Is your older CPU still relevant?

[Terry Rock]

I ask this question because I am on an older I7-3820 and have had zero issues with any game to date.
You'd have to go all the way back to the first quarter of 2012, that when the 3820 was released and yet, it still runs every sim currently released...quickly...and in VR.

 

[Full_Ninja]

What motherboard are you currently using?
What brand and speed of controllers on it?
What type and how much RAM?
I'm at the stock CPU setting, but the system turbo boost to 3.8 GHz.
I usually run grids of 20-24 cars at max or 25-32 at high setting.
It run really smooth...(In addition to looking at the other cars on screen, a good indicator is to look at the scenery as it goes by for instances of micro-micro stuttering.)
Your system at that high of an over-clock, should be running fast and churning out massive fps.
I'm on a Biostar TP-X79 with 32 GB of DDR3..
It was the best money I ever spent on a MB...very few hiccups since it was built in 2012.

Motherboard is Asus Sabertooth X79 LGA 2011. 16gb of 1866mhz ram.

I don't understand this question "What brand and speed of controllers on it?"

I'm running in vr so have to maintain a minimum of 90fps and I do for the most part with a grid of 14 cars.

 

[Terry Rock]

Motherboard is Asus Sabertooth X79 LGA 2011.
I don't understand this question "What brand and speed of controllers on it?"
I

In addition to Intel, looks to have the Marvell 9128 with ASMedia1061 for eSATA controllers.
Check to make certain the boot and game drives are connected to the faster Intel 6 GB headers.
You may also want to download and install the PCI-e registry hack.
It allows PCI-e 3.0 to work on the board. (You will have to re-enable it after each video driver update.)
Most X79 boards were listed as PCI-e 3 'ready'' but it was not actively deployed at delivery.
It's been stated by some game reviewers, that they saw little difference versus PCI-e 2.
I beg to differ.
For most games it won't.
In RF2 and a few other racing titles, we discovered an almost 30 percent framerate increase...more importantly there was a massive improvement in smoothness.

 

[PaulH]

Still rocking my i5 2500k @ 4ghz with 16GB ram & a GTX 1080, still a great cpu! Until I see a 100% performance boost from changing cpu my i5 will last me at least another couple of years

 

[Insert Coin]

Just a thought: if you combine a faster GPU with an older CPU and race in VR (90 FPS), that would give the CPU more time to do its calculations I suppose, since the faster GPU can render the image in a shorter time? In VR the FPS doesn't go up: the GPU calculation time goes down. Or am I missing something?

 

[RasmusP]

Just a thought: if you combine a faster GPU with an older CPU and race in VR (90 FPS), that would give the CPU more time to do its calculations I suppose, since the faster GPU can render the image in a shorter time? In VR the FPS doesn't go up: the GPU calculation time goes down. Or am I missing something?

Interesting thought!
I don't know how exactly the syncing and rendering order works.
It makes sense like you think about it but it may be completely wrong though

 

[Jeremy Ford]

Just a thought: if you combine a faster GPU with an older CPU and race in VR (90 FPS), that would give the CPU more time to do its calculations I suppose, since the faster GPU can render the image in a shorter time? In VR the FPS doesn't go up: the GPU calculation time goes down. Or am I missing something?

No that doesn't make sense I'm afraid. There does seem to be a lack of understanding in this thread of the importance of the CPU plays in gaming performance. The CPU is running the game and instructing the GPU to draw frames; so it's synced. A game being bottle necked by the CPU means it's running slower therefore GPU draws fewer frames to keep at the speed of CPU processing the game.

The fastest GPU today with a 5 year old CPU will not perform at it's best. Which is to say the CPU is holding back the GPU. That's just fact. However that doesn't mean it wouldn't be proficient to give you decent performance. Can you notice the difference between 100 or 130+ FPS, well you can't on a 60mhz monitor. On a 144mhz monitor, yes you can. But that FPS difference isn't unrealistic when you mismatch and old CPU and very fast GPU. It's also worth taking into account, not only the highest FPS, but the lows which cause stutter. The faster CPU will increase the FPS to a higher minimum to reduce or eliminate the minimum FPS. This is the main noticeable difference while playing with old vs. new cpu.

An Ivy bridge CPU with a GTX 1080 or Ti is wasting the GPU. But paired with a 1060/1070 would be okay as the slower GPU isn't able to render beyond the limit of the CPU running the game. When you begin to go beyond these balances you're spending more on performance parts your system cannot fully utilise at which point it's time to consider a more significant upgrade.

 

[Insert Coin]

You are right about the CPU / GPU being in sync for drawing frames, but since this combination is finished sooner by a faster GPU, there should be more time left for physics calculations I guess?

 

[Jeremy Ford]

You are right about the CPU / GPU being in sync for drawing frames, but since this combination is finished sooner by a faster GPU, there should be more time left for physics calculations I guess?

The CPU is running the game logic it doesn't render the image. The GPU is rendering the image not running the game. They do different jobs. What you're suggesting isn't correct.

