CPU Bottleneck & CPU Cooling Dilemma

I own MSI GT62VR with i7-6770HQ and Nvidia GTX1070. I am facing a decision dilemma in choosing an MSI gaming laptop that:

1. Has a powerful mobile i7 CPU to run demanding games that is not an intel H model but higher (K or equivalent). My current i7-6770HQ has always been a bottleneck in AAA games since 2 years ago and it causes FPS drops.

2. Has a strong cooling solution that can control the i7 K model CPU or equivalent and keep it under 80C at full clockspeed. My weak i7-6770HQ easily overheats to 89C when playing BF1 at 60fps, i have to reapply thermal paste every 8months to bring it down to below 80C at 60fps.

So which laptop can give me a better CPU performance while still able to keep the CPU cool under 80C under heavy load. I am open to non MSI options as well.

Thank you.

 

What kind of memory do you have and have you done a repaste recently?

I ask because the 6770hq should be a competent cpu with its 128mb l4 cache.

Not a recommendation just curious

 

32GB RAM dual channel and no repaste since december 2017. Looking for recommendation on next laptop.

 

Your laptop options with 'K' CPUs are limited period. I mean with MSI you only have the top end GT75 SKUs with the i9-9980HK or the GT76 with the i7-9700K or i9-9900K.

You have the Alienware 51M with the same desktop CPUs as the GT76 and the risk of the GPUs catching fire.

You have the 17" and 15" Clevo rebrands with i5-9600K, 9700K, 9900K desktop options. I know the Sager brand names are NP9176-G1 and NP9156-G1, respectively.

I think that's it.

 

Thanks Kevin. In terms of cooling under load, which one would you nominate? (No Asus?)

 

I have the 1060 + 6700HQ version but never had cooling issues and my CPU temp has never went above 60-65 under load. Perhaps you haven't considered undervolting? Or using a more aggressive fan profile?
The auto profile of MSI is pretty useless at cooling, i have my own fan curve and on the GPU i have never went above 70-73 degreees even with ambient temps above 30 degrees.
I play BF1 just fine on 60 fps and Rainbow six at 120 and above with cpu temp staying around 60°C.

I'm using a -150mV undervolt too, if you haven't, consider it. I've been on stock MSI paste for two years now without issues.

 

Yeah there is also the ASUS ROG G703GX.

I haven't researched any of them to have an answer. The power is in your hands now.

 

The 6700hq shouldnt be a bottleneck. I have run games with the 1070 next to it very well. Bf1 with 90+ frames on 1440p for example. The bottleneck is something else.

 

Games running well doesn't mean there aren't games where the 6700HQ can get in the way of a 1070.

 

I have yet to see a game which used 100% of the 6700hq and less than 100% of the gpu which would be a clear bottleneck indication.

 

You could probably try R6: Siege for that.

 

Siege is a very low cpu usage game....

Assassims creed odesey is the heaviest until now that i saw.

 

Uh what? Its maxed near every proc I've had for a while.

No idea about Assassins Creed, fell off that train like 5-6 sequels ago.

 

It never did on any of my laptops, it is in fact oen of the games that doesnt make my system sweat as much so overall temps are lower in that game.... I have the high res texture pack installed as well.

BF5 and the last 2 AC games are by far the most stressing games I have tested. Even then the 6700/7700HQ has enough horsepower to spare.

 

Unless you are running siege at 60 fps i doubt your cpu hasn't reached 100% there.
Siege is really cpu intensive, especially with unlocked framerate.

 

CPU Core temps is a better indication of CPU usage than the percentage indicator. BF5 for example, core usage never reaches 80% but temp is 89C after which it throttles. In BF4 core temp is 64C-68C. % usage is always under 80% for all cores in all games so i disregard it.

