• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does the CPU matter in gaming anymore?

This report pretty much states what I'm experiencing with a 8150, Won't wow you like the Intel chips. It just "chugs along" like its name🙄:sneaky:
 
guskline said:
This report pretty much states what I'm experiencing with a 8150, Won't wow you like the Intel chips. It just "chugs along" like its name🙄:sneaky:
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would wow the i5 in many multi-threaded situations - compression, encryption, video creation etc. But I do believe it should get a spanking from a higher end Intel in gaming. It's simply true, at least when it comes to Phenom II (which seems to have varying performance in relation to Bulldozer).
 
Olikan said:
yes, of course it does

...the problem is it worth the price?

NO...save it to buy a better GPU
Click to expand...


Wow, I wondered how the AMD fans would spin this. Back to the old excuse "AMD is good enough, spend the money on something else."

I could accept this philosophy if an AMD cpu was several hundred dollars cheaper. However, to me, getting an Intel CPU IS worth the price. If you are building a 1000 dollar gaming rig, what is 50 or even 100 dollars when you get better performance and a more future proof rig.
 
AtenRa said:
FX6200 at $132,99

Also, newegg has the Core i5 3470 at $199,99

edit: i dont know why you guys quoting the newegg prices ?? it seams to me they have the highest prices most of the time.
Click to expand...

They often fluctuate to reflect market prices. Quoting the 'absolute' cheapest price to prove a point against an article is more misleading IMHO. The article was just finding processors close to each other in price. I agree it might not be 100% valid, but prices on relatively cheap CPUs fluctuate considerably.
 
ExarKun333 said:
They often fluctuate to reflect market prices. Quoting the 'absolute' cheapest price to prove a point against an article is more misleading IMHO. The article was just finding processors close to each other in price. I agree it might not be 100% valid, but prices on relatively cheap CPUs fluctuate considerably.
Click to expand...

No im not saying to only quote the cheapest price, i do my self quote from newegg.
But if we take newegg prices the Core i5 3470 is at $199,99 and FX6200 at $149,99 when FX8150 is at $189,99.

Any way, did anyone found out what GPU they used in the review ??
 
AtenRa said:
No im not saying to only quote the cheapest price, i do my self quote from newegg.
But if we take newegg prices the Core i5 3470 is at $199,99 and FX6200 at $149,99 when FX8150 is at $189,99.

Any way, did anyone found out what GPU they used in the review ??
Click to expand...

It was a HD7950 3GB. It says that in the blue box near the bottom.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
If you are building a 1000 dollar gaming rig, what is 50 or even 100 dollars when you get better performance and a more future proof rig.
Click to expand...

I agree. I spend more on a CPU so I don't have to upgrade it 2 years later. And unless you're building a budget system, there's no point in buying a higher end GPU if it won't be fully utilized.
 
Hmm, they run Batman AC in DX-9 mode and they haven't used any AA filters on Crysis 2.
Also, it seams to me they just run the Single Player mode in BF3. That was the only game of the four used that they should tested in MP mode to really check if the CPU plays a significant part in Gaming.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Wow, I wondered how the AMD fans would spin this. Back to the old excuse "AMD is good enough, spend the money on something else."

I could accept this philosophy if an AMD cpu was several hundred dollars cheaper. However, to me, getting an Intel CPU IS worth the price. If you are building a 1000 dollar gaming rig, what is 50 or even 100 dollars when you get better performance and a more future proof rig.
Click to expand...

errr...did i said anyhing about amd/intel there?

no...just my opinion that cpus at gaming gives very marginal FPS/$$...

i would rather spend 500 bucks on gpu and 200 for cpu...than 350 for each
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Really??? Didn't you mean "the only game in which it is even competitive"?
Click to expand...

It's the only game where in a blind test I bet nobody would be able to reliably tell which system was using an AMD chip and which was using an Intel. Both Intel and AMD offer smooth experiences in that game.

That's the whole point of their testing methodology, to look past the average FPS that is often reported in reviews, and quantify instead how "smooth" and how "choppy" a game feels to play. In BF3, Intel and AMD both basically have the same smoothness of frame latencies. In other games, both probably offer acceptable experiences, but it would be a lot easier to tell with the naked eye, "this system is smoother than this system."
 
I dont think its news to anyone that a GPU is what provides the highest fps differences in gaming....I mean, duh.

However CPU's are the next priority in line there. When I upgraded to my current i5-2500k from my older Intel C2D E6400 @ 3ghz, I noticed a decent fps/performance bump for sure. It does make a difference.
 
Last edited:
of course the cpu matters. they tested all good cpus that were at least dual cores with HT if not quad cores or better. even there then were noticeable differences from top to bottom.
 
AtenRa said:
Also, it seams to me they just run the Single Player mode in BF3. That was the only game of the four used that they should tested in MP mode to really check if the CPU plays a significant part in Gaming.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting a repeatable test with that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top