Games CPU limited

[jmke]

Hi there,

I read through the X1900 series review and in it they mention that games are becoming CPU limited with these cards. However, even without AA or max detail you can see that there is only one game in the test which shows this (DoD) all the others are GPU limited.

And when you increase video quality (who is going to play at 1280 without AA on one of thse cards?) you get <60 FPS in some games... that's not CPU limited at all!

Anandtech CPU <> GPU limit
graphics at max/high quality

Battlefield 2: GPU limited (max graphical detail = ~60FPS at 1280x????)
Black & White 2: GPU limited (max detail = ~30FPS at 1280x????)
Day of Defeat: GPU limited (they say CPU... but look at the score 77/54/40/35FPS scales resolution)
FarCry: GPU limit (max detail = ~36FPS at 1280x????)
FEAR: GPU limit (max detail = ~70FPS at 1280x???? .. scales 70/50/38/36)
SplinterCell: GPU (74/57/43/38)
Quake 4: GPU (73/58/45/42)

where is that CPU limited game? I give you one: http://www.liveforspeed.net




http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=4&artpage=912&articID=231

FX 2.4 ghz vs FX 3.0 ghz

scroll down and look at the 1280x1024 numbers; you'll see how big an improvement you have by getting a faster CPU... granted, that article is using an older GFX, but even the latest and fastest GFX card out there can easily be slowed down to a crawl if you use them what you bought them for: high quality in-game graphics.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

is this a question o a comment?

 

[jmke]

both

why does the author of the review say games are CPU limited?

 

[Frostwake]

I wouldnt put much emphasis on those "max details" youre looking at... the xtx gets awesome fps at "normal" settings, and it takes a much larger hit with those "max details" than the gtx 512 does, which probably means its being taxed alot more

 

[jmke]

same can be said at "just" 4XAA tests; max detail setting just more emphasis on the GPU limitation, which is also present at lower GFX settings.
the games tested are not really CPU limited; otherwise the FPS in all resolutions would be very close to each other.

 

[Snakexor]

Originally posted by: Frostwake
I wouldnt put much emphasis on those "max details" youre looking at... the xtx gets awesome fps at "normal" settings, and it takes a much larger hit with those "max details" than the gtx 512 does, which probably means its being taxed alot more

ummmm, wtf?

 

[jmke]

I think he somehow forget X1900 in that sentance.. but still.. I'm not comparing the GFX between each other; rather the GPU vs CPU

 

[Munky]

To get a better idea of the cpu limitation read the b3d review of the x1900. It is definitely largely cpu limited in most if not all 2+ year old games, like Farcry.

 

[jmke]

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r580/index.php?p=14
granted, without HDR it IS CPU limited, but the latest patch enables HDR, and if you pay $600+ for a GFX you hope to play the games with high quality in-game GFX no?

so with HDR.. it's GPU limited again

 

[Munky]

I meant without HDR. But it does bring up the point that about half the games used for benchmarking by review sites dont stress the card much.

 

[jmke]

I know you mean without HDR, I also mention it; but like I stated, when you buy a $600 vga card, you want to run games in HQ, for farcry this means HDR (as it is officiale supported and released in latest patch).

 

[Munky]

Yes, with HDR it seems more gpu limited, but I'm not sure exactly where that limitation occurs - the shaders, the texture units, the rop's or the mem. My guess would be that even with HDR, it's not shader limited, so Farcry in itself is not the best game to show off the strengths of the x1900. But I do agree that anyone buying a $500+ card would want to play with maximum eye candy enabled.