 

I disagree. Even on my overclocked desktop hexa-core i5 with 3000MHz memory, BF1 in the most CPU-heavy 64 player maps drops to around 100 FPS due to a CPU limit:



The game doesn't seem to benefit much if at all from Hyper-Threading either, at least on a hexa-core. My friend's 8750H locked to 3.9GHz was getting minimums around 80 FPS in the same scenario:

 

Core i5's are at quite a disadvantage in BF1 and BFV........Those 2 extra threads on quad cores i7s do matter in BF1. Also you are dropping all setting son purpose to create a bottleneck. That doesnt mean your CPU is a bottleneck in itself, basically you are pushing the CPU to the max now to see how well it does. Once you just select the settings suitable to your GPU you will notice it iwll never hit the 100% usage mark by a long shot.

What you are showing isnt a CPU bottleneck. Mind you that my old 7700HQ, 1070GTX is never dropping sub 80 fps in BF1 with all settings on high.

 

Excuse me? CPU being constantly loaded at 100% on all cores, with low GPU usage, isn’t a CPU bottleneck? Are you being serious right now?

No I am not dropping settings on purpose to create a bottleneck. Those are literally the exact settings I have played using for 150+ hours, because I value FPS/input lag and visibility over visual quality.

Hyper-Threading helps in BF1 on a quad-core yes, but it helps little if at all on a hexa-core, which I showed on the second video with that 6C/12T i7-8750H versus my 6C/6T i5-8600K and the performance delta being in line with the clockspeed difference.

 

The lower CPU usage comment was based on the second video.

But still that is not really what a CPU bottleneck is called.....You are just maxing out your CPU (not an ideal CPU for BF games at that in my experience by the way) and because of that your GPU isnt fully utilized. But a bottleneck? Nah if you would have selected higher settings you would still have that excellent framerate with great visual.

Thi sis not what we call a CPU bottleneck, you simply try to let the CPU push as many frames as possible by eliminating load on your GPU. THat is not a case of the usual CPU and GPU mismatch.

 

The lower CPU usage is because a Hyper-Threaded CPU bottlenecks at a lower total utilization than a non Hyper-Threaded CPU. Which BTW the second video was CPU bottlenecked, as the GPU usage never reached close to 100% despite it dropping below 80 FPS at points. If you turned off Hyper-Threading on that i7-8750H, it would also load all cores to 100% like on my i5, with hardly a change in performance as BF1 does not really benefit from HT on 6+ core CPUs.

Again, you're wrong. I don't know how else to explain to you. If you let a game run uncapped, there is always something limiting its performance, whether that's the GPU, CPU, or the software itself. That's what a bottleneck is. I feel like you do understand what I'm saying, but are arguing semantics of the sake of it. And I'm not sure what you mean by not an ideal CPU for BF games, as the 8600K was the second fastest gaming CPU at the time, and only lacked Hyper-Threading compared to the top dog 8700K, which I have already demonstrated BF1 doesn't really benefit from HT ( nor BFV for that matter) on 6+ core CPUs.

 

When people talk about a bottleneck they in general talk about when loading up the GPU as much as possible, when the CPU cannot run the game logic adequately enough, people start to talk about a bottleneck. Every game bottlenecks when you eliminate the GPU as much as possible, that is not a bottleneck. Now you are just testing the performance of your CPU. Which is hampered by the way because it is a i5. Frostbite is optimized for 8 threads currently thanks to the consoles. My i5 desktop which has been OC-ed to 5ghz still performs slower in BF1 than my 7700HQ laptop which cannot be overclocked. 3Dmark also shows a higher physics performance on i7s vs i5s. You are just lacking threads. I dont get why you think that HT doesnt hel pin both BF1 and BFV because it is the sole game series that made me ditch my desktop with an i5.

But yeah it is semantics. But in that case there is always a bottleneck and that is not what the general gamers are talking about. But the 6700HQ/7700HQ is nowhere near a bottlenecking CPU for BF1 and already outdated for 2 years. BFV still runs fantastic on it together with a 1070GTX on high settings. most of the time near 80fps.

 

Uh, I think you're OOTL. You're talking about old i5. My 8th gen i5 has 6 real cores. That's 50% more performance than old quad-core i5 on the basis of core count alone, while Hyper-Threading gives your i7 at most 30% more performance over quad-core i5 in synthetic tests like Cinebench and less in actual games. If you think 6 real cores is slower than 4 Hyper-Threaded cores in gaming, then you've been completely misled. And I never said HT doesn't help in BF1/BFV; it helps a lot on quad-cores. But with 6 or more real cores, the benefit of HT is much less pronounced in Battlefield.

