Identify the bottleneck in my computer

[futurefields]

i5 2500k
hd 6850 1gb @ 1280x1024
8gb ddr3-1600

i know if i bump it up to 1080p the 6850 will start to bottleneck fairly rapidly, but at 1280x1024 this thing seems to flying with everything I throw at it. i have never experienced games running this smooth before (been out of pc gaming for awhile)

considering the resolution I am running and the balance of components which part of my setup will become a performance bottleneck first when gaming?

futurefields, your poor response to other posters has pretty much doomed this thread. I don't believe this thread can be salvaged, so it is hereby locked.
-ViRGE

 

[krnmastersgt]

Video card.

The RAM will not be a bottleneck with any title currently released, no exception.

As for the CPU it's incredibly strong for 99% of titles, unfortunately BF3 massive multi-player will probably be bottle-necked by this, but for anything single player it's more than powerful enough (and most multi-player too).

 

[Blain]

i5 2500k
hd 6850 1gb @ 1280x1024
8gb ddr3-1600

i know if i bump it up to 1080p the 6850 will start to bottleneck fairly rapidly, but at 1280x1024 this thing seems to flying with everything I throw at it. i have never experienced games running this smooth before (been out of pc gaming for awhile)

considering the resolution I am running and the balance of components which part of my setup will become a performance bottleneck first when gaming?

What's the model number of the monitor you're using?

 

[futurefields]

It's a Dell 1905FP, I love this monitor.

16x9 is nice for watching movies, but when it's time to get my hands dirty, give me a good 1280x1024.

 

[Blain]

Your monitor doesn't support a 1080 resolution.
1024 is as high as it goes.

Time for that nice new 24" IPS model.

 

[futurefields]

Your monitor doesn't support a 1080 resolution.
1024 is as high as it goes.

what kind of an idiot do you take me for?

really you must be trolling.

 

[BofRA]

Nope no trolling on Blain's part:

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/r83546/EN/about.htm#Specifications

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Your monitor is your biggest bottleneck.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

what kind of an idiot do you take me for?

really you must be trolling.

You must be trolling

Blain is correct. The monitor is the bottle neck

Just because the OP made a bad post doesn't mean you get to make one too
-ViRGE

 

[Ken g6]

16x9 is nice for watching movies, but when it's time to get my hands dirty, give me a good 1280x1024.

I saw somewhere - can't find where right now - a page that said widescreen monitors actually show things on the sides that you wouldn't see with a 1280x1024 monitor. I think it specifically related to World of Warcraft, though. If you don't want a wider field of view, I guess you don't have to upgrade.

(Then again, I have a 1280x1024 screen too. :whiste

 

[Blain]

what kind of an idiot do you take me for?

I didn't take you for an idiot at all.
* You posted a thread asking for help running at 1080p.
* I asked you what model monitor you had.
* You posted the Dell model number.
* I looked up the specifications for that monitor and realized that it only supported up to 1024.
* I then posted that information.

Your video card will do 1080 standing on its head, but your monitor wasn't designed for that high a resolution.

I don't understand your reaction.

 

[krnmastersgt]

I didn't take you for an idiot at all.
* You posted a thread asking for help running at 1080p.
* I asked you what model monitor you had.
* You posted the Dell model number.
* I looked up the specifications for that monitor and realized that it only supported up to 1024.
* I then posted that information.

Your video card will do 1080 standing on its head, but your monitor wasn't designed for that high a resolution.

I don't understand your reaction.

I think he already was fully aware that his monitor was constrained to that resolution (considering he posted in the OP and mentioned it again). He was just asking as games progress, what is likely to be the bottleneck in his system at 1280x1024 first, which is going to be his video card as the 2500K monsters every game with the exception of BF3 massive multiplayer.

 

[mfenn]

Your graphics card is probably still technically the gaming bottleneck. However, since you run at such a low resolution, the framerate is going to be so high that the difference is pretty academic.

Outside of gaming, I'd say you should really get an SSD if you don't already have one. A mechanical HDD is definitely the biggest general-usage bottleneck out there today.

Finally, I agree with the other posters, your monitor is probably your biggest bottleneck once you start to look outside of the case itself. For desktop uses, even a 16:9 resolution like 1920x1080 is more horizontal and vertical pixels than what you have, so I don't really see the complaint. You're probably missing a ton of action in games as well because you're getting shortscreened or narrowscreened (exactly which depends on the game).

