Mid-high end cards on low end CPUs - an issue that needs some light shed

[tipoo]

This video sheds light on the situation I'm concerned with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzLU4HWw2U

Some gamers on a budget will choose to spend more on a graphics card than a CPU, that makes perfect sense since even i3s don't bottleneck most games below 60fps yet. The problem is, those graphics cards are often tested on high end CPUs, which does not tell the whole story.

The current batch of AMD cards lose a big chunk of their performance if paired with a low end CPU, more than Nvidia does, even if the AMD cards are more powerful when paired with high end CPUs.

This is something reviews have not addressed. It's quite important, as if you were looking for a build under say 700, you'd probably go with an i3 and try to put 200 into the graphics, just for example. If you look at AMD card reviews, they may do better than an Nvidia one, but the problem is they'd lose more performance with the low end CPU than the Nvidia does.

 

[96Firebird]

This is what we call driver overhead, or CPU overhead. We've had a few discussions on it here, but some tend to think it shouldn't matter because if you can afford a high-end card you should be able to get a high-end CPU.

I'd like to see this investigated by some hardware sites, along with some other topics.

futurefields experience something similar to the video, he posted about it in this thread.

 

[tipoo]

This is what we call driver overhead, or CPU overhead. We've had a few discussions on it here, but some tend to think it shouldn't matter because if you can afford a high-end card you should be able to get a high-end CPU.

I'd like to see this investigated by some hardware sites, along with some other topics.

Yeah, I can't really agree with those that dismiss it - if you're on a budget, it makes complete sense to prioritize GPU over CPU, and in the builds I was trying to make, to stay under 600-700 an Intel quad i5 wasn't possible, but dual core i3s fit the bill.

You could go the other way and shave some GPU cost, but that affects game performance far more.

My main point in posting this is to try and get it covered by one of the big sites, finding things like this has motivated AMD/Nvidia to change in the past. Like the frame pacing issue, that was much much worse before I think Techreport reported on it.

 

[monstercameron]

Yeah, I can't really agree with those that dismiss it - if you're on a budget, it makes complete sense to prioritize GPU over CPU, and in the builds I was trying to make, to stay under 600-700 an Intel quad i5 wasn't possible, but dual core i3s fit the bill.



You could go the other way and shave some GPU cost, but that affects game performance far more.



My main point in posting this is to try and get it covered by one of the big sites, finding things like this has motivated AMD/Nvidia to change in the past. Like the frame pacing issue, that was much much worse before I think Techreport reported on it.

Dx12, need I say more. No offense this thread is pointless.

 

[tipoo]

Dx12, need I say more. No offense this thread is pointless.

Sure, that will be a huge boon for this. But DX11 games won't go away, nor will every new game be DX12 instantly.

You're free to not contribute to threads you find pointless.

 

[bystander36]

In the past, I'd still prioritize a decent CPU before spending it on a GPU. While in the first 2 years of your system, that choice may result in lower FPS, by the time you upgrade that GPU 2-3 times, you'll save money and have better performance. With the extremely slow progress in CPU's for the past 8 years, a good CPU lasts a LONG time, while the GPU will be upgraded periodically with massive improvements. I'm not saying to go out and get an i7, but you should start with an i5 at least unless the budget is for entry level gaming.

 

[monstercameron]

Sure, that will be a huge boon for this. But DX11 games won't go away, nor will every new game be DX12 instantly.



You're free to not contribute to threads you find pointless.

What you are proposing is something they have fixed with a new api, else they would probably have to rewrite large parts of their drivers...

 

[tipoo]

What you are proposing is something they have fixed with a new api, else they would probably have to rewrite large parts of their drivers...

It's at least something that should be in reviews of new cards, so purchasers are aware. Whether or not AMD will change their DX11 performance or not, buyers should know they may not work so great with low end CPUs -as many people are getting for budget gaming builds.

By only testing new cards on the highest end CPUs, this discrepancy stays hidden, and may only show up once they've bought and built a system.

Again, if you think that's unimportant, I don't see the point of commenting.

 

[Phynaz]

Dx12, need I say more. No offense this thread is pointless.

When do you think every new released game will have a DX12 code path?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Sure, that will be a huge boon for this. But DX11 games won't go away, nor will every new game be DX12 instantly.

You're free to not contribute to threads you find pointless.

Exactly, not to mention nobody really knows how DX12 will affect various hardware.

That said, I tend to view the situation differently. I would try to put as much as possible toward the cpu because gpus tend to advance faster than cpus, and are easier to upgrade as well. Besides that, it is much easier to turn down a few settings to compensate for a weaker gpu, while if your cpu is not up tp the task, there is not much you can do.

 

[LTC8K6]

Intel really needs to let me have an i3-4370K...

 

[frozentundra123456]

In the past, I'd still prioritize a decent CPU before spending it on a GPU. While in the first 2 years of your system, that choice may result in lower FPS, by the time you upgrade that GPU 2-3 times, you'll save money and have better performance. With the extremely slow progress in CPU's for the past 8 years, a good CPU lasts a LONG time, while the GPU will be upgraded periodically with massive improvements. I'm not saying to go out and get an i7, but you should start with an i5 at least unless the budget is for entry level gaming.

Agreed. This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you explained it more clearly.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

Don't forget that Direct3D 11 will still be around in the form of 11.3. It's there for those who don't want to be exposed to a lower level API. As such issues like these won't be going away entirely and should be exposed/discussed.

In fact Eurogamer has taken notice and in their recent digital foundry articles has talked about this. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-budget-gaming-pc-guide

 

[happy medium]

This video sheds light on the situation I'm concerned with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzLU4HWw2U

Wow that's looks bad for AMD cards. They need to fix that. Thanks for the info.

 

[Silverforce11]

i3 just suck for modern gaming on any GPU that is stronger than it's CPU bottleneck.

There's no magic, check out NV's "driver overhead" with Titan X with an i3.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-grand-theft-auto-5

GTA V, the most CPU limited game of late:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLs-sMteggg

I wouldn't say its a driver overhead issue, its simply a case of major CPU bottlenecks, unable to deliver fps potential that the stronger GPU can handle.

The 750Ti or R260X is maxed out on FPS potential even with the lowly i3, but the R270X & R280X has GPU grunt left on the table, similar to the Titan X being held back by the i3.

 

[happy medium]

i3 just suck for modern gaming on any GPU that is stronger than it's CPU bottleneck.

The i3 is stronger than 90% of AMD's best cpu's when gaming. What do you suggest those budget buyers do, upgrade to a core i5, or use a Nvidia card??

It seems to me an i3 can push a single gtx970 fairly well ,except for in a handful of games.

 

[bystander36]

The i3 is stronger than 90% of AMD's best cpu's when gaming. What do you suggest those budget buyers do, upgrade to a core i5, or use a Nvidia card??

It seems to me an i3 can push a single gtx970 fairly well ,except for in a handful of games.

I'd suggest getting an i5 and back off on the GPU. Your FPS or settings may start off lower, but by the time you upgrade your GPU, you'll be getting higher FPS, and not need to upgrade the CPU, which means either higher performance, or saved money on the 2nd, 3rd and possibly 4th/5th GPU upgrade. 2 cores are starting to be a limiting factor. DX12 may not help that much either, as they may start taking advantage of the multiple core advantages of DX12.

 

[Silverforce11]

The i3 is stronger than 90% of AMD's best cpu's when gaming. What do you suggest those budget buyers do, upgrade to a core i5, or use a Nvidia card??

It seems to me an i3 can push a single gtx970 fairly well ,except for in a handful of games.

When gamers build budget systems, definitely an i3 with a low-end GPU (R260X or 750ti) won't make a difference.

i3 can work, as long as games are designed for the lower number of threads. As soon as it hits some modern games that actually need 4 cores, its going to tank on any GPU setup that's above its bottleneck.

Crap AMD performance in NV games is nothing new so to use one example of an i3 + 280 performing as badly as a 750ti is pointless. For example, I can reference NV's sponsored Project Cars, where a gtx660 is matching R290X, what do you conclude from that? Or Witcher 3 benching with Hairworks on. It's cherry picking to the extreme.

For the modern gamer, even on a budget, I would always recommend an i5 as a minimum CPU, I would never recommend any AMD CPU (outside of APU no dGPU setups). It ensures future-proof when you upgrade to a better GPU down the road. Think about the i5 2500K, its quite old, but plug in a Titan X, it can handle all modern games and ensure Titan X is loaded to the max on ultra IQ settings.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1367?vs=1197

Many games don't seem to benefit from adding more speed to an i3.

Here we have an 800mhz bump and most games don't notice it with a discrete gpu.

 

[bystander36]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1367?vs=1197

Many games don't seem to benefit from adding more speed to an i3.

Here we have an 800mhz bump and most games don't notice it with a discrete gpu.

The problem with the i3 isn't much about the speed, but the lack of cores. If a game needs 4 cores to run well, an i3 isn't going to run well.

 

[LTC8K6]

I was just talking to myself regarding my post about an unlocked i3.

 

[LTC8K6]

The problem with the i3 isn't much about the speed, but the lack of cores. If a game needs 4 cores to run well, an i3 isn't going to run well.

Then why does an i3 mostly keep up with an FX6300 in these game benches?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1197

 

[Silverforce11]

Then why does an i3 mostly keep up with an FX6300 in these game benches?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1197

Because SMT vs Faildozer.

AMD CPUs are awful for dGPU gaming in general due to the large majority of games that are optimized for single thread performance, or scaling better on SMT CPUs.

It's nothing new.

Their only good CPU products are their APUs. I've built quite a few HTCP + light gaming rig for friends & family, they have all performed very well within the budget & size/thermal constraints. It embarrasses Intel's iGPU within that niche for sure. But for dGPU gaming, Intel stomps all over AMD.

 

[LTC8K6]

I left off the smiley.

 

[happy medium]

2 cores are starting to be a limiting factor

I agree , but the i3 has 2 cores and 4 threads and that seems to help a lot.