And if you'll excuse my doubt, I would really love to see proof of your 5GHz i5-7600K performing worse than your i7-7700HQ in BF1 when the CPU is the bottleneck.

If you have a 120Hz display, and your CPU is limiting the frame rate to below 120 even with the settings turned down, then that's a CPU bottleneck, plain and simple. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

 

Like I said, it is what I experienced in BF1. 6 cores jsut isnt enough for frostbite engine games. Well it is enough just you have a tad lower performance if it can call up to 8 threads. It is what it is. A laptop 7700HQ was quicker at 3.4hghz than my 5ghz 4core i5 without HT. That is what I said. Your CPU is performing fine, the i5 that is but could be a tad more with HT. When I disable HT on my 6core Blade 15, 5h3 performance drop in Frostbite games is still there. 6cores in laptops arent 50% faster than quadcores. Because barely any laptop can hold full boost clocks. Most are stuck sub 3ghz while 6700HQ/7700HQ laptops are more prone to holding 3.4ghz at all times.

Regarding bottlenecks. Relieving the GPU of as much stress as possible and then complain it bottlenecks isnt really bottlenecking in a sense that your GPU is mismatched with your CPU. And other factors are at play. Frostbite performs best at 120fps and becomes iffy over that. Also load spikes because it is currently being horribly optimized doesnt tell the story of an underpowered CPU. Our semantics differ, but I think it is fair to say that your semantics arent aligned with what reviewers and most users consider bottlenecking.

 

6 real cores is better than 4 Hyper-Threaded cores for gaming period, Battlefield or otherwise. Unless you can show proof of say an i7-7700K beating an i5-8600K or 9600K at the same clockspeed with the same RAM, then I will continue to regard that claim as BS, same as your claim about the i7-7700HQ beating the 5GHz i5-7600K. My CPU can hold 4.7GHz in games all day long thanks, and higher if I cared less about fan noise. If your Razer Blade is stuck at sub-3GHz in games when all 6 cores are loaded, then it is a junk gaming notebook. Even a budget tier Lenovo Y530 can hold its full 3.9GHz all-core boost clock on the i7-8750H all day long in a CPU intensive title like BF1 as I showed

It’s called playing at competitive settings for lowest latency and highest visibility. BFV literally has a preset called Lowest Latency that sets everything to the lowest setting. If your frame rate is limited by the CPU, then that is a CPU bottleneck, no ifs or buts. Saying Frostbite performs best at 120 FPS and iffy over that is another arbitrary BS statement, but you’re getting quite good at that.

 

As a NOOB, I am extremely interested in this topic. Found this forum thread on the net:

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/what-is-the-best-way-to-check-for-a-cpu-bottleneck.421643/

"If the GPU doesn't reach 95%+ but at least one of the CPU cores does, the CPU is the bottleneck.

If neither the GPU nor the CPU reach 95%, then the bottleneck is probably the game itself* or the RAM. Or you made the mistake of having vsync enabled, in which case you can't tell. Always test with vsync off.

Keep in mind that there's almost always a bottlneck. It's quite rare for a game to fully utilize both the GPU and the CPU. In general, it's better to have a slight CPU bottleneck rather than a GPU one, as GPU bottlenecking will usually increase input lag."


From the videos, the first video clearly shows a CPU bottleneck. All cores at or near 100%. The GPU well underused. The second video also shows the GPU not being fully utilized. Not clear if it is a CPU bottleneck or the game itself bottlenecking something.

 

I would disagree on a CPU bottleneck being better than a GPU bottleneck. Yes, GPU-bound input lag sucks if you're playing a game competitively, but at higher Hz/FPS it's not as bad, and can be improved by setting maximum pre-rendered frames to 1 in the Nvidia Control Panel. A CPU bottleneck however can result in terrible stuttering, although this definitely seems to be game/engine dependent. BF1 for example still has relatively smooth frametimes when my CPU is the bottleneck, while BFV and Witcher 3 have terrible stuttering. Having Hyper-Threading can sometimes improve that stuttering.

