Secondo me il fatto che la gpu non venga utilizzata al 100% o quasi determina che il monitor sia una limitazione e non il processore anche se in parecchie situazioni in quel video raggiunge il 92% di utilizzo ma mi sembra un po' strano... Ora cerco qualcosa sul web in merito
Edit: ho riguardato il video e non viene menzionata la frequenza a cui lavora la cpu...
Inviato dal mio LG-D802 utilizzando Tapatalk
Come no? a 7.00 minuti compare i5 4690K 4.4Ghz | i7 875K 4Ghz
- - - Updated - - -
Anche nella descrizione del video ci sono le specifiche della configurazione
- - - Updated - - -
Una risposta in un commento del video:
In this video he talks about the i5 and it's inability to achieve higher framerates at lower resolutions like 1080p, with very high end GPU's coming out recently. And this is certainly true and this is the reason why.
CPUs and GPUs render each frame in a certain time.
Take a look at this quick guide:
33.3ms to render a frame --> 30fps
16.7ms to render a frame --> 60fps
8.3ms to render a frame --> 120fps
If the GPU takes 16.7ms to render each frame, the result is = 60 frames per second.
If the CPU takes 16.7ms to render each frame, the result is = 60 frames per second.
So what happens when the two aren't rendering each frame at the same pace? Let's say the CPU takes a shorter amount of time than the GPU. This is usually the case in most games, this means the game is more so GPU bound.
If the CPU takes 2.27ms to render, and the GPU takes 16.67ms to render, the framerate will be 60fps regardless, because the CPU
MUST wait on the GPU to finish before it can continue with rendering the next frame.
Same for the opposite situation. Let's say your GPU is rendering the frame very quickly, but your CPU is not, this means the game is CPU bound. For example if your GPU takes 8.3ms to render, and your CPU takes 11ms. Your actually going to only get ~80 or so fps, because your CPU can't keep up with your GPU. If it were keeping up with your GPU, you can expect upwards of 120fps.