 1060 at 720p - I'm not sure what improvement you were expecting to see. Your system should not have been taxed at 720 p unless you really upped the MSAA and the post processing eye candy. I would suggest there is no "bottle-neck" in the traditional sense as none of the parts you listed are seriously under spec compared with each other with the exception of the plasma screen.
Save the cpu upgrade money towards a new screen in the future or as part of a motherboard/cpu bundle.
As to your specific 960 v 1060 at 720p - I'm not sure what improvement you were expecting to see. Your system should not have been taxed at 720 p unless you really upped the MSAA and the post processing eye candy. I would suggest there is no "bottle-neck" in the traditional sense as none of the parts you listed are seriously under spec compared with each other with the exception of the plasma screen.
Save the cpu upgrade money towards a new screen in the future or as part of a motherboard/cpu bundle.
do you have a 1080p monitor you could borrow off someone to try?
the only other thing I can think of is maybe a mb bios update for the new pascal cards?
the other option maybe switch to skylake,i bought a brand new i3 6100,mb and 8gb ram for £190..
the only other thing I can think of is maybe a mb bios update for the new pascal cards?
the other option maybe switch to skylake,i bought a brand new i3 6100,mb and 8gb ram for £190..
Living up to your name there buddy? It's more than 10%, 3.2 Ghz to 4+ is more than 10%. And if you read the rest of the thread, specifically the bits about his preference in monitors, its the cheapest option to ease the bottleneck.
I think you overestimate the 960. It struggles to run most modern games at ultra settings at 720p 60fps. I haven't seen any benchmarks to suggest otherwise. Even without MSAA, my system would struggle without turning down some options. A little tweak here and there and I can hit it. But I was greedy and wanted full ultra anti aliased loveliness... hence the 1060.
I think he means 10% performance increase..not clockspeed,altho the k overclocks like a badass.
with my 1060,playing bf4 on ultra settings on 1080p I'm getting around 90-120fps 64 player maps, card is maxed out 99%,cpu around 75-90% and I have non oc cpu slower than yours.
with my 1060,playing bf4 on ultra settings on 1080p I'm getting around 90-120fps 64 player maps, card is maxed out 99%,cpu around 75-90% and I have non oc cpu slower than yours.
Last edited:
That would be my guess.
Ah, I see. I tend to count overclocking potential as a part of the performance increase. For me it's the main reason of buying a K.
Just make sure you have a decent cooler and that your motherboard supports overclocking before you pull the trigger.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 2,225
Instead of spending £200 on a slightly better cpu, why not get a 144hz 1080p monitor? A much better outcome.
I'm not really sure a £200 monitor is going to satisfy me.