Once and for all, CPU is NOT A BOTTLENECK!!!!

[SpeedZealot369]

I'm getting tired of this so this thread will be the end all of "is my cpu a bottleneck" type question threads.

(Thanks to Zebo for this)

Originally posted by: Zebo
OP Check this out
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-games2_4.html


I bet you did'nt know a celeron 326 = FX 57

Here is where your processor (or just about any CPU) is compared to the X6800

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

This shows once and for all, games do not need high end cpu's. At high enough resolutions, all the stress is on the GPU. Not on the cpu, not on the ram, and definitly not on the HDD :roll:

Now obviously you can't expect a G80 matched with a pentium 2 to work very well, but any AMD64/Conroe past 2ghz is fine for the most demanding games.

A faster CPU at high resolutions will gain you 1-2fps average AT BEST.

Hope this thread helps clear some questions, I will add some more benchmarks soon.

SZ

 

[bobsmith1492]

Obviously.

Still, try playing Oblivion with a 4200 RPM HDD; you'll be loading areas out of your mind.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Obviously.

Still, try playing Oblivion with a 4200 RPM HDD; you'll be loading areas out of your mind.

LOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

yeah everyone think that cou id the bottleneck and even anand show avg frames in oblivion to show that they increase significantly with the proc to show the cpu is a bottleneck.

all these ppl fail to realize (include i am sorry to say AT) that avg frames are influenced by max and min fps. and max or avg fps does not mean ****** when playing any game. if the min fps is 0 a avg of 6000000 is no good either.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Could you try that again in English? I'm not sure what you're getting at...

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Could you try that again in English? I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Whoa funny man we have here :roll:

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: SpeedZealot369

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Could you try that again in English? I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Whoa funny man we have here :roll:

I think he was referring to tanishalfelven, not you.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo

Originally posted by: SpeedZealot369

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Could you try that again in English? I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Whoa funny man we have here :roll:

I think he was referring to tanishalfelven, not you.

He was. and i couldn't understand him either.

 

[Matt2]

GPU > CPU

/end thread

 

[Zebo]

Look all you guys should look at in CPU reviews is frames a processor gives..look at them... most processors will be above 60 FPS at these crappy resolutions they like to test CPU's on. 60FPS is satisfactory for almost anyone out there and will not change at super high res unless video card can not keep up, which is more often the case than not. Most games are GPU bound. As long as you keep a decent GPU you'll be happy with almost any processor made in last two years including a Prescott or even some budget CPU's like Sempron/Celeron.

There are some exceptions like RTS's which do so much more calculations than FPS, such as Rise of Legends, NWN etc where games really do get CPU bound. But even then most CPUs are acceptable shooting well over 40FPS.

My point was not to talk people out of a CPU in that thread but mearly say buy the best GPU one can afford then worry about CPU.

Matt2 had the short answer. I think all of us who have done the usual 4-6 month upgrade pattern realise GPU>CPU everytime we turn over componets. Seeing huge difference in frames with next gen video and with CPU it's like did i even upgrade?

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Anyone who thinks this should be a sticky, bump this please.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo

Originally posted by: SpeedZealot369

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Could you try that again in English? I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Whoa funny man we have here :roll:

I think he was referring to tanishalfelven, not you.

sorry english is a second language to me.

 

[kylebisme]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: SpeedZealot369
Anyone who thinks this should be a sticky, bump this please.

bump

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

That's with x1900xt crossfire at 1280 resolution. As you increase the resolution, especially with a single card, the importance of the cpu diminishes and the gpu becomes the more limiting factor. I swear, I see these cpu limit posts every time a new high end video card is released, but no matter how powerful the card is, shortly after a new game comes out that smacks the card around like taking candy from a baby.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

That's with x1900xt crossfire at 1280 resolution. As you increase the resolution, especially with a single card, the importance of the cpu diminishes and the gpu becomes the more limiting factor. I swear, I see these cpu limit posts every time a new high end video card is released, but no matter how powerful the card is, shortly after a new game comes out that smacks the card around like taking candy from a baby.

Mr burns found that surprisingly hard to do.

 

[happy medium]

More proof of GPU bottlenecking and not the not cpu. The scores in these games double when adding another 8800gtx.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/391/25/

 

[Conky]

This is true to a point. But right now, most guys with mid-range(six months to one year ago's high end) GPU's would benefit from a CPU upgrade.

To think that you can buy an 8800GTX and run an Athlon 1700 or P4-1.6 and keep up with someone running say, an e6400 with a 7900GT or X1800XT is just nuts.

As with most things in life.... balance is the key.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

That's with x1900xt crossfire at 1280 resolution. As you increase the resolution, especially with a single card, the importance of the cpu diminishes and the gpu becomes the more limiting factor. I swear, I see these cpu limit posts every time a new high end video card is released, but no matter how powerful the card is, shortly after a new game comes out that smacks the card around like taking candy from a baby.