The smoothest overall experience is achieved by using a CPU-based frame limiter (as these have the lowest input lag outside of the game engine) that ensures consistent frame pacing (many in-game FPS limiters have godawful frametime consistency), and setting an appropriate FPS cap so that neither GPU nor CPU are bottlenecking. RTSS is the best limiter for doing this.

The second video still shows a CPU bottleneck. I actually had my friend do that test based on my explicit instructions lol. Hyper-Threading improves core efficiency, meaning an HT CPU can do the same amount of work as a non-HT CPU, at a lower utilization %. With BF1 being a game that doesn't really benefit from HT on modern hexa-core or greater CPUs, that's the reason the total CPU utilization in the second video is relatively low despite the CPU still being the limiting factor. If he disabled HT, his CPU utilization would be maxed out like mine was or close to it. Also I believe he had a bit of a RAM bottleneck as well that was limiting his CPU/GPU utilization, since he was using 2666MHz CL15 (I have 3000MHz CL16), and the Frostbite Engine used in the Battlefield games loves memory bandwidth.

On a side note, I recently got an NVMe drive and installed Windows 8.1 on it. I was very surprised to see a consistent ~20 FPS increase across the board in recent Battlefield games (BF4, BF1, BFV) compared to Windows 7, which I was using when I recorded that first video. No other games I have currently installed had performance improve in such a manner, if anything some of them saw a slight regression compared to W7. I did some Googling and found this Twitter log from the former rendering architect on the Frostbite Engine. It seems that DX11 and WDDM updates in Windows 8+ enable specific optimizations which improve performance in Battlefield games from BF4 onward. I believe Windows 7's lack of full DX11.1 support and WDDM 1.2/1.3 is also the reason for its lower Graphics Score in 3DMark Fire Strike, which has been known as a Windows 8/10 favoring benchmark for years.

 

First of all, I never said that my 7700HQ beats your 6core i5. I said that the 4 hyperthreading cores boosted performance to such a level that a 3.4ghz core i7 4core was faster in games such as BF1 than a 5ghz core i5 with 2400mhz ram. DOnt create a false narration by yourself. Second, hyperthreading still matters even on 6 core CPU's if I turn HT off on my blade, the performance drop is about 25% not extremely huge but it is there.

I never said my blade was sub 3ghz, it isnt. I have undervolted it and it is stuck at 3.4ghz at all time for all 6 cores (also in Prime95, I can guarantee that no lenovo will stay at 3.9ghz in that test). I spoke about the majority of laptops out of the box.

Third, the so called low latency mode in BFV is nothing more than disabling future frame rendering which in the end just greatly lowers performance because your GPU is doing nothing half of the time, considering that as a test for bottlenecking is hugely flawed. If that is your measurement stick, than you should go home.....

 

That is what you were insinuating with the nonsense about 8 threads and Frostbite Engine beating 6 cores etc. Don’t backtrack now, it’s not a good look. Your 2400MHz RAM speed is garbage for Battlefield and bottlenecking the i5 hard. Your Blade sees a drop when HT is disabled because you’re clocked in the low 3GHz range, while a desktop CPU clocked much higher around 5GHz with at least 6 cores and faster RAM sees much less difference from HT off.

I was talking about clockspeeds while gaming, not Prime95. Way to move the goalposts.

I suggest you actually check what the low latency graphical preset in BFV does. Hint, it changes settings on both the general and advanced video tabs, not just FFR. You’re the one who needs to stop posting BS and go home.

 

No it is you failing to understand that I only said that Frostbite prefers 8 threads in the latest iterations and that is why a CPU running 8 threads is always more beneficial compared to a lower thread count even if it is hyperthreading. You failing to read is not a good look.

Again It is just forward frame rendering what makes it a low latency preset. The rest are just graphical details which do not affect latency if you have the horsepower.

You really lack clear understanding of what happens in game engines and GPU's. Get some basic dev classes in developing in common game engines......

