How Much CPU To Go With A Video Card?

[imported_RobW]

Is there a reference somewhere that gives an idea of how much processor is about right for a video card? I know this can vary depending on the RAM and such, so I would expect it to be an approximation. Thanks.

 

[kylebisme]

It also depends on the game you are playing. Howver, a general rule of thumb would be a high end videocard for a high end CPU, a midrage card for a midrange CPU and so on.

 

[Concillian]

Usually games are less demanding on the CPU than the video card.

The 'reference' is various CPU reviews, such as this one:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=10

Pick a CPU that can provide the minimum FPS you need in the game you desire. AT generally will test in a fully CPU bottlenecked resolution. Generally this is what the CPU can maintain, and you will not get much higher than this, and will only get lower than this if the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

Notice that most of the games listed are well above 60FPS. People will typically crank up the resolution and video settings until the video card does become a bottleneck, and I think more people than care to admit would actually be perfectly fine with a lesser CPU than they have. I know I would. I have a S939 overclocked to 2.4 GHz, but don't notice any real world performance difference when I compare that to my S754 at 1.8GHz in the games I play, even when coupled to a fairly high end video card (overclocked x800pro on the S754 machine to be equivalent to the stock x800XL on the 939 machine)

Generally, I think it better use of resources (money) to have a high end video card matched with a midrange CPU rather than the opposite.

 

[Delerious]

Why limit yourself? Get a good vid card or CPU now and upgrade the other later down the road..

 

[shortylickens]

It really depends on the game and how far the CPU's and graphics cards are ahead or behind for that game.

The half-life and unreal engines are a little more CPU dependant than the Quake 3 or Doom 3 engines.

SimCity 4 needs a lot more CPU power than many people realize. So does Empire Earth II. Thats why its good to keep both at high-end if you want to enjoy your gaming experience.

Am always amazed at folks who think they are hard-core gamers because they bought a GeForce 6800 Ultra (AGP), and put it in an AthlonXP 1500 system, (with 256MB of system RAM).

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

The CPU often determines the minum framerate, while the GPU will determine the resolution.

I had an AXP 1800+ and saw no difference between a GF3 Ti200 and R9700pro in Halo. Even @ 640x480 my CPU was too slow.

However, I saw a huge improvement in Call of Duty.

Now I have an A64 3200+ with an X800XL, and Halo runs great @ 1024x768 (or 1280x1024 can't remember now). I haven't played CoD on my new computer, but WoW is also very smooth @ 1600x1200.

I would say that if you don't care too much about resolution (for me 1280x1024 is nice, but I don't care about anything higher) then good CPU and a mid range graphics card (6600GT) would work very well.

If you want fast everything with high rez, then you'll need both.

I think an A64 3200+ or P4 3.2 would be fine for pretty much all games out there now.

Then you can get a video card based on the resolutions you like.

-D'oh!