CPU and video card

[Shunittseru]

I have an AMD FX 8350 which is 1.3GHz faster and has 8 cores and Idyl still does this on occasion to me. Your CPU is generally not to blame for this, the GPU handles all of that assembly. I have 2 GTX 970s, also and the only thing that fixes the issue for me is a good full defrag.

Lol.... Your AMD FX is not as good as an i5. It don't have cores, it has "modules", which need way more energy and doesn't have that power.
And you can say that your FS "1.3GHz" faster, but very low IPC.


Back to topic:
If you really wanna find out, which one is the limiting part, you need to check your hardware on the fly.
... If your GPU runs at 99% workload, your GPU is limiting your FPS.
... If your GPU runs not at 99% workload, your CPU is limiting your FPS.
--> Even if your taskmanager says that your CPU is not at 100% load, you're in CPU limit, if GPU wont have 99% workload.

P.S.: With GTX 1080, i7-4770k, got 49-65 FPS (3440x1440, maxed settings) in Idyllshire... (CPU limit)
Edit: 67% GPU workload in Idyllshire...

[Kosmos992k]

Back to topic:
If you really wanna find out, which one is the limiting part, you need to check your hardware on the fly.
... If your GPU runs at 99% workload, your GPU is limiting your FPS.
... If your GPU runs not at 99% workload, your CPU is limiting your FPS.
--> Even if your taskmanager says that your CPU is not at 100% load, you're in CPU limit, if GPU wont have 99% workload.

Unless your memory, or more likely your system drive, cannot keep up. CPU and GPU are not the only bottle-necks in a PC.

[Malzian]

Lol.... Your AMD FX is not as good as an i5. It don't have cores, it has "modules", which need way more energy and doesn't have that power.
And you can say that your FS "1.3GHz" faster, but very low IPC.

If you compare it on a single core, yes, the i5 has better performance at that granular level, however the FX still benchmarks better than the i5. So better or worse depends entirely on which metric you're choosing to focus on.

[Averax]

If you compare it on a single core, yes, the i5 has better performance at that granular level, however the FX still benchmarks better than the i5. So better or worse depends entirely on which metric you're choosing to focus on.

That's all 8 cores of your FX versus the four cores of the i5. That's why it benches better, but in real world performance, no game uses all 8 cores. AMD tried to sell the high base clock speed and the multiple cores, it looks extremely good on the surface, but nothings going to use all the cores, and the IPC is so low it doesn't measure up in MMOs.

MMOs are extremely dependant on single core performance, since most everything is done on one thread. And the FX series of CPUs were extremely lackluster in that performance even when they were new.