 

[RasmusP]

But don't you need to finish the draw calls from the CPU to get the GPU starting?
Anyway there is always something to do for a 1080 ti. Rocket League with 8x SGSSAA looks simply awesome and will load the 1080ti up to 70% while my old 2600k will be at 5-15%
But yeah, usually and for most games it doesn't make sense as long as you don't force Anti Aliasing or play in extreme resolutions!

 

[Full_Ninja]

In addition to Intel, looks to have the Marvell 9128 with ASMedia1061 for eSATA controllers.
Check to make certain the boot and game drives are connected to the faster Intel 6 GB headers.
You may also want to download and install the PCI-e registry hack.
It allows PCI-e 3.0 to work on the board. (You will have to re-enable it after each video driver update.)
Most X79 boards were listed as PCI-e 3 'ready'' but it was not actively deployed at delivery.
It's been stated by some game reviewers, that they saw little difference versus PCI-e 2.
I beg to differ.
For most games it won't.
In RF2 and a few other racing titles, we discovered an almost 30 percent framerate increase...more importantly there was a massive improvement in smoothness.

Yeah I did all of that when I built it but I will check again as I did not know it reset when you upgrade gpu drivers

 

[Jeremy Ford]

But don't you need to finish the draw calls from the CPU to get the GPU starting?
Anyway there is always something to do for a 1080 ti. Rocket League with 8x SGSSAA looks simply awesome and will load the 1080ti up to 70% while my old 2600k will be at 5-15%
But yeah, usually and for most games it doesn't make sense as long as you don't force Anti Aliasing or play in extreme resolutions!

I wouldn't say Rocket League is a particularly good example as it's not going to push any CPU much.

The problem here is you're confusing the performance you're experiencing in this game (and could be many others) which may be excellent. However this isn't highest fps your GPU is able to output. As I said, things could indeed run totally fine, I'm not disputing that but that doesn't mean your CPU isn't holding back the full performance of the GPU. Because it is and it's to be expected.

 

[Case_]

@Jeremy Ford I'm sorry, but you're basically saying "you don't understand it, it's more complicated", only to proceed to paint a very black and white image full of generalizations.

The fact is that current games, including sims, are rarely CPU limited to such extent for the CPU to be a clear bottleneck. Saying "1080 is wasted with an Ivy Bridge CPU" is a great exaggeration. Yes, at least with some games, the same GPU might perform somewhat better with a better CPU, but that alone doesn't mean it's wasted on an older CPU - the old CPU can (and most often will) still benefit from better GPU, because the question of overall performance is, just like you suggested, a lot more complicated. Plus a better GPU still gives you things like better antialiasing or higher resolutions virtually for free, which is something quite a few people care more about than being able to run a game at 180 fps instead of 145 fps. Will a 1080 be utilized fully with an Ivy Bridge? Probably not, and to what extent, that will depend on a specific game (and on the specific CPU). Would I spend the money on a 1080 with an Ivy Bridge, thinking it's the perfect upgrade path for the money? Probably not, even if I could afford it. But it still doesn't mean it will be wasted either.

 

[DayGlow]

Here's a good article demonstrating how then older generation Intel CPUs fair with against the newest in gaming. https://www.techspot.com/review/1546-intel-2nd-gen-core-i7-vs-8th-gen/

But who had a 1080ti and runs at 1080p?

They only tested up to 1440p but that closed the gap to less than 5% 4K would be even less difference.

I see no need to upgrade my 4820K oc'd to 4.7ghz. To upgrade I would need a new cpu, mb, and ram at least. So far I haven't seen a need to sent close to a grand for minimal gains.

 

[DayGlow]

In addition to Intel, looks to have the Marvell 9128 with ASMedia1061 for eSATA controllers.
Check to make certain the boot and game drives are connected to the faster Intel 6 GB headers.
You may also want to download and install the PCI-e registry hack.
It allows PCI-e 3.0 to work on the board. (You will have to re-enable it after each video driver update.)
Most X79 boards were listed as PCI-e 3 'ready'' but it was not actively deployed at delivery.
It's been stated by some game reviewers, that they saw little difference versus PCI-e 2.
I beg to differ.
For most games it won't.
In RF2 and a few other racing titles, we discovered an almost 30 percent framerate increase...more importantly there was a massive improvement in smoothness.

I have the same mb for my CPU. I have the latest BIOS and just checked gpu-z and the graphics card is running at pci-e 3.0

 

[Piotr Dul]

I've been running i5 3570K oc at 4.4Ghz for some 5 years. Didn't have any performance issues. Just been upgrading GPU every 1-2 year.

 

[Jeremy Ford]

@Jeremy Ford I'm sorry, but you're basically saying "you don't understand it, it's more complicated", only to proceed to paint a very black and white image full of generalizations.

The fact is that current games, including sims, are rarely CPU limited to such extent for the CPU to be a clear bottleneck. Saying "1080 is wasted with an Ivy Bridge CPU" is a great exaggeration. Yes, at least with some games, the same GPU might perform somewhat better with a better CPU, but that alone doesn't mean it's wasted on an older CPU - the old CPU can (and most often will) still benefit from better GPU, because the question of overall performance is, just like you suggested, a lot more complicated. Plus a better GPU still gives you things like better antialiasing or higher resolutions virtually for free, which is something quite a few people care more about than being able to run a game at 180 fps instead of 145 fps. Will a 1080 be utilized fully with an Ivy Bridge? Probably not, and to what extent, that will depend on a specific game (and on the specific CPU). Would I spend the money on a 1080 with an Ivy Bridge, thinking it's the perfect upgrade path for the money? Probably not, even if I could afford it. But it still doesn't mean it will be wasted either.

It's like you didn't read anything I said.

 

[Case_]

Feel free to point out the specific parts I apparently didn't read/got wrong, just like I did address several of the stuff you mentioned. That way, we can actually have a discussion.

 

[Insert Coin]

Today I upgraded my GPU from a 1080 to a 1080ti. My 2600k @ 4.5 GHz was always struggling on Monza at turn 1 (AC, VR, PD @ 1.5, 4x AA, 13 cars, I'm at position 12). Massive stutters because of all cars being in a traffic jam. To my surprise this is no longer the case. I even changed static reflections to medium, now it looks better and without stutters. Long live the 2600k . Maybe with a new CPU it could still be better (higher PD maybe?), I know, but I'm happy not having to upgrade my CPU yet.

 

[Eddie Ellis]

I suspect there is more going on between the CPU and the GPU than many of us know. I used to believe it was as simple as CPU for physics and GPU for all graphics. In the Intel 486 series, I'm sure that was true.

When I bought the GTX 1050Ti 4G card this year, I ran the AC benchmark tests at the same AA, shader and reflection settings as I'd run with my old Radeon 5770 1G card. I did get a decent frame rate increase, but It only looked slightly better in quality.
I then changed the quality settings and AA to high settings @ 1080P and ran the benchmarks again to see how much I would loose in FPS. I was surprised to see that my FPS increased by 18~20 FPS and It looked great. Even more surprising was my CPU usage dropped 20% with the high settings.
So my guess is that some of the graphics tasks that were not being done using the shaders in the GPU were being off loaded to the CPU and in the case of my old 1G memory card, it was also using system RAM as a page swap on graphics items.
One other thing, I changed my powers saving mode in the Nvidia control panel as was advised in one of the 1080ti threads last month. I change from optimal to adaptive and picked up a few FPS as well. My old i5 2500K @3.4 is doing fine now and even the ancient H67 chipset isn't holding it back any more.
I got similar looking results in RRE, I didn't benchmark RRE though.

 

[natedogg1867]

The fact is that current games, including sims, are rarely CPU limited to such extent for the CPU to be a clear bottleneck. Saying "1080 is wasted with an Ivy Bridge CPU" is a great exaggeration. Yes, at least with some games, the same GPU might perform somewhat better with a better CPU, but that alone doesn't mean it's wasted on an older CPU - the old CPU can (and most often will) still benefit from better GPU, because the question of overall performance is, just like you suggested, a lot more complicated. Plus a better GPU still gives you things like better antialiasing or higher resolutions virtually for free, which is something quite a few people care more about than being able to run a game at 180 fps instead of 145 fps. Will a 1080 be utilized fully with an Ivy Bridge? Probably not, and to what extent, that will depend on a specific game (and on the specific CPU). Would I spend the money on a 1080 with an Ivy Bridge, thinking it's the perfect upgrade path for the money? Probably not, even if I could afford it. But it still doesn't mean it will be wasted either.

One thing that a whole lot of people dont take into account, especially in the sim racing genre, is that more frames are better. I think many of the people commenting on this topic either use Vsync, or limit their framerate to ~60 fps.

When you are arbitrarily limiting how much work your gpu is doing, someone cannot make an accurate statement about whether it is being fully utilized or not. Or whether it is being wasted while being paired with a specific cpu.

In sim racing, you want as many frames per second as you can get, since this will allow your gpu to render and display a frame as close as it can to the current point in time. If you are limiting the framerate, you will always be slightly behind in this regard, as your frame time will be much higher. And when a game relies heavily on quick, decisive inputs, having as many fps displayed as your gpu can achieve is actually quite beneficial. This is one of the reasons competitive 'esports' players often run on lower graphics settings just to have massive frame rates. Some even going as far as using old CRT monitors that could refresh in the 100's of Hz in years past.

I know from experience that a gtx 1070 paired with an i5 4670k @4.4 GHz is heavily bottlenecked in cpu heavy games. So to say that a 1080 with a lesser processor wouldnt be, is denying reality. Whether that matters to someone can be debated though, especially if they only play at 60 fps.

Games from other genres too such as Watch Dogs 2 or The Witcher 3 also benefit massively from a powerful cpu. This can be evident in any benchmark from your favorite tech blog or credible youtube source.

Im all about value though, so if you can get a stellar deal on pc parts, slap them all together. I know I sure did a few years ago