Single Core CPU+Multi-GPU vs. Multi Core CPU+Single-GPU

[eTRP]

Good day ladies and gentlemen!

We would like to conduct this poll for using either Single Core CPU+Multi-GPU vs. Multi Core CPU+Single-GPU to determine which would benefit the most when a.) upgrading; b.) building from scratch.

This is primarily for gaming, so most likely benchmarking is in order.

We also would like to know the actual performance gain when using Single Core CPU+Multi-GPU vs. Dual Core CPU+Single-GPU vs. Quad Core CPU+Single-GPU.

We would gladly appreciate if you would share your personal experience.

Please do comment which is the most cost efficient path also.

Many thanks AnandTech Community!

 

[MegaVovaN]

Option 2 (answer b) on all 3 questions, but it all depends on what range of components we're talking here...I am assuming similar <price> range.

With 2 video cards (assume we talking high end here) and single core CPU you'd be bottlenecked by CPU since there aren't many fast single core CPUs any more. With dual core CPU and a good gfx card you're good to go.

Cost effectiveness? Multi core CPU and one GPU, no discussion there. Multi GPUs are only good for max power today, when you don't count the coin.

Over the life of my last rig I changed 2 video cards yet kept CPU.

 

[tigersty1e]

You are making this way too complicated.


Put out a dollar figure and we'll give you a combination that is good enough.

 

[eTRP]

Thanks for the inputs! Now I'm thoroughly convinced to dump the single core in favour of a dual core setup. I've had that notion about multicores since I've read somewhere (tell me if this notion is already outdated) that the CPU is somewhat considered the prima donna of all the system components, i.e., not working so hard as much as the other components, e.g., hard drive I/O, memory I/O and especially the GPU, when gaming (maybe except for Supreme Commander and some other CPU intensive games).

Actually so far rumor has it that nVidia is cooking up the 9800GX2 (G92 architecture) and so is ATi with the HD3870X2 (R680 architecture) if I'm not mistaken.

If the price of any of these cards are about the same range as a Quad Core Processor, given that the setup is not Single Core, which would you rather have? A setup with dual core CPU with a dual core GPU or a setup with quad core CPU with a single core GPU?

Weighing in the options.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: eTRP
This is primarily for gaming, so most likely benchmarking is in order.

I never thought of building a machine that shares it's primary function with "benchmarking". :laugh:
You must really love your benchmarks!

For someone so intense about the build, you've left out some key details from your quiry.
* What Single or Multi-core processors are you asking about?
* What Single or Multi-GPU cards are you asking about?
* "Cost effective"? What prices will be paid for the CPU's and video cards above?
* What benchmarking programs are you building for?

Please add the requested information or I will be forced to rate this thread a "Terrible" star rating.

 

[Roguestar]

I'm surprised I'm the only person who's said "Single core CPU and multi-GPU". Most games are still single-threaded and benefit more from having more graphics power than CPU power. Graphics processing tends to be highly threaded anyway.

Don't build a PC for benchmarks. I'm sure other people on the internet are impressed by your 3D-mark scores but really it's only you that'll know if what you have fits your needs. Games playable at 1680*1050? Large amounts of professional 3D-rendering? "Video editing" that so many people talk about but few actually do? Despite my initial comment, if you were buying now I'd say a dual-core CPU and single graphics card, simply because dual-core is pretty much vanilla when buying a new PC. You may as well be ready for programs that can use the whole thing. Besides, most people will upgrade their graphics card a year or two down the line before changing their CPU - that tends to be a whole system overhaul.

 

[eTRP]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: eTRP
This is primarily for gaming, so most likely benchmarking is in order.

I never thought of building a machine that shares it's primary function with "benchmarking". :laugh:
You must really love your benchmarks!

For someone so intense about the build, you've left out some key details from your quiry.
* What Single or Multi-core processors are you asking about?
* What Single or Multi-GPU cards are you asking about?
* "Cost effective"? What prices will be paid for the CPU's and video cards above?
* What benchmarking programs are you building for?

Please add the requested information or I will be forced to rate this thread a "Terrible" star rating.

Thanks for the kind comments. I think you have misread my sentence, which now looks like a run-in sentence in construction.

What I meant was that the PC is primarily for gaming, which will eliminate the possibility of, say video editing, file processing, database, compression, etc.

Benchmarking the computer for GAMING is what is meant, to determine the REAL impact of the options of having more CPU to process the game over more GPU. I'm trying to determine the roles being played by each main component with modern/current games we have right now.

If I have piqued your sensibilities by improperly constructing my sentence, my apologies. That is not my intention.

Originally posted by: Roguestar
'm surprised I'm the only person who's said "Single core CPU and multi-GPU". Most games are still single-threaded and benefit more from having more graphics power than CPU power. Graphics processing tends to be highly threaded anyway.

Don't build a PC for benchmarks. I'm sure other people on the internet are impressed by your 3D-mark scores but really it's only you that'll know if what you have fits your needs. Games playable at 1680*1050? Large amounts of professional 3D-rendering? "Video editing" that so many people talk about but few actually do? Despite my initial comment, if you were buying now I'd say a dual-core CPU and single graphics card, simply because dual-core is pretty much vanilla when buying a new PC. You may as well be ready for programs that can use the whole thing. Besides, most people will upgrade their graphics card a year or two down the line before changing their CPU - that tends to be a whole system overhaul.

Thanks for the kind comments. It is not to impress people in the Internet, our broadband here is an oxymoron, i.e., broadband is supposed to be fast, but here it is slow.

I just need benchmarks to determine whether the current configuration is up to bat and playable. I have tolerated framerates lower than 29FPS @ 1024x768 before. I'm actually gunning for a resolution of at least 1600x1200 4:3 aspect ratio or 1680x1050 16:10 aspect ratio.

I have heard that current games are either too sophisticated or the game engine is way too bloated. Dunno really. Just want to know that I won't be somewhat disappointed if I invest too much into one thing then it turns out to be a lemon.

Upgrades are nice, but I rather build a new computer than incrementally upgrade major components. Sell off some parts then relegate the old one to a lesser duty, e.g. server duty.

Thanks for the inputs!

 

[MegaVovaN]

Make a new thread, tell us your budget and we'll pick you excellent gaming parts.

 

[biostud]

It's all about building a balanced system. I don't think I would recommend running SLI or crossfire on single core CPU since the CPU wouldn't be that fast. To me it seems that the games that requires a SLI setup to run at the highest settings also require a multicore CPU. But older games that doesn't benefit from a multicore CPU can also run perferctly well with a single 8800GT, in most cases.

So to me it seems go with:
current setup + single 8800GT
or
do a total upgrade if you have the money to spend.

 

[Marty502]

I know positively that doing a Xfire on my system wouldn't do squat to make it faster.

But then, I play at pretty low resolutions.

What's the excuse for not having a dual core system nowadays, anyway? (Tomorrow I will be able to say I have one too! I'm stoked )

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: Marty502
I know positively that doing a Xfire on my system wouldn't do squat to make it faster.

But then, I play at pretty low resolutions.

What's the excuse for not having a dual core system nowadays, anyway? (Tomorrow I will be able to say I have one too! I'm stoked )

Athlon 64 3000 1.8 Ghz @ 2.45 Ghz, 1.300v
1 GB and 2x512 MB Value RAM. (DDR400, 2.5-3-3-7, No Dual Channel obviously)
DFI Infinity NF4
Sapphire ATi Radeon x1950 Pro 570/1400 @ 660/1620 (who said these don't overclock?)
CoolerMaster Centurion 5
Thermaltake TR2 430W
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB w/ ThermalTake Cyclo Fan
Creative X-Fi XtremeAudio

You'd be CPU and RAM limited, DUH!

 

[Marty502]

I know, buddy. But I just bought a brand new X2 CPU. In 2 days I'll have overclock numbers.

Like somebody already said, it's much better to have a balanced computer. I've been CPU bottlenecked for quite some time, and before that I was GPU bottlenecked to hell and beyond (Radeon x1300... ugh)

Not worth to blow cash if something else is severely lacking. And a single core CPU, well... that's lacking a lot in modern games.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: eTRP

Thanks for the inputs!

You've still failed to list any CPU's or GPU's as requested...
Sorry

 

[chinaman1472]

As with anything in life, going to heavy on one thing and too light on another is rarely a good idea. A computer is no exception. In a race, you need a GOOD car and a GOOD driver. Having a really fast car with a bad driver won't get the job done, nor would putting an excellent driver in a slow car. Balance is key.

 

[0roo0roo]

poll is simplistic.
as said, both need to be balanced or its a waste of money.

 

[Marty502]

Originally posted by: chinaman1472
As with anything in life, going to heavy on one thing and too light on another is rarely a good idea. A computer is no exception. In a race, you need a GOOD car and a GOOD driver. Having a really fast car with a bad driver won't get the job done, nor would putting an excellent driver in a slow car. Balance is key.

I'm loving that example, being the hardcore F1 fan that I am. Wiser words haven't been said on this topic!

 

[bob4432]

who is "we"?