Why is the lack of CPU so punishing?

Why is the lack of CPU so punishing?
Should I look into getting something like i5-12400? Would you ever consider getting a used CPU?

Attached: v_Assassins_Creed®_Odyssey2022-5-30-23-41-15.jpg (1920x1080, 240.38K)

>using vsync when you limit your fps to 60
this nigga wildin, I bet your other settings are just as retarded

your gpu is clearly doing worse than your cpu

I need to do more tests..

Playing at 720p when you have a CPU bottleneck is beyond retarded. Also, an fps limit when you can't hit the target anyway is maybe a bit silly
The game apparently benefits from up to 16 threads, I would consider a ryzen 7
Presumably vsync double buffer and the fps limit itself are separate settings. If you only limit fps but have a single buffer you still get partial frames unless you use adaptive sync too
I wouldn't know though I don't play garbage
The graph shows the GPU has lower average latency

I am pretty sure it was 1080. Not sure why it's 720 on the test.
Need to remove the limiter, maybe even try vsync off. Usually vsync off is not bad with TPS games.

>Usually vsync off is not bad with TPS games.
Fuck off.

I thought lowering the resolution was worse when you're GPU bottlenecked, not CPU? I'm genuinely asking.

Lowering the resolution is good for fps when you have a GPU bottleneck. Higher res frames tax the GPU, but the CPU is doing about the same amount of work no matter what your resolution is.
If you have a CPU bottleneck, crank up the resolution or antialiasing until you don't, because there's no reason not to.

Do I have a bottleneck?

Every system inherently has a bottleneck. If lowering resolution does not improve performance, then that bottleneck is likely on the CPU side.
If lowering resolution does significantly increase performance, then it might be the GPU.
Certain graphical effects tax both, though, so keep those the same until you know

Oh I think I get it. The CPU isn't able to keep up with the speed at which the GPU is rendering the frames at low resolution, so if you increase the resolution it creates more balance since it'll take the GPU longer to request the decoded data from the CPU. Is that kind of the idea in a broad sense?

just google bottleneck calculator

Yes, exactly.
That is the general idea, though sometimes you might have short spikes where either the CPU or GPU really chugs and the general rule isn't so simple. This is what matters when people talk about stuttering games with low CPU thread counts

Kind of - high framerates also heavily stress the CPU so if you're CPU bottlenecked a good option is to limit FPS to 3-5 FPS below avg FPS to smooth out hard stutters as the CPU load changes baeed on the game.

As long as you're above your monitor's refresh rate, this shouldn't matter that much
And if you're well below, you can't exactly afford to give up 5 fps below average

Seriously fuck all the devs who make games CPU heavy. I upgraded to 10700k and I still have some games where I drop below 100 because my CPU can't keep up like what the fuck.

Depends on the game, I know that bsck when I was rolling an FX 8150 on BF4 I had to limit FPS to 80 or so on a 144hz display otherwise the frametime spikes would hurt.
One other thing he could try if this isn't a DX12 title is DXVK, I've heard that these titles absolutely SHRED DX11 with too many drawcalls.

What are some CPU heavy games?

Not that guy but Cyberpunk 2077 comes to mind.

Simulations, RTS', games with lots of entities with advanced enough AI.
Yknow... Cities Skylines, Civ, Crusader Kings. That shit.

Vermintide 2. Really sucks that it is first person game too like yea sure 100-120 fps is bearable but when other games run 2x more it just makes you feel cheated on.