add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Is my PC bottlenecked?(Possible upgrade options?)

tacosavior321

1 month ago

so this is my current build. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tsbBV6

The computer (my third attempt at building a computer on my own) runs relatively well for my self taught expertise. In trying to get the best possible performance for games I'm looking to see if I'm running fine, currently choking my systems performance with my setup or if I should upgrade components to get better results. My own opinion is my monitor is holding my performance back as it was the thing I focused on last and I think I went too cheap compared to the other parts. I just feel Im not getting the best performance for what I paid for.

My fps in most of todays games will hover in the 65-85 range rarely going above 90. (although Could be the fact that some are AAA titles idk).

Comments

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

If you have a 1080p 144hz monitor but you are only getting 90fps at most, your monitor isn't really holding you back. If you are exceeding your monitor's 144hz refresh rate with something like 160+fps, then it would be a bottleneck.

For a 1080, those frames seem a bit low unless you are totally maxing out all settings like volumetric clouds in AC Odyssey. Which games are only running at 65-85fps? At 1080p resolution, you should be closer to 90fps average. Games like The Witcher 3 at max settings should be well over 100fps, same as Far Cry 5.

Also, if you want to see what is your bottleneck, the best way is to use an OSD like Rivatuner statistics server (comes with MSI Afterburner). If your CPU isn't at 100% usage but your GPU is (generally will hover around 95-98%), then you're GPU bound (as many of us are). As for me, I'm playing at 3440x1440 and I'm totally GPU bound on just about every game (unless I'm over 100fps in which case my GPU will be under 90% as I keep my monitor at 100hz).

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I haven’t ran much benchmark tests aside from the in game ones like Odysseys and FC5 and in both scenarios I would not hit above 90 for very long staying in the 65-75 range with base stats and Overclocked. Currently running on all defaults but I will Run a OSD for all the games I still currently play and update this thread after.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

In ACO I know I’m gpu bound running usually between 94-96% use

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I’ll go under the impression I’m doing something wrong with my settings

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

If you are getting 65-75fps in AC Odyssey, that sounds about right for 1080p on your card. But FC5 should be up to 100+ fps. Did you run the Rivatuner OSD on FC5? Check your CPU usage to see if it reaches 100%. Otherwise, make sure you have the latest drivers or check your GPU temperature. Are you reaching or exceeding 80C?

Oops, forgot that you have an 8700k, you're not gonna reach 100% CPU on FC5. Try checking GPU drivers and temps.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Haven’t played fc5 in a few months so no longer on desktop, I could run the osd on a few of my other games ill have to check later I still play: ACO The Witcher 3 Overwatch Dying light Just cause 3 ( I’ll post results when I can)

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

So I ran rivatuner( unsure how to upload screenshots ) I’m actually getting better FPS by applying the ASUS 5.0 ghz profile on my MOBO I reset all my 3-D settings in the nvidia control panel (noticed some improvement) In ACO- I’m getting between 75-90 FPS depending on the environment Witcher 3- 120 FPS Just cause 3- 75-85 FPS Overwatch -110 FPS I think it’s running better after changing the 3-D settings IMO

  • 29 days ago
  • 2 points

You can just upload to imgur and post a link here. But anyway, I'm glad that you found something that helped you! Frames definitely look better and about where you should be based on your system. Great job!

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

You have a 144 Hz monitor and your fps is lower than that, so the monitor is fine. 65-85 fps in the more difficult to render titles is not bad. Are you playing at high graphics settings? Do you get higher fps at lower settings? If not, you're probably at the limit of what the game engine can do; you might see a small improvement with a 9700K or 9900K if it's one of the (still relatively few) games that wants a whole bunch of execution threads. If you get significantly improved fps at lower settings, then the GPU is maxed out at high settings; this seems unlikely given that you're running 1080p.

Don't think in terms of bottlenecks. You don't run a computer to get a perfect CPU/GPU/monitor balance, you run it to get results. If your results are OK then the computer is OK. The CPU generates the frames, the GPU renders them according to resolution and graphics detail settings, and the monitor displays them. As long as no part in that chain is running slower than you want the end result to be, you're fine.

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

This topic has been moved from "Hardware > Other" to "Systems > Part List Opinions Wanted".

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube