How Important Is A CPU For Gaming, Really?

[Tempered81]

It's not a theory that the CPU is more important than the GPU. The point is not to underestimate the importance of the CPU, or to pair expensive GPUs with older model CPUs. The purpose of those graphs is to show you relative importance of the CPU.

There are no harsh conclusions to be made here. It just so happens (and it's rare) that the CPU makes a slightly bigger impact in my previous post.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Of course, it wouldn't be much of a cpu test with such a low-mid range card, now would it?

Probably not, but then you wouldn't see 20% performance gains from moving from a low C2D to a higher one. And if then you compared the gains of moving from a 3850 to a 4850 it wouldn't do much for the theory that changing CPU gives better gains than changing GPU, now would it?[/quote]

The point is that a fast GPU also needs a fast GPU to perform best. Of course relatively speaking you'll get larger gains from a GPU upgrade if you're going to compare a 3850 to a 4850, they're one generation apart and the 4850 costs twice as much.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
The point is that a fast GPU also needs a fast CPU to perform best.

Now I agree with that statement.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

The point is that a fast GPU also needs a fast GPU to perform best. Of course relatively speaking you'll get larger gains from a GPU upgrade if you're going to compare a 3850 to a 4850, they're one generation apart and the 4850 costs twice as much.

That thing of the graphic cards being generations apart and cpus being the same one is like comparing apples to oranges.

And while a 4850 costs double the 3850, so will a E8600 over a E2160.

And yes my post was just an abuse of the numbers, but so was the other post.

You need a decent processor. But a decent processor will run the best graphic cards.

So if you ask me whats more important, 500$/? of GPU or of CPU for games, the GPU wins.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

Originally posted by: harpoon84

The point is that a fast GPU also needs a fast GPU to perform best. Of course relatively speaking you'll get larger gains from a GPU upgrade if you're going to compare a 3850 to a 4850, they're one generation apart and the 4850 costs twice as much.

That thing of the graphic cards being generations apart and cpus being the same one is like comparing apples to oranges.

And while a 4850 costs double the 3850, so will a E8600 over a E2160.

And yes my post was just an abuse of the numbers, but so was the other post.

You need a decent processor. But a decent processor will run the best graphic cards.

So if you ask me whats more important, 500$/? of GPU or of CPU for games, the GPU wins.

How about buying a $130 CPU and making it run as fast or faster as a stock $1400 CPU with a few BIOS tweaks and some aftermarket cooling?

 

[1337n00b]

I was asking because I wanted to buy an HD3850 AGP for my P4 3.0ghz and 1gb DDR1 ram so I cam play new games that require SM 3.0. Many people say I don't get significant fps increases over my X800 Pro only just more features. Is this true? I'm trying to hold onto my agp rig can't afford a brand new rig right now

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: 1337n00b
I was asking because I wanted to buy an HD3850 AGP for my P4 3.0ghz and 1gb DDR1 ram so I cam play new games that require SM 3.0. Many people say I don't get significant fps increases over my X800 Pro only just more features. Is this true? I'm trying to hold onto my agp rig can't afford a brand new rig right now

Depends on what titles you play. If you play old titles you probably would see a decent increase, but modern ones would really like a dual core.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
That thing of the graphic cards being generations apart and cpus being the same one is like comparing apples to oranges.

And while a 4850 costs double the 3850, so will a E8600 over a E2160.

And yes my post was just an abuse of the numbers, but so was the other post.

You need a decent processor. But a decent processor will run the best graphic cards.

So if you ask me whats more important, 500$/? of GPU or of CPU for games, the GPU wins.

Well in terms of gaming performance you'll get similar gains between a 3850 -> 4850 and an E2x00 to E8x00 CPU:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663817&page=2 (CPUs)
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663817&page=4 (GPUs)

Using Far Cry 2 as an example, the gulf between an E2160 and E8400 closely resembles the one between an 4670 and 4850.

Of course at high res the GPU is generally more important (with key exceptions such as RTSs and flight sims), but the key is to keep a reasonable balance as the previous links show. With a relatively fast GPU such as an 4850 or better, it'd be foolish to save a few bucks on the CPU and limiting yourself to an E2x00 or X2 as you'll be very CPU bound. I'd at least look at an E5000 or E7000 series myself.

 

[Pederv]

Originally posted by: 1337n00b
I was asking because I wanted to buy an HD3850 AGP for my P4 3.0ghz and 1gb DDR1 ram so I cam play new games that require SM 3.0. Many people say I don't get significant fps increases over my X800 Pro only just more features. Is this true? I'm trying to hold onto my agp rig can't afford a brand new rig right now

I just upgraded my daughters 3800X2 from an X800 to a 3850 (AGP). Here are the results from some tests that I ran:

X800 (AGP)
3DMark2000 - 16830
3DMark2001 - 21038
3DMark03 - 11888
3DMark05 - 6021
3DMark06 - 2135

3850 (AGP)
3DMark2000 - 16575
3DMark2001 - 22753
3DMark03 - 26735
3DMark05 - 10435
3DMark06 - 6883

How much of an increase you see is going to depend on whether the game can take advantage of your hardware.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Depends on what titles you play. If you play old titles you probably would see a decent increase, but modern ones would really like a dual core.

Granted there are a few multi threaded games out there but I was just crusing the game shelves at Bestbuy and most of the games have minimum requirements of 3GHz P4 processors or less and mid to low end DX9 cards.

 

[harpoon84]

Speaking of P4s, I'm wondering in the age of multi-threaded gaming would a P4 w/HT actually perform better than an A64? We all know back in the day the A64 owned P4s at gaming, but what about with the latest MT titles?

 

[1337n00b]

Originally posted by: Pederv

Originally posted by: 1337n00b
I was asking because I wanted to buy an HD3850 AGP for my P4 3.0ghz and 1gb DDR1 ram so I cam play new games that require SM 3.0. Many people say I don't get significant fps increases over my X800 Pro only just more features. Is this true? I'm trying to hold onto my agp rig can't afford a brand new rig right now

I just upgraded my daughters 3800X2 from an X800 to a 3850 (AGP). Here are the results from some tests that I ran:

X800 (AGP)
3DMark2000 - 16830
3DMark2001 - 21038
3DMark03 - 11888
3DMark05 - 6021
3DMark06 - 2135

3850 (AGP)
3DMark2000 - 16575
3DMark2001 - 22753
3DMark03 - 26735
3DMark05 - 10435
3DMark06 - 6883

How much of an increase you see is going to depend on whether the game can take advantage of your hardware.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Depends on what titles you play. If you play old titles you probably would see a decent increase, but modern ones would really like a dual core.

Granted there are a few multi threaded games out there but I was just crusing the game shelves at Bestbuy and most of the games have minimum requirements of 3GHz P4 processors or less and mid to low end DX9 cards.

The newer 3DMarks have a huge performance increase so does that mean modern games will have a huge performance increase from a 3850? Do you think its worth any to upgrade from my X800 Pro?

Also did you notice a good performance increase on modern games, not just 3DMark when you upgraded your daughter's comp?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Speaking of P4s, I'm wondering in the age of multi-threaded gaming would a P4 w/HT actually perform better than an A64? We all know back in the day the A64 owned P4s at gaming, but what about with the latest MT titles?

From the benchmarks I remember, even HT couldn;t make up for the difference. The P4 is tromped by the A64.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter


Can we rerun that test with a HD 3850?

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...s-performance-review/5

OMG THE HD 4870 1GB has 150% increase compared to a 4870 512MB in 2560x1600.

only to find out quickly that you'd be GPU limited?

You do know why they use high end GPU's to test CPU right? Its so that GPU wall is a lot higher and you get to see better how the cpu effects the game.

I personally do all my tests on either a HD4870X2 or a 9800GX2.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Speaking of P4s, I'm wondering in the age of multi-threaded gaming would a P4 w/HT actually perform better than an A64? We all know back in the day the A64 owned P4s at gaming, but what about with the latest MT titles?

From the benchmarks I remember, even HT couldn;t make up for the difference. The P4 is tromped by the A64.

Hmm, not anymore it seems! Just came across this at XS... it seems with the newer multi-threaded titles, P4s are definitely holding their own against the A64, in fact the P4 670 (3.8GHz) beat the A64 4000+ in Crysis, R6V and WiC, the only game it didn't beat the A64 in was FEAR which is the oldest (and least multi-threaded) game tested.
http://www.matbe.com/articles/...processeurs/page24.php (Crysis)
http://www.matbe.com/articles/...processeurs/page25.php (R6V)
http://www.matbe.com/articles/...processeurs/page27.php (FEAR)
http://www.matbe.com/articles/...processeurs/page28.php (WiC)

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

http://www.matbe.com/articles/...processeurs/page24.php (Crysis)

Just tried to estimate the speed of a 4.5ghz E8600 using the data in this graph. This is if the cpu has the ability to scale freely without being limited by the gpu. (ie not a situation like 1920 x 1200 8XAA V. high with a 9800gtx)

Here is the data from graph in the above link:
Wolfdale 45nm 6MB L2 - - - - Crysis 800 x 600 Low detail FPS

E8200 08 x 333 - 2.66ghz - 154 FPS (2.66ghz base speed)
E8300 8.5x 333 - 2.83ghz - 164 FPS (2.66ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 10 fps)
E8400 09 x 333 - 3.00ghz - 170 FPS (2.83ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 6 fps)
E8500 9.5x 333 - 3.16ghz - 177 FPS (3.16ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7 fps)
E8600 10 x 333 - 3.33ghz - 183 FPS (3.33ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 6 fps)

...Now, gaining an average of 7.25 FPS for every 166.5mhz increase suggests the following:

E8600 - 3.33ghz - 183 FPS (3.16ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 3.50ghz - 190 FPS (3.33ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 3.66ghz - 197 FPS (3.50ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 3.83ghz - 204 FPS (3.66ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 4.00ghz - 211 FPS (3.83ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 4.16ghz - 219 FPS (4.00ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 4.33ghz - 226 FPS (4.16ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 4.50ghz - 234 FPS (4.33ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)
E8x00 - 4.66ghz - 241 FPS (4.50ghz + 166.5mhz = gain of 7.25 fps)

I would expect a 4.5ghz e8600/q9650 to achieve approximately ~ 230 FPS here in crysis 800x600 - low details. Maybe a few more fps for the quadcore. Or maybe I'm just crazy

It should be noted that this is a situation with a minimum amount of stress on the GPU, therefore the cpu has practically unlimited gain potential. I suppose a real life scenario of 1680 x 1050 high settings might return something with 1/2 or even 1/4 of this scalability depending on the GPU being used. GTX280 tri-sli might still give incredible CPU scaling.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: 1337n00b

The newer 3DMarks have a huge performance increase so does that mean modern games will have a huge performance increase from a 3850? Do you think its worth any to upgrade from my X800 Pro?

Assuming you will eventually move your CPU up and bring the 3850 along with you, then sure, that will at least max out your CPU and let you run some AA / AF and such. People worry too much about bottlenecking by the CPU. Sure you won't be getting everything you can out of your video card... but you will be getting everything you can out of your CPU. And the reality is, it's a lot easier to scrounge together cash for a GPU upgrade, than to replace your motherboard + CPU + RAM that needs to happen to upgrade your entire platform.

 

[harpoon84]

LOL thats some crazy numbers jaredpace, nearly 250fps in Crysis?

I wish they'd include some high detail numbers as well though, I'm sure other sites have done such tests already, just can't remember which ones OTOH...

 

[1337n00b]

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: 1337n00b

The newer 3DMarks have a huge performance increase so does that mean modern games will have a huge performance increase from a 3850? Do you think its worth any to upgrade from my X800 Pro?

Assuming you will eventually move your CPU up and bring the 3850 along with you, then sure, that will at least max out your CPU and let you run some AA / AF and such. People worry too much about bottlenecking by the CPU. Sure you won't be getting everything you can out of your video card... but you will be getting everything you can out of your CPU. And the reality is, it's a lot easier to scrounge together cash for a GPU upgrade, than to replace your motherboard + CPU + RAM that needs to happen to upgrade your entire platform.

I won't be able to bring the 3850 along with me since it will be AGP. My next rig will be PCIe. I'm fine with running newer games (Crysis and Farcry excluded) at 1024x768 (800x600 if neccessary) with AA/AF on, with the bells and whistle graphic options high. Do you really think the CPU will hold back the vid card too much?

 

[Pederv]

Originally posted by: 1337n00b
I won't be able to bring the 3850 along with me since it will be AGP. My next rig will be PCIe. I'm fine with running newer games (Crysis and Farcry excluded) at 1024x768 (800x600 if neccessary) with AA/AF on, with the bells and whistle graphic options high. Do you really think the CPU will hold back the vid card too much?

Here are some benchmarks where the card is the bottleneck.


If you compare the 3DMark06 score to the value that I gave for my daughters 3800X2 system upgrade:

3850 (AGP)
3DMark2000 - 16575
3DMark2001 - 22753
3DMark03 - 26735
3DMark05 - 10435
3DMark06 - 6883

You can see that the CPU is the bottleneck.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
That thing of the graphic cards being generations apart and cpus being the same one is like comparing apples to oranges.

And while a 4850 costs double the 3850, so will a E8600 over a E2160.

And yes my post was just an abuse of the numbers, but so was the other post.

You need a decent processor. But a decent processor will run the best graphic cards.

So if you ask me whats more important, 500$/? of GPU or of CPU for games, the GPU wins.

Well in terms of gaming performance you'll get similar gains between a 3850 -> 4850 and an E2x00 to E8x00 CPU:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663817&page=2 (CPUs)
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663817&page=4 (GPUs)

Using Far Cry 2 as an example, the gulf between an E2160 and E8400 closely resembles the one between an 4670 and 4850.

Of course at high res the GPU is generally more important (with key exceptions such as RTSs and flight sims), but the key is to keep a reasonable balance as the previous links show. With a relatively fast GPU such as an 4850 or better, it'd be foolish to save a few bucks on the CPU and limiting yourself to an E2x00 or X2 as you'll be very CPU bound. I'd at least look at an E5000 or E7000 series myself.

Assuming they overclock both the e2160 and the e8400, I'm sure both benchmarks will increase but I'd bet the percentage difference would decrease.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Speaking of P4s, I'm wondering in the age of multi-threaded gaming would a P4 w/HT actually perform better than an A64? We all know back in the day the A64 owned P4s at gaming, but what about with the latest MT titles?

From the benchmarks I remember, even HT couldn;t make up for the difference. The P4 is tromped by the A64.

Only in benchmarks did the difference. When I compared my old P4EE at 3.4GHz against my current Pentium M, they would both perform identical under 3DMark Vantange, but in 3DMark06 the P4EE was considerably slower than my Pentium M, the same does for Crysis, same situation, slower and jerky.

But currently the videocards are getting faster than the CPU's, that's why nVidia and ATi states that games are CPU limited, which isn't far from the truth, videocards like the GTX 280/260, HD 4870 1GB and HD 4870X2 gains FPS improvements when overclocking the CPU, they don't hit a wall, they keep gaining FPS, proves that most games are CPU limited.

No matter how much overclocking you to do with a $140.00 CPU, the performance will not be the same as with a 1k CPU if it has less cache, If I have to choose between a Q9400 with 6MB of cache or a Q9550 with 12MB of cache, the latter one will give you more FPS gains when overclocked than the former one. But if I find a QX6850 for cheap, even though the power consumption is higher, I would choose it, unlocked multiplier rules.

Edit: I got the QX6850 for cheap, I will receive it this week.

 

[Davegod]

If you have extra to spend on a gaming build I'd spend it on the video card, but you need a decent cpu.


[offtopic]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Stop using those links, they don;t work. It says stop deeplinking is all the page says.

Might be your browser's cache, anyone else get this problem?

The site originally let you view the images because the referrer was a page on their site. When you review the deep link, it loads your cache. Open your link then force-refresh the page, you'll see what we do.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Well in terms of gaming performance you'll get similar gains between a 3850 -> 4850 and an E2x00 to E8x00 CPU:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663817&page=2 (CPUs)
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663817&page=4 (GPUs)

Using Far Cry 2 as an example, the gulf between an E2160 and E8400 closely resembles the one between an 4670 and 4850.

Of course at high res the GPU is generally more important (with key exceptions such as RTSs and flight sims), but the key is to keep a reasonable balance as the previous links show. With a relatively fast GPU such as an 4850 or better, it'd be foolish to save a few bucks on the CPU and limiting yourself to an E2x00 or X2 as you'll be very CPU bound. I'd at least look at an E5000 or E7000 series myself.

The most interesting thing in there is how well the X2 6000 keeps with the E6420 and E6600. And the E8xxx series is a no-brainer for a gamer with few other uses for a quad.

I still think that entry CPU's (for budget gamers read high x2, E6xxx) can handle 4850/9800 GTX and the like. If you throw something with more power an E8xxx can power it up.

It seems those i7 really help tri-sli and 4xfire, but that seems a bit extreme and expensive

 

[biostud]

it depends on the game. And what how you define a bottleneck.

Let's say that if a game runs > 60fps, there's no bottleneck. In most situations the reason for not reaching +60fps is the GPU, and hence hence it acts as a bottleneck.
if you run a game at 640x480 low detail no AA etc, and get 500fps, the CPU might be the bottleneck, but then it doesn't really matter since you have 500fps, which should be sufficient.

Most games doesn't benefit much going from dualcore to quadcore (with a few exceptions). Except for these games, a CPU > 3Ghz will probably not act as a bottleneck.

The higher resolution and the more eye candy a game has the more the GPU is acting as bottleneck.