CPU effects on games, I disagree.

[Markbnj]

I don't know why you guys are still arguing . I can't think of a single time in 20 years of playing games that I have gotten a big boost out of a new CPU. Every time I have upgraded my graphics card I have gotten a big boost in most games. I don't think anyone seriously buys a new CPU expecting a major boost in 3D games, anyway. Assuming a baseline acceptable CPU I would rate the choices: fast GPU > fast hard drive > faster CPU.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: dug777

I hope what i've said here actually sinks into your heads this time. There's nothing appalling, unjustified, or wrong about what they say, IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF READING THE WHOLE ARTICLE.

Nuff said

Yes but saying that cpu limitation exists is like saying we are all going to die one day. It's simply stating the obvious. Every game on the planet is cpu limited. Who cares! Your example of Far Cry shows that you can get a game to be cpu limited if you wanted to. But we all know far cry is BY FAR gpu limited. Who plays at 1024x768?

Saying that you'll get better performance with FX60 over 3000+ is like saying that a Ferrari F430 is faster than a stock Porsche 911. Yes, so? If you can afford an F430 you'll never even care that a porsche 911 gives you 90% of its performance for 2.5x less. The point is dual cores have been pointless for gaming and Oblivion doesn't prove anything. Having a dual core will not make your gaming experience smoother unless you have 2xX1900XTs. Also the fact that Xbox360 with its inferior cpu power runs the game faster than 90% of all PCs with A64s just shows that game optimizations are far more important.

xFlankerx says that "I beg to differ with the conclusion that you need a fast CPU to get the most out of your GPU". I disagree with that statement since to get 100% from a gpu you want the fastest cpu you can get. But do you need the fastest cpu to get a good gaming experience, esp dual cores, no! I'd love for games to take advantage of dual core. 20% boost from 2 A64 cores for 2x the price is a joke. Of course those that can afford X1900XTX don't care....

 

[DrZDO]

Economically speaking, well hey, I just came up with a simple formula: Spend twice as much on the video card as on the cpu if gaming is your normal heavy load.

I didn't benchmark Oblivion before & after overclocking my processor 30%, but I guess it runs a little smoother. Doom3 timedemo1 saw a significant (about 20%) increase in fps though, since at 1280x1024 a 7800gt is excellent there: more of a cpu bottleneck.

In a couple years, if you're running a Geforce 30,000 on Oblivion, a cpu change might help you get from 100 to 150 fps, not that your eyes would notice the difference.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: dug777

I hope what i've said here actually sinks into your heads this time. There's nothing appalling, unjustified, or wrong about what they say, IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF READING THE WHOLE ARTICLE.

Nuff said

Yes but saying that cpu limitation exists is like saying we are all going to die one day. It's simply stating the obvious. Every game on the planet is cpu limited. Who cares! Your example of Far Cry shows that you can get a game to be cpu limited if you wanted to. But we all know far cry is BY FAR gpu limited. Who plays at 1024x768?

Saying that you'll get better performance with FX60 over 3000+ is like saying that a Ferrari F430 is faster than a stock Porsche 911. Yes, so? If you can afford an F430 you'll never even care that a porsche 911 gives you 90% of its performance for 2.5x less. The point is dual cores have been pointless for gaming and Oblivion doesn't prove anything. Having a dual core will not make your gaming experience smoother unless you have 2xX1900XTs. Also the fact that Xbox360 with its inferior cpu power runs the game faster than 90% of all PCs with A64s just shows that game optimizations are far more important.

xFlankerx says that "I beg to differ with the conclusion that you need a fast CPU to get the most out of your GPU". I disagree with that statement since to get 100% from a gpu you want the fastest cpu you can get. But do you need the fastest cpu to get a good gaming experience, esp dual cores, no! I'd love for games to take advantage of dual core. 20% boost from 2 A64 cores for 2x the price is a joke. Of course those that can afford X1900XTX don't care....

i don't rly see why or what you are arguing with me i've agreed repeatedly that for anyone with a 3000+ a GPU upgrade is going to be far more rewarding than a cpu upgrade.

I'll repeat myself shall i?

I can't see the AT reviewer at ANY stage claiming that ' dual core is better value for money than SLI or crossfire', which is what Bobby and xflanker appear to be claiming. They are MERELY POINTING OUT THAT CPU LIMITATIONS DO EXIST, THEY HAVE AN IMPACT ON A TOP END GFX SETUP IN OBLIVION, AND IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY AND WANT TOP PERFORMANCE YOU WILL WANT A FX-60 CURRENTLY. THEY MAKE NO COMMENTS AS TO VALUE FOR MONEY.




EDIT: Not a particularly relevant edit regarding this topic, but your comment irked me somewhat...as for 'who plays farcry at 1024, try 'anyone with a x800/6600GT or lower who wants decent fps and all the settings maxed', thats gotta be a tiny proportion of the market now doesn't it? :roll:

 

[dug777]

I'll surrender at this stage, as i think we all agree essentially, we're just unable to agree on how we agree. If anyone wants to continue the debate with me, my PM box is always open, but i'm done posting in this thread.

:beer:

 

[Barkotron]

Originally posted by: xFlankerx
Indeed, and you, Barkotron, are so pathetically closeminded as to not see what I am talking about.

You would like to see more benchmarks?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-games2_3.html

They're using a GeForce 7800GT. Old, but it proves the point.

In every single one of the benchmarks, the Socket 939 Athlon 64 3200+ performs as well as anything else. The 5FPS or so difference is ridiculous when you consider the .8GHz clockspeed difference and the $600-$800 difference in prices.

If you hadn't made such a confused mess of putting your point across, it might have been easier to understand what you thought you were saying. It's nothing about being "pathetically closed-minded", it's about your basic inarticulacy.

Correct, most people will not be CPU-bound. However specifically talking about the article, which you were, it's dead wrong to say that it doesn't show the system as CPU-bound, which you did. You plainly contradicted yourself, and only your last couple of posts make sense - and in these you're making a different point. Insult me all you like, it doesn't cover up the fact that you were wrong.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: dug777

EDIT: Not a particularly relevant edit regarding this topic, but your comment irked me somewhat...as for 'who plays farcry at 1024, try 'anyone with a x800/6600GT or lower who wants decent fps and all the settings maxed', thats gotta be a tiny proportion of the market now doesn't it? :roll:

Yes I understand that many people play at 1024x768 but once you start lowering resolution of course the cpu limitation will become more severe. I think OP was trying to say that for top end cards you don't need a top of the line cpu to enjoy gaming. That's exactly what I am saying too.

I agree with you dug ))) be happy!