Author: parsec
Subject: Asrock X99E-ITX/ac 64GB Ram
Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 12:36pm
I would expect a video card benchmark to focus its testing on the video card itself, with minimal dependence on the system's CPU, so the CPU does not influence the result as much as possible.
Also, a video card benchmark test is unlikely to function the same way as a game does. A game will be loading new data for foreground and background images, monitoring multiple types of user input, etc, while a benchmark uses one set of image data that it uses to find the maximum FPS, and only monitors for user input to end the test.
I still agree that modern CPUs are not a bottleneck of any kind for video cards. Video cards have become so sophisticated, that the amount of support required from the CPU has become less significant than in the past. For example, how much system memory is being used when a video card has 4GB+ of its own memory?
If gamers were honest with themselves, if their CPU is a bottleneck for their gaming performance, their video card became a bottleneck first, with the CPU supposedly taking up where the video card left off. Otherwise, a video card is waiting for the CPU to provide it with something it must have to continue. That something may be unrelated to the CPU (disk IO), it is just the middle man.
IMO, the excuse of blaming the CPU for poor video performance, has become a "fact" that gamers worry about, that is really not a problem for anyone with a modern, four core processor. Or is it reasonable to blame my video card for a low CPU benchmark score?
Subject: Asrock X99E-ITX/ac 64GB Ram
Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 12:36pm
 breathless19 wrote:Update: Discovered an instability problem with my GTX 970 Mini, so I RMA'd it and bought a Zotac GTX 1070 Mini. Surprisingly, I do not get the idea that there is any CPU bottleneck whatsoever. When I run benchmarks, my CPU usage remains low while my GPU usage goes sky high. If anything, it seems like my GPU is the bottleneck - even with a massive overclock. So, unless I'm missing something, all those people telling you that a low GHZ cpu will cause a bottleneck seems unjustified. Unless I'm missing something...  UPDATE 2: Asrock has apparently updated their specs page again, this time showing 128GB Ram compatibility: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/?cat=Specifications "- Max. capacity of system memory: 64GB (with Core??i7 CPU) or 128GB (With Xeon® CPU)*" |
I would expect a video card benchmark to focus its testing on the video card itself, with minimal dependence on the system's CPU, so the CPU does not influence the result as much as possible.
Also, a video card benchmark test is unlikely to function the same way as a game does. A game will be loading new data for foreground and background images, monitoring multiple types of user input, etc, while a benchmark uses one set of image data that it uses to find the maximum FPS, and only monitors for user input to end the test.
I still agree that modern CPUs are not a bottleneck of any kind for video cards. Video cards have become so sophisticated, that the amount of support required from the CPU has become less significant than in the past. For example, how much system memory is being used when a video card has 4GB+ of its own memory?
If gamers were honest with themselves, if their CPU is a bottleneck for their gaming performance, their video card became a bottleneck first, with the CPU supposedly taking up where the video card left off. Otherwise, a video card is waiting for the CPU to provide it with something it must have to continue. That something may be unrelated to the CPU (disk IO), it is just the middle man.
IMO, the excuse of blaming the CPU for poor video performance, has become a "fact" that gamers worry about, that is really not a problem for anyone with a modern, four core processor. Or is it reasonable to blame my video card for a low CPU benchmark score?