Originally Posted by fapestar
The term "Bottlenecking" as used in computing refers to component that lacks the capacity to work the information that it is given do to resource restraints.
The x6 processor (or mines at least) isnt at full load on all 6 cores, and all 6 cores are working while playing crysis 2.
That's not bottlenecking.
However, If a sandy bridge works better, than the x6 under performs when compared to a 2600k.
So bottlenecking is just overstating the difference between AMD and Intel. People say that your CPU is bottlenecking you card (99% of the time thats not true, there just some setting they need to fix for optimization) and it makes it seem like their CPU is no good and outdated.
Why is it then, when on the intel board, when people are complaning about sli and crossfire and other FPS problems, people are trying to trouble shoot.
But in the AMD board, as soon as somebody is having FPS problems about 10 sandy bridge owners pop in and yell "BOTTLENECK BOTTLENECK"
Actually, the game can't utilize all those cores. The ones it can though are used 100%. So yes, the CPU is bottlenecking because it can't support the GPU in this particular game. In comparison, a lot of games use 4 cores and since i5's and i7's have 4 more efficient cores, they don't bottleneck as easily. The more efficient cores benefit Intel even more in games limited to 2 cores (StarCraft 2 is a very good example of this). A Phenom II X6 doesn't have the power in 2 cores to support a good GPU in SC2, so by your definition, it's bottlenecking. Technically though, a 2500K will still bottleneck a high end PC in SC2, that game is just ridiculously CPU dependent.
Derp is right, if a different CPU performs better then the Thuban is bottlenecking. It is by your definition.
I'd like to see you say with a straight face that the 1100T doesn't bottleneck the GPU in SC2. No, it's not at 100% load, but it's still not able to support the GPU.
Edited by B!0HaZard - 8/14/11 at 8:06am