 

[futurefields]

Nope no trolling on Blain's part:

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/r83546/EN/about.htm#Specifications

You think I dont know the specs on my own monitor?

 

[futurefields]

Your monitor is your biggest bottleneck.

The point is what component will start to bottleneck first @ 1280 x 1024 resolution - CPU, GPU, or RAM.

This is not a monitor upgrade thread.

 

[futurefields]

You must be trolling

Blain is correct. The monitor is the bottle neck

You must be trolling. Read the OP - this is not a monitor upgrade thread. This thread is about which component will bottleneck first @ 1280 x 1024 - CPU, GPU, or RAM.

 

[futurefields]

...If you don't want a wider field of view, I guess you don't have to upgrade.

... stuff ...

(Then again, I have a 1280x1024 screen too. :whiste

Congratulations. Maybe next time you post in this thread, it will be of some use to the thread topic.

 

[futurefields]

I didn't take you for an idiot at all.
* You posted a thread asking for help running at 1080p.

I did? Where is that thread?

Maybe you need some help with reading comprehension, Blain. This thread is about which component will bottleneck @ 1280 x 1024 resolution first - CPU, GPU, or RAM.

I thought my original post was pretty easy to understand?

 

[futurefields]

I think he already was fully aware that his monitor was constrained to that resolution (considering he posted in the OP and mentioned it again). He was just asking as games progress, what is likely to be the bottleneck in his system at 1280x1024 first, which is going to be his video card as the 2500K monsters every game with the exception of BF3 massive multiplayer.

You are still the only person who has understood the point of this thread and responded accordingly. Thank you.

 

[Ken g6]

This thread is about which component will bottleneck first @ 1280 x 1024 - CPU, GPU, or RAM.

Well, RAM doesn't bottleneck anything these days, and your CPU is just about the best possible for gaming. (Have you tried overclocking it yet?)

So, by process of elimination, the next thing you should upgrade is

Spoiler

your monitor.

 

[futurefields]

So, by process of elimination, the next thing you should upgrade is

Spoiler

your monitor.

I'm wondering how many FPS I will lose going from 1280x1024. The HD6850 is not a high end card by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel like at my low resolution, I get to pretend it's a high end card lol...

To me, frames per second are much more important than having more pixels. In my opinion better image quality comes first from having better textures, lighting, shadows, game design etc.... resolution is pretty far down on the list, for me, personally.

 

[Ken g6]

Well, I'd tell you, but the AnandTech benchmark doesn't list 1280x1024! Hopefully you run some of the same games and can fill in the blanks.

In a perfect world, you'd upgrade both GPU and monitor at the same time.

 

[futurefields]

In a perfect world, you'd upgrade both GPU and monitor at the same time.

I imagine I will do that, especially once the new consoles are released. I'm hoping the CPU lasts through the next console cycle. I doubt the GPU will.

 

[futurefields]

Just looked at those benchmarks. I must have a low bar set for visuals, probably because I am used to playing Xbox 360 games on a 1366x768 720p TV.

1366 x 768 720p TV's ruin absolutely every image you throw at them. Because any detail that was a single line on a native 1280x720 render then has to be stretched ever so slightly for the 1366 x 768 panel.

So what you end up with is a screen where absolutely no details are confined to a single pixel line - all single pixel details get stretched to 2 pixels.

So on a 1366 x 768 resolution 720p monitor you are actually getting a far less sharp image than if the panel was a native 1280 x 720.

And since I've been getting used to playing games on that, going back to pc gaming on a 1280x1024 monitor, where the games are rendered natively, it's already a huge improvement over what I was experiencing with the Xbox.

I'm pretty sure I know why they made all the 720p tv's with non-native panels.

That way they are actually able to make the 1080p tv's look much better. Because the difference between true native res 1080p and 720p is not that great when viewed from TV distances.

But if you throw in the added caveat that all 720p tv's must scale to 1366 x 768, you suddenly make the 1080p TV's look a whole lot better because since 1080p TV's operate in native resolution, they can handle single pixel details whereas the 1366 TV's cannot.

Running games at 1280x1024 on a computer with just 4x AA looks pretty amazing to me, by comparison, simply because it is running in native resolution which is something you never experience with an Xbox 360 hooked up to a typical 720p set.