I'm considering going from 1 GHz to 2 GHz Northwood style. I generally find myself playing at 1024x768 often with antialiasing. But what kind of gain would I expect from this upgrade in these circumstances? It's hard to find benchmarks on this specifically. And is there any card which gains the most from such an upgrade?
Does a faster processor help in higher gaming resolutions?
- Thread starter giocopiano
- Start date
The short answer is yes. A faster processor will give you higher framerates, allowing you to play in highrer resolutions. I am not sure how much of a performance difference you will see and I dont think that any specific card will benefit more. If you want to play in higher resolutions, then a better video card would be a smarter upgrade than a new processor. What video card do you have now?
I lot of it has to do with what the game you're playing utilizes more. Some games rely on the CPU a lot, like UT. Other games utilize the GPU much more. It also really depends on what graphics card you are using now like Metalloid said. What video card do you have now?
Increasing the resolution in game is simply drawing more pixels, something the CPU has nothing to do with. So unless you?re running all your games in software a faster CPU won't be much of a benefit.
I disagree. New video cards (especially GF3+ and Radeon 8500) require a powerful CPU to keep the cards fed with data. Just read some reviews on video cards here @ Anandtech and you'll see what I'm talking about. Sorry I can't explain further right now, I have a physics quiz due @ midnight..
New video cards (especially GF3+ and Radeon 8500) require a powerful CPU to keep the cards fed with data
Yeah, to certain extent that?s true. But if you?re after high frame rates at high resolutions the video card is going be the limiting factor. The key is to have a balanced system, a 1 GHz CPU isn?t the fastest on block anymore but it?s not exactly slow either. giocopiano: what are your system specs? With some more info we should be able to give you a better recommendation.
Yeah, to certain extent that?s true. But if you?re after high frame rates at high resolutions the video card is going be the limiting factor. The key is to have a balanced system, a 1 GHz CPU isn?t the fastest on block anymore but it?s not exactly slow either. giocopiano: what are your system specs? With some more info we should be able to give you a better recommendation.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
Yes, the bottom line is that if you have a high-end video card a faster processor will help in even very high resolutions and high detail levels. When I upgraded my TBird 1.333 GHz to a 2.0A GHz Northwood my framerates increased quite a lot, even at 1600 x 1200 x 32 in some games.
When I upgraded my TBird 1.333 GHz to a 2.0A GHz Northwood my framerates increased quite a lot, even at 1600 x 1200 x 32 in some games.
Right but all that proves is that your slower 1.3ghz Athlon was more of a limiting factor then your new P4 is.
Right but all that proves is that your slower 1.3ghz Athlon was more of a limiting factor then your new P4 is.
This was not a recommend me a videocard thread, it was a looking for benchmarks thread to help with my decision on mainboard and CPU.
We know that in high resolutions and with FSAA that the demand is on squarely on the videocard's fillrate meaning the benchmarks will show videocard dependency. But does anyone know any scaling benchmark to quantify the influence of processor speed past 1 GHz.
Anyway, after a few minutes nosing around I got what I wanted: Tech Report. The answer seems to be that with GF3 you can gain 35%-50% in 1024x768 in common games from a 1 GHz to 2 GHz. Digitlife has more complete benchmarks in their 3Digest and in 1024x768 the gain is a little less, always under 30% at best for a GF2. In 1600x1200 the gain is very poor though. I would suspect with some kind of FSAA the gain would be less.
I don't think 1/3 improvement at best is very enticing if you have to replace a lot of your base unit for it.
We know that in high resolutions and with FSAA that the demand is on squarely on the videocard's fillrate meaning the benchmarks will show videocard dependency. But does anyone know any scaling benchmark to quantify the influence of processor speed past 1 GHz.
Anyway, after a few minutes nosing around I got what I wanted: Tech Report. The answer seems to be that with GF3 you can gain 35%-50% in 1024x768 in common games from a 1 GHz to 2 GHz. Digitlife has more complete benchmarks in their 3Digest and in 1024x768 the gain is a little less, always under 30% at best for a GF2. In 1600x1200 the gain is very poor though. I would suspect with some kind of FSAA the gain would be less.
I don't think 1/3 improvement at best is very enticing if you have to replace a lot of your base unit for it.
well, it just depends which one in your system is the more limiting factor. i remember when i got my voodoo 5 on my pentium II 400Mhz. My CPU was too slow to take full advantaged of my video card, it simply cant supply the video card with enough data fast enough to render, so there was a lot of video card power left over that was never used in my 3d games. However, after upgrading to a Tbird 1.4GHz, i saW huge performance increases. If you currently have a 1Ghz CPU, id say its good enough, i mean, there arent too many games out there that can really load down a CPU. Id upgrade the more limiting one first, (which, btw, is more likely the video card).
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
Right but all that proves is that your slower 1.3ghz Athlon was more of a limiting factor then your new P4 is.
Yes but it also proves that some game engines will show a FPS benefit from a faster CPU even in totally video card limited settings. Even with a total video card bottleneck there are times when the bottleneck suddenly shifts to the CPU and any spare cycles you've got are used.
Simply writing off one component as a total bottleneck is a simplistic attitude to take because in reality things are far from that simple.
Yes but it also proves that some game engines will show a FPS benefit from a faster CPU even in totally video card limited settings. Even with a total video card bottleneck there are times when the bottleneck suddenly shifts to the CPU and any spare cycles you've got are used.
