Your thought of CPU being benchmarked on 4k?

Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by sverek, Sep 29, 2017.

  1. sverek

    sverek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,073
    Likes Received:
    2,972
    GPU:
    NOVIDIA -0.5GB
    "Our CPU works fine for 1440p/4k gaming".

    I might be missing a point, but that sounds nothing but an excuse for bad CPU. Lisa Su made same claim that Ryzen works just fine for 4k gaming. And for that I respect her less.
    So, by moving all stress to GPU we can blindly say our CPU performance is sufficient? That's just not right.
    With same logic i3 would be enough for 8k gaming. Who cares if your CPU only able to achieve 30fps when your GPU can't push past 15.

    And if we lower graphic settings in 4K, we will see GPU being utilized less and weak CPU will cap its performance.
    I just don't get the trend of benchmarking CPU and comparing it in 4k resolution. It means nothing at all. It's just same numbers resulting in GPU cap.

    720p / 1080p benchmarks with low video settings ARE needed, that's how we see clear difference in CPUs gaming performance.
    I don't even mention the fact that weak CPU will cap once you upgrade GPU and 1080p is by far the most used resolution.

    Please correct me if I am mislead.
     
  2. Carfax

    Carfax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,913
    Likes Received:
    465
    GPU:
    NVidia Titan Xp
    You're absolutely right. Competent reviewers will always test at very low resolutions to front load the CPU properly. What infuriates me even more is when they do RAM benchmarking at GPU limited settings as well :rolleyes: Perfect example, AnandTech just did a memory scaling test for Ryzen, and they tested several games at 1080p with high IQ settings. I couldn't believe the settings they were using to test the RAM! :confused:

    [​IMG]

    This is what proper CPU performance testing looks like:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    This I why I always browse the German review sites even though I don't speak a lick of German, because I find their methodologies to be superior to American websites when it comes to CPU and RAM testing.
     
    fantaskarsef likes this.
  3. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Yes, low-resolution tests are important in gauging relative CPU performance. How relevant such results are is another question. If you personally play games at low resolution (e.g., low-end or competitive gamer) then those results will be very relevant. If you game at high resolution, then those results will mean squat.

    Personally, I only care about the particular resolution that I game with at the time, which is typically on the high side (that'd be 4K at this present time, or at least 1440p). Of course, at such resolutions the GPU will be the limiting factor, which is why I always prioritize the GPU when it comes to gaming performance. In fact, the only time I even look at game benchmarks is when a new high-end GPU is released and/or if I am in the market for a new GPU. The only thing I care about with regard to the CPU is that it can keep up with the GPU at my preferred resolution (most high-end CPUs can do this, and I only buy high-end CPUs, so I rarely inquire about it).

    To be frank, I care very little about the CPU when it comes to gaming. As long as it isn't complete garbage *cough* FX *cough* it should do fine, as long as it's paired with a powerful GPU. I'm also heavily into grid computing at the moment so I prioritize computing performance above all else.
     
    alanm likes this.
  4. Emille

    Emille Master Guru

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    1080 Ti Aorus Extreme
    Having a gpu bottleneck at 4k where average frame are limited below the max frames the cpu is capable of, does not mean that you also couldn't have frame drops below the average due to a cpu bottlenecking minimum frames in certain circumstances. There are a lot of modern games that are brutal on cpus, I wouldn't want to buy a cpu that is proven to be 30% slower in lower thread count games and single threaded performance.

    If it is bottlenecking a card now, imagine how crippling it would be to a high end gpu 3 years from now.

    When I buy a new platform I keep it for a bunch of years and upgrade my gpu every 12-18 months.

    Imagine if your next gpu purchase of an 1180to or something, which here would cost about $1250au...ran 30% slower on average because you wanted to save $200 on a cpu and motherboard combo and were convinced that current 4k bottlenecks would always be the same....nuh uh, that's dumb.

    You want as much EXCESS cpu performance as you can get now so that min frames and future gpu generations aren't crippled.