Also I aint moving the goalposts. I simply gave a baseline. Some games barely touch the CPU at all, while others do. BF1 for example is not that CPU heavy, it is thread heavy though. But it doesnt push the power usage over 40watts in the majority of todays gaming laptops. You are making insinuations based on your own bias. But to keep it in your ballpark, lets just say BF1 and BFV only fro now on.

This thread has derailed quite a bit. But come with some counter evidence that a 6700HQ/7700HQ has bottlenecking issues at medium and high graphic presets in BF1, R6 siege.

 

LMAO. OK I don’t care about your other BS, but actually go into BFV right now, max out all the videos settings in both basic and advanced tabs, change the graphical quality preset in the advanced tab to low latency, and tell me again that it only turns FFR off.

 

F*S why is it so hard to understand for you what I am typing, what makes the low latency preset the low latency preset is the future frame rendering part. That is the low latency part of the whole story, the rest is to make the frame rate as high as possible, but it is in fact higher with future frame rendering on in trade of a slightly higher input lag. Capiche?

You really lack the understanding of what each of those presets mean and what place they have in the rendering pipeline. Again you lack in depth knowledge in this field.Yet you have a highly misplaced arrogant tone.

 

My knowledge is fine thanks, you’re the one who arrogantly assumes it’s not, as well as having a language barrier.

 

Well English aint my first language but more than sufficient to say the least. But I do speak multiple at least.

But no your knowledge haven't been sufficient in this story. But whatever floats your boat.

Again it would benefit your knowledge to actually try to program some shaders that run on your GPU etc and learn how performance is affected by it, also some basic understanding of a rendering pipeline.

 

My knowledge has been more than enough to disprove your BS statements, WRONGeh, as well as the self-evident proof I have posted.

 

Oh? Where is the proof that the low latency preset is more than just the future frame setting being the low latency part of it?

Where is the proof that a 6700hq is not sufficient in either bf1 and R6 siege with normal gpu load to run the game with any gpu within the range from a geforce 980m to a 1080gtx?

You only posted 2 videos of which 1 has shown 100% cpu load. And that cpu load is caused because your gpu isnt being utilized.

 

I literally gave you instructions for how you can prove to yourself that low latency preset changes not only FFR but also a host of other settings, WRONGeh. English comprehension is hard.

Why don’t you post the proof that a 6700HQ is sufficient to properly drive a 120Hz display in 64p BF1? If such proof even exists. I don’t care about the ungame that is R6S.

Both videos show a CPU bottleneck in BF1, but the i7-8750H’s total utilization is lower due to Hyper-Threading and a RAM bottleneck. It’s funny that you still think high CPU load is caused by low GPU usage, instead of being related to, you know, frame rate? Here’s an example from another video I made, at ultra settings, showing both full CPU load and full GPU load:

 

So petty to make plays on nicknames haha.

Again how does your suggestion to change the preset prove that all settings are benefiting the low latency part? That not proving anything, maybe in that tiny world of yours. But people that know how rendering pipelines work, know that it is the future frame rendering part that lowers the latency, the rest improves the framerate.

I would happily record gameplay for you myself to show that the 6700HQ/7700HQ isnt being CPU bottlenecked, But then you have to wait till next week Monday after I have flown back so I can record it on my old Alienware.

All videos that I see on youtube are on max settings and the 1070 isnt sufficient enough to render the game at ultra settings @ 100+ fps.So for you, I will go out of my way to install BF1 on my old laptop and do a test run.

Regarding the lower usage part of the six core, that is what I said the whole time. BF1 and BFV benefit from HT. Both on the 4 cores and on the 6 cores. To prove my point even more I stated that my 5ghz i5 quad core with such a massive more amount of clockspeed couldnt even surpass a locked 6700/7700HQ laptop simply because the i7 had HT. After I said that my RB15 2019 which can run with both HT on and off also show an FPS difference.

 

Too funny. Idk how else to explain this to that obviously big brain of yours. Low latency is a preset, correct? That means it changes multiple settings at the same time, correct? For someone who throws around five-dollar words such as “how rendering pipelines work” in an attempt to sound smart, you sure have trouble understanding even basic explanations.

So test using High instead of Ultra then, or a lower resolution scale, if your GTX 1070 becomes the bottleneck for 120Hz before the 6700HQ does. And don’t pull some slick stuff on me and bench the singleplayer or something lmao. Actually do a proper 64p multiplayer test on a CPU-intensive map like Amiens.

 

Thats not what I wrote. the preset is to ensure the highest framerate at the lowest input/lowest latency as possible.

The low latency aspect in the equation is the future frame rendering option, the rest is to boost the framerate as much as possible.

Thats why I said to record gameplay myself, because the only videos that I can find are in singleplayer and I have no idea how much the fairly low AI affects CPU performance in a positive of negative way (never even tried SP in BF1).

 

Then that’s your own problem. When you questioned the validity of lowering settings, I said BFV has a lowest latency preset that does what it says it does and sets all visual settings to lowest, then you went off on some /r/IAmVerySmart mumbo jumbo just to arrive back at square one in the end.

Oh and here’s another gem, one which fits your criteria for being a CPU bottleneck because this is at ultra settings to load up the GPU:

 

Lowest latency doesnt mean lowest settings. As I have said, using the lowest latency preset and afterwards turning future frame rendering on, will dramatically increase the framerate but at the cost of slightly higher input lag. So no that does not mean putting all settings on the lowest possible setting. Lowest possible latency doesnt mean automatically lowest settings for the highest possible framerate.

Again you fail to understand that part.

ALso what does your screenshot tell me? THat you are still fully utilizing your gpu, having a eally nice framerate of almost 120fps in one of the highest end online shooters, your CPU isnt limiting your framerate yet but loaded quite high, showing again that HT is beneficial in this game because it likes to load 8 threads at once. That is what I have said constantly.

Thanks for entertaining me through this boring day of work!

 

Lowest possible latency does mean lowest settings for highest possible frame rate. It is you who fail to understand that high frame rates even above the refresh rate of your display still reduce input lag.



80% GPU usage, with nearly 100% CPU usage, on ultra settings, is considered fully utilizing the GPU, and not a CPU bottleneck? Thanks for entertaining me with your laughable interpretations of very simple concepts and backtracking/retconning your previous statements. Good to know that your word is about as flimsy as a piece of paper.

 

I stopped caring about this thread when you said R6 isn't cpu intensive, now i came back to giggle. This world never stops surprising me!

 

Latency is not equal to highest possible framerate. What does that graph have anything to do with it? Future frame rendering affects input latency. Just as Vsync does (even if you vsync at 120hz, vs a steady 120 non synced framerate).

Again learn the friggin' render pipeline theory behind it.

You cant read, you fail to understand, yet you keep rambling on with lack of knowledge and blame me for backtrackign afterwards.

Read and learn https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/9vte98/future_frame_rendering_an_explanation/

You have a higher framerate with allowiing a slightly higher input latency thanks to future frame rendering. It is not more frame and lower input latency.

Regarding your screenshot. I didnt see the GPU utilization part on the top only saw the fps. thats a slight bottleneck indeed. Well you got that one

 

You would agree that with FFR unchanged, whether on/off, a higher frame rate has less input lag than a lower frame rate, no? OK good, that’s settled then. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll rejoin the other denizens of this thread in getting a good chuckle at your expense.

 

Read the reddit thread and why that is the case.

Here a video with plain people speak so that you can also understand it


Here a video with the framerate differences.


So no fast framerate doesnt automatically mean lower input latency if the rendering pipeline is changed.

If you can get a higher framerate with future frame rendering turned off by upgrading your system then yeah, you lower input latency just as if you keep it turned on and improve fps by changing your hardware.

 

You know that R6 siege had a CPU usage bug right? WIthout the bug in effect than yeah it is not a very CPU heavy title. prove me wrong buddy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=R6+...me..69i57j0.3574j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Too many uninformed people in this thread.

 

Lol, I love how you seem so dedicated to trying to “educate” me on things I have known for years, why continuously moving your own goalposts to fit the current narrative. But please, do continue.

 

Good excuse yet your posts say otherwise.

My goalposts havent moved an inch.