I parroted that all modern games are GPU limited, but I think it is false from real experiences

[ArchAngel777]

The OP is basing his conclusion on one test... Besides, I doubt the test was even accurately done.

I had a 7800GTX with my X2-3800+ and I see massive increase moving to a 8800GTS-640 @ 1280 X 768. Even without AA or A/F to tax the GPU, I seen a massive increase accross the board. At least twice the performance. I benchmarked several games and determined that while the X2-3800+ cannot make full use of the 8800GTS-640, it could easily benefit by such an upgrade.

It flat out makes far more sense to upgrade the GPU in a situation where you have a 939 X2-3800+ W/DDR1 than it would to upgrade the platform to an AM2 or C2D. Only a fool would upgrade a X2-3800+ before the 7900GS, only a fool.

 

[taltamir]

no i am basing it in multiple tests...
HL2, The Witcher, NWN2, and various other games.

HL2 is jsut the most extreme example I have.

You saw twice the performance? I saw much much MUCH more then twice the performance... Thank you for proving me right.
I tested it with both an upgraded CPU, an upgrade GPU, and BOTH.. you just upgraded your GPU, saw twice the performance, and assume its the best upgrade path.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
The OP is basing his conclusion on one test... Besides, I doubt the test was even accurately done.

I had a 7800GTX with my X2-3800+ and I see massive increase moving to a 8800GTS-640 @ 1280 X 768. Even without AA or A/F to tax the GPU, I seen a massive increase accross the board. At least twice the performance. I benchmarked several games and determined that while the X2-3800+ cannot make full use of the 8800GTS-640, it could easily benefit by such an upgrade.

It flat out makes far more sense to upgrade the GPU in a situation where you have a 939 X2-3800+ W/DDR1 than it would to upgrade the platform to an AM2 or C2D. Only a fool would upgrade a X2-3800+ before the 7900GS, only a fool.

Everyone sees things differently and test accordingly. That's why we argue.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: taltamir
no i am basing it in multiple tests...
HL2, The Witcher, NWN2, and various other games.

HL2 is jsut the most extreme example I have.

You saw twice the performance? I saw much much MUCH more then twice the performance...

Which lines up with BFG's testing. There are situations where a CPU is the limiting factor, but it is rare when you run every current game available. The majority of games are GPU limited. So, I suppose if you only play games that are all AI based (RTS, 4X, Chess, FSX) a faster CPU would be better. But for most everything else, the 7900GS is the limiting factor.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: taltamir
no i am basing it in multiple tests...
HL2, The Witcher, NWN2, and various other games.

HL2 is jsut the most extreme example I have.

You saw twice the performance? I saw much much MUCH more then twice the performance... Thank you for proving me right.
I tested it with both an upgraded CPU, an upgrade GPU, and BOTH.. you just upgraded your GPU, saw twice the performance, and assume its the best upgrade path.

Half life is also 3 year old engine. A modern GPU is more than capable drowning this game with all the power it needs. Now it waits for the CPU to catch up.

If you have enough video card bandwidth a better cpu will always give you better FPS.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: taltamir
You saw twice the performance? I saw much much MUCH more then twice the performance... Thank you for proving me right.
I tested it with both an upgraded CPU, an upgrade GPU, and BOTH.. you just upgraded your GPU, saw twice the performance, and assume its the best upgrade path.

Yes, at least twice. Guess what happened when I upgraded to my C2Q @ 3.6Ghz? I increased my 3DMark score from 9,800 to 11,500. When I upgraded from the 7800GTX, I went from 3,700 to 9,800.

Almost all of my games more than doubled from the 7800GTX to 8800GTS-640, but the upgrade from the X2-3800+ to the C2Q @ 3.6Ghz resulted in only a 25% increase on average. Were not talking only 3DMock, but Lost Planet, Quake 4, Doom3, Far Cry, LOTRO, Call of Juarez and some others that I cannot remember off the top of my head.

 

[taltamir]

Only a fool would upgrade a X2-3800+ before the 7900GS, only a fool.

oh, and the award for subtlety goes archangel... thanks for calling me an idiot.

Good list of games... now test oblivion (heard its a CPU hog, havent tested it myself yet... i'll get on it), NWN2, halflife2 (and ALL the games based on its engine), the witcher...

Also, take into account loading times and stuttering, not just FPS... general system speed is just icing.
PS. 3dmark is a joke

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: taltamir
You saw twice the performance? I saw much much MUCH more then twice the performance... Thank you for proving me right.
I tested it with both an upgraded CPU, an upgrade GPU, and BOTH.. you just upgraded your GPU, saw twice the performance, and assume its the best upgrade path.

Yes, at least twice. Guess what happened when I upgraded to my C2Q @ 3.6Ghz? I increased my 3DMark score from 9,800 to 11,500. When I upgraded from the 7800GTX, I went from 3,700 to 9,800.

Almost all of my games more than doubled from the 7800GTX to 8800GTS-640, but the upgrade from the X2-3800+ to the C2Q @ 3.6Ghz resulted in only a 25% increase on average. Were not talking only 3DMock, but Lost Planet, Quake 4, Doom3, Far Cry, LOTRO, Call of Juarez and some others that I cannot remember off the top of my head.

Did you test those same games with the C2Q @ 3.6 ghz and a 7800GTX for a point of comparison?

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: taltamir
An in which a 300$ upgrade of a 8800GTS 512MB over a 7900GS showed no benefit...
In fact HL2 is just the game where I had benchmarks to back it up.. I noticed that there was a marginal improvement with the GTS over the 7900GS in many other games, like the witcher etc... and everyone told me I am on crack because it is supposedly a card that is several times faster...

The CPU was the limiting factor.
If someone is telling me "I have 300$ to upgrade an x2 3800 with a GF79xx" everyone will be parroting the "get a video card, the benefit is amazing compared to upgrading the CPU"... and they will be wrong.
The beneift of upgrading the CPU far outweighs it... and the CPU gives you speedup in non gaming situations too (which is an added value, but does not change the recommendation).

I have both the benchmarks I made and the personal usage experience to back that up.

Again you're testing games that really aren't GPU intensive. And you're probably using settings that don't stress the cards (shaders, no AA, no AF). I've seen the numbers. I haven't seen yours. I've seen your subjective "MUCH more than twice the performance" and some numbers thrown around only pertaining to HL2. Your tests seem very subjective. Most of us who "parrot" the convention wisdom have seen reviews and numbers. The general consensus is right, and you're the only one who seems to think otherwise.

As for general system speed, you won't notice any snappiness improvement (mostly due to HD speed), and load times will go down by a few seconds sure, but even upgrading RAM can do that. Unless of course you're decoding but thats a whole other issue.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Only a fool would upgrade a X2-3800+ before the 7900GS, only a fool.

oh, and the award for subtlety goes archangel... thanks for calling me an idiot.

You wouldn't be an idiot for that reason as you stated this...

1. Started with a year old X2 3800+ with a 7900GS.
2. Bought an X2 6400+ black edition.
3. Found out that its NOT unlocked multiplier like the brisbane black edition, its only without fan... underclocked to 6000+ speeds using the 3800 stock CPU... bought an expensive cooler... it worked at stock now, but wasn't perfectly stable, and I wasn't satisfied with speed, returned CPU for refund and kept cooler.
4. Bought an eVGA 8800GTS at frys... the sticker melted right off of the video card and it got damaged. Returned for a refund.
5. Bought a second eVGA 8800GTS at frys (this one was 15-20c cooler at idle with same stock fanspeed of 29%), modded the config file on riva tuner to recognize it and upped the fan speed from 29% to 52%...
6. Bought an E8400 and a new mobo to go with.
7. Saw that I could buy it on newegg for 90$ less (I know they gouge, but I shopped around and newegg was the cheapest of 10 online stores! go figure). Figured the fry's convinence wasn't worth THAT much... returned for a refund and ordered an XFX one online for their transferable warranty so that it will sell better on ebay when I decide to upgrade (too many woes on the evga step up, and it might take too long till the next card I want is released)... Spent 1 week using the 7900GS on an E8400 system until the online order 8800GTS 512MB arrived...

Couple of things to note here.

1) You only upgraded your CPU, not the platform first. If you read what I wrote, it said specifically a 939 X2 3800+. Not in the area you quoted, but if you read above where I specified that information. Popping in a CPU is a lot different than a platform change. Allow me to quote the entire paragraph that I stated.

It flat out makes far more sense to upgrade the GPU in a situation where you have a 939 X2-3800+ W/DDR1 than it would to upgrade the platform to an AM2 or C2D. Only a fool would upgrade a X2-3800+ before the 7900GS, only a fool.

2) You returned the CPU and decided to buy an 8800GTS first, before upgrading your platform.

So, I wouldn't think you fall into the category that I specified... Which is spending 500+ on a platform upgrade when it will give less than 25% increase, than you could with a $350 ($200 for 8800GT) bringing about 100%+ increase... There isn't much more I can say on that.

 

[angry hampster]

....So if I said that I can't play TF2 on my Pentium 3 900mhz chip with my 8800GT...THE GAME MUST BE CPU LIMITED

amirite?

 

[taltamir]

So, I wouldn't think you fall into the category that I specified... Which is spending 500+ on a platform upgrade when it will give less than 25% increase, than you could with a $350 ($200 for 8800GT) bringing about 100%+ increase... There isn't much more I can say on that.

That those numbers are incorrect...


Also to counter all the bolded parts about why I am an idiot:

I had an AM2 3800 with DDR2 800 with good timings. its a mid range from last year. Not a high end from two years ago.

I kept the after market fan for my 3800... gives me lower temps and I was thinking of trying to OC with it. it didn't OC well at all. (yes, all parts were top notch, ASUS nforce 570 ultra, good ram, etc)

Frys is much easier to return to then an online merchant. as evidenced by the fact I did exactly that... when I ordered my XFX GTS online it was pretty much a one way street... if I do return it I am gonna pay restocking fee, and shipping both ways, and have to wait a long time for a replacement... as long as frys is just slightly more expensive it is worth it.

And you also bolded the X2 6400+ when explaining why I am an idiot... whats wrong with that one? It IS the fastest AMD cpu ever made... the phenom can't hold a candle to it (and costs much much more, and is a defective product)

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: taltamir

So, I wouldn't think you fall into the category that I specified... Which is spending 500+ on a platform upgrade when it will give less than 25% increase, than you could with a $350 ($200 for 8800GT) bringing about 100%+ increase... There isn't much more I can say on that.

That those numbers are incorrect...


Also to counter all the bolded parts about why I am an idiot:

I had an AM2 3800 with DDR2 800 with good timings. its a mid range from last year. Not a high end from two years ago.

I kept the after market fan for my 3800... gives me lower temps and I was thinking of trying to OC with it. it didn't OC well at all. (yes, all parts were top notch, ASUS nforce 570 ultra, good ram, etc)

Frys is much easier to return to then an online merchant. as evidenced by the fact I did exactly that... when I ordered my XFX GTS online it was pretty much a one way street... if I do return it I am gonna pay restocking fee, and shipping both ways, and have to wait a long time for a replacement... as long as frys is just slightly more expensive it is worth it.

And you also bolded the X2 6400+ when explaining why I am an idiot... whats wrong with that one? It IS the fastest AMD cpu ever made... the phenom can't hold a candle to it (and costs much much more, and is a defective product)

:Q

ArchAngel777 was explaining why he wasn't calling you an idiot.

 

[taltamir]

mmm, you are right.
Ok then... Yes I concur that if you have a 939 platform with DDR1 it flat out makes no sense to upgrade the whole platform compared to just the GPU (but ideally you would do both at once)... the return on your money would be much greater.

There is basically a balance of things. CPU and GPU. Some games are more GPU bound, some are more CPU bound. And most are well balanced so that you get the best deal out of a balanced system, with an overpowered GPU or CPU giving a very small return.

I am just saying that the sentiment I am perceiving right now is that "if you have something greater then a P4 / athlonXP then your CPU is fast enough, just upgrade your video card"... and that is simply not true.l

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: taltamir
mmm, you are right.
Ok then... Yes I concur that if you have a 939 platform with DDR1 it flat out makes no sense to upgrade the whole platform compared to just the GPU (but ideally you would do both at once)... the return on your money would be much greater.

There is basically a balance of things. CPU and GPU. Some games are more GPU bound, some are more CPU bound. And most are well balanced so that you get the best deal out of a balanced system, with an overpowered GPU or CPU giving a very small return.

I am just saying that the sentiment I am perceiving right now is that "if you have something greater then a P4 / athlonXP then your CPU is fast enough, just upgrade your video card"... and that is simply not true.l

Talt, actually, I see the exact opposite being said around this forum, at least in the past. I haven't kept up here in the last few months much, but I know that everyone kept saying you need a faster CPU and frankly, it was getting old. It looks like perhaps people started doing the opposite to counter the idea that the CPU is/was the bottleneck. You are right that the truth is somewhere in the middle, or at the very least, not at the end of each sprectrum.

You bring up some valid points, though. A faster CPU will not only potentially grant you an increase in games, but will also speed up encoding, load times, etc... The problem is when we are talking in the context of games, specifically, 3D Games. When taking the context of the games, generally you will have a far greater return on upgrading a GPU than a CPU. Of course exceptions apply - that is always the case.

A good rule of thumb IMO is a platform upgrade every 3-4 years, and a GPU upgrade every 1-2 years.

 

[taltamir]

well put archangel.

 

[BFG10K]

Alright, I have three sets of benchmarks that are applicable to this thread:

[*]8800 Ultra CPU scaling
[*]8800 Ultra vs 8800 GTS GPU scaling
[*]Caviar vs Raptor game load times

So yes, a castrated processor can limit performance but the bulk of situations using middling/high resolutions in modern games are clearly GPU limited (witness the big gains over the GTS with the Ultra in such games).

As for load times, the CPU can help but HD speeds also make a big difference too.

E8400 + 8800GTS 512MB max settings WITH 6x MSAA and 16X antistrophic (which I had on triliniar before)

nVidia cards don't support 6xMSAA and never have, thus by using that setting you?re likely getting no AA.

 

[SickBeast]

Some games are indeed CPU limited, but from what I've seen, a CPU limited game will get 100FPS instead of 200FPS. Generally when you're GPU limited you'll only get 10FPS or something.

I'm pretty sure that even my Opteron 165 isn't pegged at 100% CPU usage in a few games.

Ideally a system should be balanced, but there are times when it makes more sense to just upgrade the GPU (or vice-versa).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Some games are indeed CPU limited, but from what I've seen, a CPU limited game will get 100FPS instead of 200FPS. Generally when you're GPU limited you'll only get 10FPS or something.

I'm pretty sure that even my Opteron 165 isn't pegged at 100% CPU usage in a few games.

Ideally a system should be balanced, but there are times when it makes more sense to just upgrade the GPU (or vice-versa).

It made a real difference for me [especially] at the bottom FPS ... as i noted in STALKER when i upgraded from a 2.80C@3.31Ghz to a P4EE @ 3.74Ghz with an AGP 1950p/512M and then again to a C2D and 2900xt. My e4300 at stock 1.8Ghz will definitely hold back my 2900xt - even my x1950p a bit. It wasn't until i got over ~2.8 Ghz that my 2900xt ran at maximum efficiency as evidenced by my practical increases in gaming FPS. And with CrossFire, i pretty much *needed* to OC further to my current 3.25Ghz. With a still a future Faster GPU, i will need a CPU upgrade also ... and it is all planned for ... when the .45nm Quad core CPUs drop significantly in price i will drop one in.

i am agreed that sometimes a single upgrade makes sense. Unfortunately i made a bunch of single upgrades in a row that cost me a few extra bucks although it didn't work out badly.

It was just when i upgraded my video card that i realized that it was not complete ... so that lead to a faster CPU upgrade ... then i realized i wanted a better GPU so i did a Asrock *bastage* MB upgrade ... then i realized that my 4xPCIe slot was holding me back and i got a new GPU but then my EE was too slow so then i had to by a new MB, RAM and a PS to go with my C2D

:roll:

Phew!

i am almost done ... i will sleep soon
:moon:

btw, crazy lunar eclipse in the SW USA right now!

 

[n7]

In general, most newer games are CPU limited, but with UE3 games, you'll see CPU limitations in a hurry if you run an older CPU.

My Opteron 165 @ 2.6 GHz simply couldn't handle some parts of some maps in UT3.
When i got my E6600 system back up running, those same spots with issues no longer had them.

 

[CP5670]

As ArchAngel777 said, the real issue here is not that games don't benefit from faster CPUs, but that it's almost always better to max out the video card when you're on a fixed budget and can only afford to upgrade one thing (a common situation). I can assure you that a 3800/8800GTS setup will blow away an E8400/7900GS one in games, bottleneck or not.

In general, most newer games are CPU limited, but with UE3 games, you'll see CPU limitations in a hurry if you run an older CPU.

My Opteron 165 @ 2.6 GHz simply couldn't handle some parts of some maps in UT3.
When i got my E6600 system back up running, those same spots with issues no longer had them.

Is it UE3 games in general or only UT3? I think the UT bots are pretty demanding, which may account for it.

 

[n7]

Well, likely moreso in UT3, but most UE3 games in general really lay a beating on the CPU.

 

[taltamir]

so you convinently exclude games like UT3, and HL2 and all their many derivatives... not to mention stand alone games like oblivion and others.

with a X2 3800 HL2, portal, etc are barely playable at 1280x800 res no matter how fast your video card is...

Sure some other games are not that way... but it really depends on the game.

 

[v8envy]

Are we playing the same HL2 here? Because I had no problems with HL2 at 1280x1024 using a 2.4 ghz single core AMD cpu and a 7600GT. The same box was far more performant with a 512 meg X1800XT across the board. Frame rates were well above 30 with either card all the way through and I enjoyed the game quite a bit. There wasn't a single moment where I'd call anything about the game 'barely playable.'

Same system was even able to play at 1024x768 and low-ish settings using onboard X200 and same CPU when the X1800XT was RMAd for overheating artifacts but the 7600GT not yet purchased.

You seem to have some very strange and inexplicable performance issues. I'll try to time nwn2 level loading when I get home tonight, but I know for a fact it wasn't anywhere near a minute for me. I'm guessing closer to 10 seconds. Granted, I can't do the test using the old Venice but I should be able to crank my E2180 down to 2 ghz and compare times with the same at 3 ghz. I doubt the level loading is multithreaded so a 2 ghz core2 should be pretty close to results seen with a 2.4 ghz single core AMD.

Did you have anti-virus software running when doing these tests? Software or motherboard RAID?

 

[taltamir]

Low settings? why would you want to play with low settings?

 

[v8envy]

Because GPUs typically enable higher quality settings in game, not CPUs. If that weren't the case we'd all have cranked up QX9650s and the cheapest video cards we could stick into a PCI slot. I saw gigantic improvements in game performance and playable settings going from an X200 to a X1800XT on the same low end CPU. The frame rates stayed about the same, but I could crank up not only resolution but detail level. Even a 10 ghz cpu wouldn't have done that for me.

My point was -- the CPU isn't the culprit in your strange performance, not entirely. Something else is amiss.

My other point was -- look at the valve hardware survey. Plenty of people are playing and enjoying HL2 on some comparatively ghetto hardware including fx5200s on 1.4 ghz Athlons with half a gig of ram. When it came out a radeon 9600 and a 2 ghz P4 was enough to enjoy the game to its fullest. That hasn't changed much.

BFG10K's testing is in line with what the rest of the world is experiencing. A 2.4 ghz core2 is not enough to 'bottleneck' even an 8800 Ultra, not entirely. He saw impressive gains going from an 8800GTS to an 8800 Ultra. We're not even talking about going from a 7900 to an 8800.

There's something about your hardware or OS or settings that's Different enough to cause problems.