    A brand new cpu and motherboard probably cost me $800-900. I buy several graphics cards over the coarse of it's life that cost a thousand dollars or more.

    This is high end gaming....4k....the latest chipsets , if you have to resort to the value argument rather than performance when buying the fastest gpus money can buy, then you have conflicted priorities.


    I'm sure a lot of people saw a bunch of linear game benchmarks and saw that an i5 was 'more than enough' at the time....then they saw benches of modern games where an i5 not only peforms 50% worse than an i7 in certain games but also has a lot of stutter.

    People are saying a ryzen cpu is more than enough now...that happens when gpu overhead is even higher with a graphics card twice as fast as a 1080ti 2 years from now and it performs twice as fast on a 7700k and only 50% faster on a lower clocked ryzen cpu...

    If you are buying a platform to keep for years to come that is 'future proof' because of it's core count....clock speeds age too, so does ipc and a low clocked cpu now is going to perform terrible compared to a higher ipc, high clocked cpu in a few years time, eveb in 4k, as the bottleneck is raised higher by better gpu performance.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017

  5. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,325
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    GPU:
    -
    Why exactly is this topic coming up again when it's already been discussed to death months and months and months ago?

    Are you really just trying to create a bashing thread, in the gaming section, that should be (if made at all, which it shouldn't have been, you can look at previous topics from months....and months....and months ago, when this topic came up) in the CPU hardware section?

    Seriously though, what made you decide to just randomly and for no reason create this topic? This topic is done and over with, months ago. Did you forget the past?

    Seems to me you just created a thread to bash a product, and that's it.
     
  6. Netherwind

    Netherwind Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    GPU:
    MSI 3080 Gaming X
    I dont know anyone playing at 720p, do you?

    I personally play at 1440p/4K and therefore those tests are relevant for me. Most of my friends play at 1080p and therefore those tests are relevant to them.
     
    alanm likes this.
  7. Tree Dude

    Tree Dude Master Guru

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    Radeon R9 270X 2GB
    Console players?
     
    fantaskarsef likes this.
  8. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,592
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    GPU:
    3080Ti Strix H20
    It's obviously still relevant because people still argue for ryzen saying 1080P is for peasants use 1440P/4k.

    1080P performance is a good performance metric and many cases ryzen is very behind.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  9. SerotoNiN

    SerotoNiN Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,088
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    GPU:
    RTX 3080 Ti
    I like realistic benchmarks. 1080/1440. The CPU may not be showing it's best that way, but it's the conditions in which I game and will base my purchases off of. Personally, reading a benchmark of a game @ low details/720p does nothing for me, because it's not a realistic environment for me to judge performance. I want to know where the differences lie at higher resolutions.
     
    alanm likes this.
  10. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    The point of it is to show an underlying performance deficiency. I remember when the AM3+ FX CPU's came out and people kept saying it will be fine in 1080p. Before you knew it it was falling behind there too.
     
    Emille likes this.

  11. Valken

    Valken Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    518
    GPU:
    Forsa 1060 3GB Temp GPU
    I have suggest the OP is correct. There are still some games that are very CPU or IPC sensitive at any resolution like Civilization, ARMA or other older engine type games.

    Games with lots of AI units still needs crazy beefy high IPC CPUs in this day and age.
     
  12. Netherwind

    Netherwind Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    GPU:
    MSI 3080 Gaming X
    Such an irrelevant post -.-
    We're talking PC here man.
     
  13. Tree Dude

    Tree Dude Master Guru

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    Radeon R9 270X 2GB
    [​IMG]
     
  14. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,143
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti
    Back on topic boys.

    More or less there is some IPC and core requirement from your CPU at 4k gaming. There were benchmarks from Tweaktown for example that compared the 4770k to the FX8350, and there was very minimal difference.
    https://www.tweaktown.com/tweakiped...-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html

    Memory speeds as shown before also become irrelevant the higher the resolution. If there's going to be any really bottleneck, I dare say it would be your storage drive performance.
     
    airbud7 likes this.

Share This Page