That is keeping the framerate over 30 with the fastest CPUs around and droping into the teens with the slower ones. In other words, the CPU is a bottleneck.

 

[Maximilian]

3 years ago high end is fine.

P4 3.2ghz AXP 3200+ A64 3200+ clawhammer

Theyre all still fast enough.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

That's with x1900xt crossfire at 1280 resolution. As you increase the resolution, especially with a single card, the importance of the cpu diminishes and the gpu becomes the more limiting factor. I swear, I see these cpu limit posts every time a new high end video card is released, but no matter how powerful the card is, shortly after a new game comes out that smacks the card around like taking candy from a baby.

That is keeping the framerate over 30 with the fastest CPUs around and droping into the teens with the slower ones. In other words, the CPU is a bottleneck.

Anands test you show is a X1900 XT CrossFire setup at crappy 12x10 res. Of course its gonna show CPU bottleneck but at anything we would play at with these cards the GPU's would be come botttle neck.

Look at next page where single cards are used. Does'nt make a difference on CPU speed.

Alternativly you can jack up res and AA/AF with same result on two cards on xfire with same result. As Kyle shows in HARDOCP review.

Where does 8800GTX stand with CPU's? Probably right where the xfire did since it's just as fast as xfire that HARD already did for us in thier A64 vs Conroe real word gaming review.

Ideally you want both high end CPU and GPU but don't let those middleing CPU resolutions with nothing on fool you. Get GPU first then, if you have cash left over get a nice case..then worry about CPU

 

[kmmatney]

I like to play games at 320 x 240 resolution, and the CPU is a bottleneck!!

 

[anthrax]

The author of this thread clearly flawed in his/her thinking a logic.

1.) The Author in the title states "CPU is not a Bottleneck". (The subsequently refutes it : is certain cases it is..... Just like a flip-flop from the democratic senator from MA.)
2.) He/she then further implies that at high resolutions, Games do not need high end CPU's
3.) He/she then further takes an example "Fear 1024 x 768" at max quality to be representative of games.
4.) He/she then sums up to suggest that high end CPU will only give 1 to 2 FPS more at high resolutions.

Points 2,3,4 are clearly flawed. I would like to author to have a look at the following results for FSX, a current generation title on what i consider a high end video card. (x1950XTX) and high end CPU's FX62, X6800, E6700 at resolutions from 1024 to 1920.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_093d.html




1. Lets look at the title. It implies that CPU is NOT a factor affecting performance.

Once and for all, CPU is NOT A BOTTLENECK!!!!

Then further in his passage he refutes it by saying in some cases it is.

Now obviously you can't expect a G80 matched with a pentium 2 to work very well, but any AMD64/Conroe past 2ghz is fine for the most demanding games.

2.) The Author then makes the following statement to imply that CPU performance games do not need high end CPU's at high resolutions.

This shows once and for all, games do not need high end cpu's. At high enough resolutions, all the stress is on the GPU. Not on the cpu, not on the ram, and definitly not on the HDD

3.) He/She then also takes a limited example of a test with FEAR to be representative of all games.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Zebo
OP Check this out
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-games2_4.html


I bet you did'nt know a celeron 326 = FX 57

Here is where your processor (or just about any CPU) is compared to the X6800

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.) The Author finished off to claim that at high resolutions, a fast CPU will give you a extra 1-2 fps)

A faster CPU at high resolutions will gain you 1-2fps average AT BEST.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

That's with x1900xt crossfire at 1280 resolution. As you increase the resolution, especially with a single card, the importance of the cpu diminishes and the gpu becomes the more limiting factor. I swear, I see these cpu limit posts every time a new high end video card is released, but no matter how powerful the card is, shortly after a new game comes out that smacks the card around like taking candy from a baby.

That is keeping the framerate over 30 with the fastest CPUs around and droping into the teens with the slower ones. In other words, the CPU is a bottleneck.

Anands test you show is a X1900 XT CrossFire setup at crappy 12x10 res. Of course its gonna show CPU bottleneck but at anything we would play at with these cards the GPU's would be come botttle neck.

Look at next page where single cards are used. Does'nt make a difference on CPU speed.

Anands test show those crossfire setups still dropping into the 30s with the best of CPUs and you are complaining that they didn't turn the resoulution up? As for the next page, it shows the jump from 1.8ghz to 2.6ghz providing up to ~30% average framerate improvements on the x1800xl. Are you on crack?

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Matt2
GPU > CPU

/end thread

 

[akshayt]

Not so for Carbon, it gives 54FPS on 1900XTX with C2D E6400 while single core A64 @ 2.4GHz just gives 40FPS, both are playable, but the C2D will be smoother and faster, this is at 12x10 4x AA, without AA the AMD gives 40FPS again while C2D give 65.