Let's talk about bottlenecks since it has come up more than once and there are gamer myths around.
Bottlenecking means taking a large number of something and only outputing a smaller amount with a FIXED MAXIMUM. This means that regardless of how much more you produce, the output doesn't increase. Like a big jug and a small bottle both with the same neck size.
That's how I understood it.
Meaning basically if you processor does not have enough power in a category it doesn't matter if you have a geforce TITAN, the actual performance will not be better because certain technical limitations in one of the main components of your processor will determine the limit for you maximum performance output.
In order to say a CPU bottlenecks a GPU we would need proof that performance remains constant with increasingly better GPUs, under the same circumstances.
Older CPUs may not be as fast as more recent ones but they can certainly handle a modern video card and you'll definitely notice much improved performance. Modern CPUs probably have much faster memory management and result in a few extra frames or whatever, but most older enthusiast CPUs certainly do NOT bottleneck modern GPUs. It's not a bad idea to OC to squeeze a little more though.
Yeah the question in such cases though is, is it WORTH buying card X if my processor limits the performance at a certain point.
Let's say - hypothetically - that I buy a GTX 970 with a processor that is old (say an old Core 2 Quad 2,33 Ghz, I think that would limit performance), then is it worth (assuming I can not buy a new processor and assuming OC does not do much to help) to buy a GTX 970 if I can get SIMILAR results with a GTX 960 since the processor is limiting what my PC can handle anyway? (If you know what I mean).
If you buy a GTX 980 with and i3 dual core you probably can't play modern games because the requirements for the processor are way too high for your processor to handle it, meaning no matter how hard your GTX 980 works you can't overcome the limitations that your CPU puts on you (since different parts of games require different resources from different parts of the PC). That would be like spending a huge amount of money on a high-performance CPU-Cooler and then trying to save money by buying the cheapest Thermal Paste possible. IT has to FIT.
The question in terms of "bottlenecking" (IMO) is always: "CAN I get the maximum (or close to it) out of my graphics card with the processor I have, or will my performance be limited to a point where my graphics card only uses 60 or 70% of it's capability due to the fact that my processor can't deal with higher graphical settings anyway.
Or did I understand that wrong?
EDIT:
Ordered a MSI GTX 970 4GB Gaming Edition. They have an offer atm in Europe (don't know about the US) where you can get cashback of 50 € when you buy a mainboard and a graphics cards from them that are part of the offer. Thought I'd use that offer since I like MSI anyway.
Let's see how it works out with the card.
Will probably keep my monitor and just upgrade when the G-Sync ones are cheaper, you are probably right there considering it is a good new technology, but in the first generation (meaning not yet developed that well) and really expensive atm.
My 22" one takes up most of my FOV anyway considering I am pretty close to the screen, and supersampling will help me get the graphical fidelity higher. Also, as far as I understand it 27"/24" with 1920x1080 is less pleasing to the eye than 1680x1050 considering the pixels are concentrated on a smaller scale.
Last edited: