Intel Core i9-12900KS

[JustBenching]

This!

If your GPU isn't pegged to 100% usage with Vsync disabled and no FPS cap, it means it could do much more for you, but your graphics settings, or your weak CPU won't allow it. Reviewers like using unrealistic settings to test for pure CPU performance, but let's be honest, no one ever plays at 720p minimum. It's just another form of media sensationalism, nothing more. Completely pointless.

Just finished 12minutes of cod at CPU bound settings, 200 to 300 fps, average consumption was 68.5w and peak was 83.525w from hwinfo64. But for some reason people think the 12900k consumes 300w while gaming

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

This!

If your GPU isn't pegged to 100% usage with Vsync disabled and no FPS cap, it means it could do much more for you, but your graphics settings, or your weak CPU won't allow it. Reviewers like using unrealistic settings to test for pure CPU performance, but let's be honest, no one ever plays at 720p minimum. It's just another form of media sensationalism, nothing more. Completely pointless.

This is sort of half true. The first thing with games is "what are you playing?" and that's also the biggest one.

I've got a 2080 super in one box and a 3090 in the other. Outside of very few single player games neither are going to hit 100%. If someone is playing overwatch, or quake, or the myriad of other games we play on 1080p 240hz monitors they are never going to stretch their legs and CPU performance at lower resolutions does matter. Now playing single player games like Doom Eternal or Elden Ring on 4k monitors or ultrawides (multiple monitors FTW!) that situation changes. But this is a usage scenario issue.

The point of measuring absolute CPU performance is just that. There's nothing normal about a 100% pegged GPU unless it's struggling or you are doing some sort of non gaming task load on it. That sort of thinking is what leads to nonsense like hitting 1000 fps in the starcraft loading menu and saying "aha, I have found it!".

For me with a 240hz monitor, 1080p, 240fps, frame locked I am never going to hit 100% gpu usage in the games I need those frame rates for. That reverses when playing SP games at 4k or higher.

I only peg my system when I'm doing workloads over VMs.

 

[JustBenching]

This is sort of half true. The first thing with games is "what are you playing?" and that's also the biggest one.

I've got a 2080 super in one box and a 3090 in the other. Outside of very few single player games neither are going to hit 100%. If someone is playing overwatch, or quake, or the myriad of other games we play on 1080p 240hz monitors they are never going to stretch their legs and CPU performance at lower resolutions does matter. Now playing single player games like Doom Eternal or Elden Ring on 4k monitors or ultrawides (multiple monitors FTW!) that situation changes. But this is a usage scenario issue.

The point of measuring absolute CPU performance is just that. There's nothing normal about a 100% pegged GPU unless it's struggling or you are doing some sort of non gaming task load on it. That sort of thinking is what leads to nonsense like hitting 1000 fps in the starcraft loading menu and saying "aha, I have found it!".

For me with a 240hz monitor, 1080p, 240fps, frame locked I am never going to hit 100% gpu usage in the games I need those frame rates for. That reverses when playing SP games at 4k or higher.

I only peg my system when I'm doing workloads over VMs.

Not true. The whole goal is to have your GPU running at 100%. That's because most of the time it's the most expensive part of your build. If you are playing at 1080 then you shouldn't have a 3090 in the first place, you should have a 3070 which would get you your 240 fps while being full or close to fully utilized.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

Not true. The whole goal is to have your GPU running at 100%. That's because most of the time it's the most expensive part of your build. If you are playing at 1080 then you shouldn't have a 3090 in the first place, you should have a 3070 which would get you your 240 fps while being full or close to fully utilized.

Your usage case is not mine, imagine that!

 

[JustBenching]

Your usage case is not mine, imagine that!

Sure, your use case is playing at 1080p, that's why im saying you should get a card according to what you are doing. Usually a person that's going to play at ultra low resolution and is going to be primarily CPU bound will not buy a high end card, therefore his GPU usage will still be high.

I mean I kept my 1080ti for as long as had my 2560*1080p monitor, I only upgraded to a 3090 after I upgraded the monitor. What would be the point of getting a faster card and still end up being CPU bound? I mean what are you even suggesting, that people build their computers trying to be CPU bound instead of GPU bound?

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Also the only reason i still have a 1080ti is i don't have cash to piss away on expensive GPUs like some do. It still does a good job at 1440p and i am definitely not over taxing the CPU


Why would anyone buy a 3090 to play at 1080p, now that is pissing cash away.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

Also the only reason i still have a 1080ti is i don't have cash to piss away on expensive GPUs like some do. It still does a good job at 1440p and i am definitely not over taxing the CPU


Why would anyone buy a 3090 to play at 1080p, now that is pissing cash away.

Multiple monitors child multiple monitors. I do MP at 1080p 240, I do SP games at 4k 60! Imagine that!

 

[Mussels]

Also the only reason i still have a 1080ti is i don't have cash to piss away on expensive GPUs like some do. It still does a good job at 1440p and i am definitely not over taxing the CPU


Why would anyone buy a 3090 to play at 1080p, now that is pissing cash away.

high refresh rates, which is what your CPU is actually the best choice for
I can buy 1080p 360Hz monitors right now, and literally - what other GPU could do it?


This is still a really weird argument to be having. If you're GPU limited, your CPU isn't using it's maximum wattage. While it's totally fair to bring up your results with your setup, it's still not indicative of the platform as a whole, or an experience other users will have (and this is why reviews do 720p testing, so that you get a baseline comparison without the GPU limitation)

 

[AusWolf]

This is still a really weird argument to be having. If you're GPU limited, your CPU isn't using it's maximum wattage.

Your CPU will never use its maximum wattage in games, unless you're on a Core i3 or lower.

Extra CPU resources can always be used for something else (background tasks, work, etc), but if your GPU is under-utilised, then it was a waste of money.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Multiple monitors child multiple monitors. I do MP at 1080p 240, I do SP games at 4k 60! Imagine that!

I'll kind of have to agree with @Tigger here, AMD's card does quite a bit better than ours at 1080p high-refresh. Navi 21 is a raster monster

The odd thing about the high end Ampere cards is that you can climb up scene complexity and resolution and they'll take the hit, but for low resolutions, they just don't deliver their weight (and cost) imo

 

[Deleted member 24505]

If anyone wants to buy me a better card to balance out my system better feel free, until then it is what it is.

Multiple monitors child multiple monitors. I do MP at 1080p 240, I do SP games at 4k 60! Imagine that!

Child, who do you think you are. Eat it and like it.

So with a better GPU my CPU power use would be much higher? Why, surely with a better GPU it would still be pegged near 100% use gaming so the CPU would still not be running a high % so therefore not running high power use or temps. Surely that is the ideal situation for a gaming rig.

As it is now, my games don't run as high FPS as they could as only using the 1080ti but still acceptable. with a balanced system why would the CPU run high % gaming if the GPU is doing the work which is surely what you want. If the CPU is running high % then it is not running ideally is it.

I don't really get the point of high refresh 1080 but then i don't play the shitey(imo) games that people need it for.

Also $1100 for a 24" monitor, nice to have cash to piss away on that.