Simply writing off one component as a total bottleneck is a simplistic attitude to take because in reality things are far from that simple.
This really all depends on what video card you have! Having a fast cpu but a really slow graphics card isn't going to help much. And having a really fast graphics card and a slow cpu isn't gonna help either. There is a balance with these things.
I've known people with a 400mhz system and a geforce 3 and they can't understand why thier games don't run faster.
I've known people with a 400mhz system and a geforce 3 and they can't understand why thier games don't run faster.
I was just reading about this somewhere? But i can't remember where.
Anyway what i read was that the current sweet spot for cpu for games was somrthing like 1.2 to 1.33 ghz for a t-bird and 1.6 for a p4.
The article was at hardocp i think.
But what it said was that you will see very minimal gains on any video card if your cpu is rated as high as the ones listed above and you play at resolutions 1078 and higher, and when fsaa is added into the mix there is very little difference between a xp 2000+ and a 1.2 t-bird.
You can make your own conclusions but looks like if you got a 1.33 or higher you should be fine for a fairly long time.
I was what effect the memory in a system has on games.
ie-does i make a substantial difference to have ddr ram in your system compared to 133 sdram(at cas 2) when playing at high resolutions.
I mean i have a kt7-a with a t-bird at 1.53 ghz and wondering if i should upgrade to a ddr m\b. My fsb is at 143. And all memory timings are maxed.
Anyone?
Anyway what i read was that the current sweet spot for cpu for games was somrthing like 1.2 to 1.33 ghz for a t-bird and 1.6 for a p4.
The article was at hardocp i think.
But what it said was that you will see very minimal gains on any video card if your cpu is rated as high as the ones listed above and you play at resolutions 1078 and higher, and when fsaa is added into the mix there is very little difference between a xp 2000+ and a 1.2 t-bird.
You can make your own conclusions but looks like if you got a 1.33 or higher you should be fine for a fairly long time.
I was what effect the memory in a system has on games.
ie-does i make a substantial difference to have ddr ram in your system compared to 133 sdram(at cas 2) when playing at high resolutions.
I mean i have a kt7-a with a t-bird at 1.53 ghz and wondering if i should upgrade to a ddr m\b. My fsb is at 143. And all memory timings are maxed.
Anyone?
Yes but it also proves that some game engines will show a FPS benefit from a faster CPU even in totally video card limited settings. Even with a total video card bottleneck there are times when the bottleneck suddenly shifts to the CPU and any spare cycles you've got are used.
I'm not going to disagree with that but the question is how much of a benefit will there be? If your gaming in say UT or Q3 at 1024x768 and your getting good FPS and switch to 1600x1200 and your FPS suck a faster CPU isn?t going to do u allot of good. When you go into the higher res's you?re putting a bigger load on the video card and very little additional load on the CPU, it's that simple.
I'm not going to disagree with that but the question is how much of a benefit will there be? If your gaming in say UT or Q3 at 1024x768 and your getting good FPS and switch to 1600x1200 and your FPS suck a faster CPU isn?t going to do u allot of good. When you go into the higher res's you?re putting a bigger load on the video card and very little additional load on the CPU, it's that simple.
<< i dont think having a faster CPU will ever HURT your FPS....so why not?
>>Most sense made so far!
FiringSquad had an excellent article using both AMD and Intel CPU's of various MHz and popular games/benchmarks and at different resoulutions to compare them with each other.
loafbred
Senior member
- May 7, 2000
- 836
- 58
- 91
Because you haven't said what video card you have now and what games you play most, it's impossible to guess at what would be good to recommend for you, or how best to answer your question regarding the effect of cpu speed on higher resolutions. If you're playing OpenGL stuff (most likely), with a GeForce2 to GeForce4, I think you'd be better off using anisotropic filtering and no anti-aliasing at 1280 or higher resolution. I agree with the others who said that, as a general rule, a faster cpu won't help frame rates very much at high resolutions unless you have a top-notch video card.
My guess is, from what you've said so far (especially with regard to using FSAA), that you have a fast video card. The only question, then, is whether a faster machine will let you run your card at higher resolution. As I said earlier, the only way to answer that question, in any useful way, is to know exactly what video card you have and what games you want to play with it. If your sole purpose of asking this question is to fuel debate about the worth of fast processors, you're not being specific enough.
My guess is, from what you've said so far (especially with regard to using FSAA), that you have a fast video card. The only question, then, is whether a faster machine will let you run your card at higher resolution. As I said earlier, the only way to answer that question, in any useful way, is to know exactly what video card you have and what games you want to play with it. If your sole purpose of asking this question is to fuel debate about the worth of fast processors, you're not being specific enough.
To assure high performance in hi-resolutions for any game you might play you need both a fast processor and a fast video card.
If you're just into FPS/TPS games, the video card is far more important.
If you're just into simulations, the cpu is generally more important (there are some sims that will not perform better on a GF4 because the bottleneck is the CPU). In this case a better video card might still be desirable because with the GF4 for instance you can get FSAA for "free" because the video card has so much leftover power.
If you're just into FPS/TPS games, the video card is far more important.
If you're just into simulations, the cpu is generally more important (there are some sims that will not perform better on a GF4 because the bottleneck is the CPU). In this case a better video card might still be desirable because with the GF4 for instance you can get FSAA for "free" because the video card has so much leftover power.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter