Matching GPU with CPU, how to determine maximum possible GPU?

[likeabo55]

Hi,

This one's been a pussle that I've thought about for years - I hope someone can help!

If you divide a PC into the 2 parts that determine gaming performance: Graphics card and CPU. (I'll leave out Ram in the equation, as it's dirt cheap)

:::
Then how do you determine the maximum possible Graphics card to put into a PC - in order to maximise gaming performance, without wasting money on a Graphics card that way overperforms the CPU?
:::


In my case:
Intel E4300 - I want to calculate roughly, the maximum possible Graphics card to put there, since I need better performance than the 8600GTS 256 MB ram provides for newer games now.

Solving the relationship-math between GPU and CPU would help anyone who've reached the performance limit for current games (which will always happen), to breathe new gaming life into their old PC.

 

[toyota]

your cpu is too slow to even meet minimum requirements for most newer games so all the gpu power in the world will not fix that. if you cannot oc that cpu then I would not even bother with any faster than a used gt240 or 9600gt.

 

[likeabo55]

Hi,
Yes, it's a really bad CPU, however I believe that it "fills out" the 8600GTS based on 3dmark06 scores I've seen on the net. Though I am not sure.

How do I calculate approximate max GPU that it can pull, instead of going with gut feeling?

GT240 doesn't seem to be much of an improvement

 

[toyota]

Hi,
Yes, it's a really bad CPU, however I believe that it "fills out" the 8600GTS based on 3dmark06 scores I've seen on the net. Though I am not sure.

How do I calculate approximate max GPU that it can pull, instead of going with gut feeling?

GT240 doesn't seem to be much of an improvement

it does not really matter how much more gpu that your cpu can handle. AGAIN it is TOO SLOW for newer modern games just in general and does NOT even meet minimum requirements. if you are looking to play newer games then there is no point in getting a faster gpu because the game will still not be playable anyway. so AGAIN, if you are not going to oc your cpu then a gt240 or 9600gt level of card is the most I would suggest with your old cpu. even those cards are not going to help you many newer games and spending any more is a waste with a cpu that is not going to deliver decent performance.

 

[houe]

If you want to play you're going to have to pay. Most likely you need a complete new build. You can probably keep the hard drive, keyboard, mouse, dvd drive and display. Get rid of the rest...

 

[GoStumpy]

if you are not going to oc your cpu then a gt240 or 9600gt level of card is the most I would suggest with your old cpu.

Just thinking out loud here, but no amount of overclocking can save a E4300 from the "not gonna work" bin


However, back to topic, matching a GPU to CPU really is one of the most advanced parts of building a computer... How to have as much CPU and GPU strength without having one overpower the other...Fine and dandy, however pointless if we're talking about the REASONS for the computer... Gaming... what games?

Nowadays we build a computer for the specific task, if not then we buy a dell... Right?

eg. Gaming.. what game? Skyrim? BF3? I'm sure those two alone make up 80% of all new computer builds.. So you'll need a Geforce 6850+ or GT460+ to play them..at all... Unless you have a specific old-school game in mind, buying anything less than a 6850+ or a GT460+ is a waste!

 

[toyota]

Just thinking out loud here, but no amount of overclocking can save a E4300 from the "not gonna work" bin

well it would help tremendously since he would be 100% cpu bound with any remotely decent gpu. but yeah even overclocking that old cpu will not help enough some games. plus he likely has a stock cooler anyway. the E4300 is over 5 years old so its certainly time to move on if newer games are what he wants to play.

 

[GoStumpy]

well it would help tremendously since he would be 100% cpu bound with any remotely decent gpu. but yeah even overclocking that old cpu will not help enough some games. plus he likely has a stock cooler anyway. the E4300 is over 5 years old so its certainly time to move on if newer games are what he wants to play.

Actually, allow me to eat my words...

E4300 is a true dual-core processor, 1.8ghz... At that speed it should be able to *run* almost any game, albeit not well..

At stock speed, it's going to be 'too slow' for most games... but a 2.0 or 2.1ghz dual-core is 'fast enough' for most games...

At those speeds, a Geforce GT6790 or 6770 would be a good pairing, GPU and CPU basically at their limits together...

Nvidia side, I'd think a GTX460/GT550ti would max out a 2.0/2.1ghz dual-core.

At stock 1.8ghz an E4300 would probably need a GTS450 or a radeon HD6570/6770.

My opinion

 

[VirtualLarry]

Just get another computer, OP. Your current one is simply too slow to play any modern games, no matter what upgrades you give it, short of a complete platform replacement.

 

[GoStumpy]

Just get another computer, OP. Your current one is simply too slow to play any modern games, no matter what upgrades you give it, short of a complete platform replacement.

He never said he wants to play modern games... However why else would one be wondering about video cards

 

[toyota]

Actually, allow me to eat my words...

E4300 is a true dual-core processor, 1.8ghz... At that speed it should be able to *run* almost any game, albeit not well..

At stock speed, it's going to be 'too slow' for most games... but a 2.0 or 2.1ghz dual-core is 'fast enough' for most games...

At those speeds, a Geforce GT6790 or 6770 would be a good pairing, GPU and CPU basically at their limits together...

Nvidia side, I'd think a GTX460/GT550ti would max out a 2.0/2.1ghz dual-core.

At stock 1.8ghz an E4300 would probably need a GTS450 or a radeon HD6570/6770.

My opinion

the E4300 core 2 duos are pretty butchered cpus and at just 1.8 will limit the heck out of even a gts450 in most modern games. as I mention earlier, his cpu does not even meet the minimum requirements for newer games.

 

[Ken g6]

He never said he wants to play modern games... However why else would one be wondering about video cards

I need better performance than the 8600GTS 256 MB ram provides for newer games now.

:whiste:

OP, it would help if you listed a few games you want to play, so we can figure out just how modern they are.

 

[Cerb]

To OP: basically look at video card performance with very high performance CPUs, and figure the old CPU is not going to let the faster cards show their strengths. It's not so much an exact science, and exactly what the best matches are will be game-dependent and resolution-dependent, too.

Nvidia side, I'd think a GTX460/GT550ti would max out a 2.0/2.1ghz dual-core.

That would be overkill. I have a GTX 460 with a 3.2Ghz C2D, and it's my keeping the texture quality at high, and forcing minimum AA & AF (CSAA may be nearly free, but AA that looks good isn't), that keep the GPU from wasting much time. Having a thing for modding every single-player game I can, my CPU speed and VRAM can be limiting, but the 460 is a perfect fit, with a CPU that's nearly twice as powerful. Only very inefficient Zenimax Gamebryo games (Morrowind w/ MSGO, view distance tweaked FO3 and FNV) need any video card OCing, and even they wouldn't need that with default driver quality settings...and my CPU should be between double and just shy of double the performance of the OP's.

the E4300 core 2 duos are pretty butchered cpus and at just 1.8 will limit the heck out of even a gts450 in most modern games. as I mention earlier, his cpu does not even meet the minimum requirements for newer games.

What really kills them is the cache, though. Outside of transcoding and file compression, even overclocking doesn't help enough. While it may not meet some requirements, most X GHz requirements are based on Athlon64 X2 or P4 models, so it should be OK with most games. Not good, but OK.

I'm going with a 6750 as a best match, not knowing the most demanding game the OP may wish to run: not choking at up to 1920x1200, plenty fast enough for games that aren't new, but not having too much performance headroom, either, should the OP be blowing all his money at GOG. Also, AMD's drivers don't hog the CPU so much. A 6670 would be a good buy, too, as long as you got one with a good MIR (<=$75 shipped after MIR, like Sapphire's).

Still, it's not a great CPU, only seemed like a good one to overclockers who wanted high GHz for their epeen when it was new, and a PC it is in is not worth putting too much money into as a gaming system for modern games.

 

[toyota]

lol, I have said this several times already but I think it needs to be said again. there is no perfect match up for newer modern games because his cpu is TOO SLOW just in general and will NOT even meet the minimum requirements. all a 6750 will do is allow him to have a crappy experience at a higher res. sure in some games he will certainly see an increase over the 8600gts but AGAIN for newer games its just waste of money. so if he just wants to play some games that are a little older and/or not cpu intensive at all then get the cheapest used gt240/9600gt/5570 level of card available. anything more than that is just a waste no matter what game he is trying to play.

 

[Cerb]

all a 6750 will do is allow him to have a crappy experience at a higher res.

A far better experience than with a 8600GT, though.

Really, it comes down to whether the OP is trying to play demanding games, or not, and whether the OP has the option to do a major upgrade any time soon. If he can't plop down $800 on a new PC, or $500+ on new guts and a new OS, he may as well get a new video card, and at least not be capped by the 8600. If he can do a major upgrade in the near future, then saving for that would be a much better option, as even a i3-2100 will mop the floor with his E4300 (for that matter, an Athlon II would, as well, not that I would recommend such an upgrade).

Many/most games have detail sliders that go to the left, and speed things up, allowing for OKish performance. But, such games still tax the GPU, and you would generally want to stick to single-player games (because it will often be enough of a difference that someone with a nice rig and less skill can beat you ).

P.S. A great experience needs a faster CPU. If the OP can reasonably afford a major hardware upgrade in the near future, replacing it all would be the best way to go. A GT 240 or 9600G(T|S|SO) would be too little improvement to bother with. If the OP has a 1680x1050 or greater monitor, a newer better card could at least bring the PC to a point where the GPU isn't slowing it down. The CPU won't be enough for some games, but whether it is or is not fast enough for what the OP wants, we can't say, until the OP lists some games. If the OP wants to run BF3 or Rage at decent settings, then by all means, forget about the entire PC.

 

[toyota]

A far better experience than with a 8600GT, though.

Really, it comes down to whether the OP is trying to play demanding games, or not, and whether the OP has the option to do a major upgrade any time soon. If he can't plop down $800 on a new PC, or $500+ on new guts and a new OS, he may as well get a new video card, and at least not be capped by the 8600. If he can do a major upgrade in the near future, then saving for that would be a much better option, as even a i3-2100 will mop the floor with his E4300 (for that matter, an Athlon II would, as well, not that I would recommend such an upgrade).

I don't see how it will be a better playable experience. 15 fps minimum framerates and averaging just 30-35 fps in many games sucks just as bad at 1920x1080 as it does at 1280x720.

 

[likeabo55]

Just thinking out loud here, but no amount of overclocking can save a E4300 from the "not gonna work" bin


However, back to topic, matching a GPU to CPU really is one of the most advanced parts of building a computer... How to have as much CPU and GPU strength without having one overpower the other...Fine and dandy, however pointless if we're talking about the REASONS for the computer... Gaming... what games?

Nowadays we build a computer for the specific task, if not then we buy a dell... Right?

eg. Gaming.. what game? Skyrim? BF3? I'm sure those two alone make up 80% of all new computer builds.. So you'll need a Geforce 6850+ or GT460+ to play them..at all... Unless you have a specific old-school game in mind, buying anything less than a 6850+ or a GT460+ is a waste!

Thank you all for the discussion. I can run MW2BO, Deus Ex: HR, SC2 - everything i run, runs at low, so I can keep a decent framerate around 30 FPS.

I guess I'm going to have to agree that buying new would be the best, as I am probably going to have to buy more Ram, a new PSU, CPU & GPU...

Either that, or find a better LGA775 CPU and a GPU that'll run in my power supply. I would need to find a GPU with similar requirements as my 8600GTS, as I actually get a message that it's underpowered I don't know if power reqs. have continued climbing since my 8600GTS?

 

[Cerb]

Either that, or find a better LGA775 CPU and a GPU that'll run in my power supply. I would need to find a GPU with similar requirements as my 8600GTS, as I actually get a message that it's underpowered

You've got one wimpy PSU!

I don't know if power reqs. have continued climbing since my 8600GTS?

But, by the time you get a decent CPU, more RAM, and a video card, you'll probably have spent $200-300, and at best, it will get you 6 months to a year, when it comes down to it. One of the big problems with CPUs right now is that with Core 2 level CPUs are fast enough for so many people, and since people are replacing less often with the recession, there is a large upgrade market, so a good upgrade CPU is not going to be cheap (a nice Core 2 Quad can still go for >$100, which is why I don't have one).

If you get a slower CPU and OC it, you'll want a cooler for the job, which will eat up some of the cost savings v. a faster stock one. DDR2 is much more expensive than DDR3, but you wouldn't save anything by the time you got a DDR3 mobo, if you're using DDR2.

If you had <$100 can couldn't spend another cent for several months on the PC, and your monitor were at least 180x1050, a video card and getting to 4GB RAM (if not already there) might ease the pain, until you could do the main upgrade, IMO. Upgrading several components, though, will not give very good return for your money, without starting with a fresh mobo (and, sigh, OS).

An i3-2100 will play anything today well, and anything coming out in the next few years alright; a 2500(K) will play anything well for the foreseeable future, and they (the K ones) easily OC pretty well. There are quite a few good 400W-500W PSUs that won't break the bank. Maximum power consumption of midrange components has risen a bit, but idle and average power have been going down. The one thing that will make you go right now, of course, is HDD prices.

Assuming you have a regular income, save towards something fairly nice, at least a 2500K w/ 8GB RAM. Regardless of what Ivy Bridge brings, the longevity of that, especially counting in mild overclocking, will generally exceed the added cost, compared to lesser CPUs currently available.