Excellent article on CPU scaling on 8800GT

T

trinibwoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
2,090
There has been the expected torrent of threads asking whether upgrading to an 8800GT requires a faster CPU. Well here's an article that can provide much of the answer. I learned a long time ago that the CPU is irrelevant at the video settings I game at and this seems to be the case still. If you like to work out your video card you can get by with a good graphics card and a cheapo dual-core.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page5.asp
 
yeah ive always known the same thing i always laugh when i see people telling others to get a new mb/ram/cpu when all they need is a new vid card.
If you have a 4400+ or higher and game at high resolutions it makes no difference wht cpu you have, crysis shows this and almost every other game.
 
it very much depends on the game. Oblivion and Bioshock are two different beasts. Most people these days have some sort of dual core processor, whether it be a core 2 duo or an AMD x2, which is all you need in most games, excluding oblivion which is about the most CPU intense game I believe.
 
Unfortunately there will still always be that ignorant crowd that claims GPU's are bottlenecked by anything less than an overclocked core 2.

I have been trying to tell people for some time that its bullshit but some just will not listen.

Even with a slow processor at high resolution your looking at a tiny difference in FPS anyway with a good GPU with the exception of the obvious CPU hogs (Source engine, Oblivion etc.) and even then its not bottlenecking like some would claim.

Personally back when i went from a 3000+ with 2GB and a 7800GS to a core 2 e6420 with the same ram and video card on an asrock board i noticed very little difference outside of the known CPU hogs at 1600x1200.

It really gets annoying when you see threads of people asking about 8800's and a 939 setup and all you see is responses like "it wont be worth it buy a core 2 first" people need to get a clue...
 
stockwiz said:
it very much depends on the game. Oblivion and Bioshock are two different beasts. Most people these days have some sort of dual core processor, whether it be a core 2 duo or an AMD x2, which is all you need in most games, excluding oblivion which is about the most CPU intense game I believe.
Click to expand...

Most CPU intense game would easily be FSX.
 
pfunkman said:
Unfortunately there will still always be that ignorant crowd that claims GPU's are bottlenecked by anything less than an overclocked core 2.

I have been trying to tell people for some time that its bullshit but some just will not listen.

Even with a slow processor at high resolution your looking at a tiny difference in FPS anyway with a good GPU with the exception of the obvious CPU hogs (Source engine, Oblivion etc.) and even then its not bottlenecking like some would claim.

Personally back when i went from a 3000+ with 2GB and a 7800GS to a core 2 e6420 with the same ram and video card on an asrock board i noticed very little difference outside of the known CPU hogs at 1600x1200.

It really gets annoying when you see threads of people asking about 8800's and a 939 setup and all you see is responses like "it wont be worth it buy a core 2 first" people need to get a clue...
Click to expand...


Well stated. and the STEAM forums are littered with such nonsense rampantly. Tons of noobs there spout such crap about needing to upgrade to quad core regularly when users arleady have ok dual cores. It's absolute nonsense.
 
I agreee....my 3ghz opty 165 is very capable to keep up with the core 2 in games but if you are a benchmarker then things like 3dmark 2006 suffer a lot. My next rig is gonna be a quad anyway so I can benchmark again plus have faster video editing. :)
 
Eh, the people who say, "you need a core 2" or "you're gonna need a quad core..." are just wanting to boost about themselves having one.

By the time all mainstream users settle into dual cores, hardcore gamers are gonna need the new dual motherboards to support their 2 x 2 x 16core cpu.

Otherwise, the game won't play.
 
I agree that you get minimal FPS increase at higher resolution with current games and a slower CPU hence why I still use an overclocked 4200+ x2.

However, if using DX10, future games are likely to make heavy use of the CPU for physics calculations.
I wouldnt worry too much about this until the time arrives.
Prices of low end quad cores are pretty damn cheap though so its worth looking at getting a good clocking quad if buying new.
 
I wouldn't say people are bragging about having a core 2... they are so cheap now anybody can build one, and I would say there is an advantage, not to having a quad core, but a simple core 2 duo and overclocking it.. having a minimum FPS of 54 (a core 2 duo can easily clock to 3.0GHZ) compared to 30 is quite a jump and worth the money. I agree that quad cores are not necessary, though.

Your old athlons and low clocked x2's might be good for now, but a year from now you're probably going to need something more. The video card is most important, yes, but all systems become outdated eventually.
 
Pretty simple really, lower your rez and speed goes up = no cpu bottleneck ,lower your rez and it stays the same you have yourself a bottle neck, pretty easy.
 
exactly the only time CPU will matter is using 1280x1024 and below. there is a review floating around the net somewhere where the brand new intel qx9850 or whatever its called, and the exact same thing happens. once you go 16x10 4xaa cpu is almost irrelevant.
 
I am cpu limited on TF2. I could play at 640x480 with all low settings and still get the same FPS (20-60) that I do at 1440x900 with mid and high settings. It also seems to vary a lot with the intensity of fight scenes.

Then again I am still on a P4 [email protected] with a 7800 GS.

Anyway, the Q6600 + 8800GT SSC should take care of any such problems :D
 
Like most rules, there are exceptions. One game that I like these days, DiRT, is very CPU intensive. I had the same 8800 Ultra card in my sig rig in a Socket 939 Athlon X2 4800+, both running Vista 32bit with 2GB and the same set of background services. The sig rig is much faster at every resolution then the Athlon system.
 
so for us that game on 1280x1024 will we see an increase on minimum FPS then?
I'm have a E6600 @ stock and fps on TF2 can dip to the 20s when intense, OCing to say, 3.0ghz will yeild noticable differences?
 
I believe this is because the current bottleneck is the GPU. We will see real differences when the next gen cards come out, if ever.
 
stockwiz said:
Your old athlons and low clocked x2's might be good for now, but a year from now you're probably going to need something more. The video card is most important, yes, but all systems become outdated eventually.
Click to expand...

Yep you're right. But with the rapid advancement of computer tech there's a very low ROI in buying for the future. I think this X2 I'm on has a few more months in it. Was planning to hold out till Nehalem but I don't know if I'll make it to Q4 2008 on this setup.
 
Yeah I alway's have said if you have a Core 2 Duo 6300 or higher you will not se much of a gain at all..
 
I know about 7 people that are PC enthusiasts. Zero of them, including myself, game at anything above 1600x1200. Most are still at 1440x900. This is why I love [H] reviews, because they don't assume everyone is gaming on a 30" Dell. Case in point, a friend of mine upgraded from a 3700+ to an E6400 and his gaming experience increased substantially, and he's on a 22" LCD. Its good to have a decent CPU to go along with you GPU, so when games come out that are in fact CPU dependent, and simply aren't able to be played at higher resolutions, you have an extra bit of performance ready.
 
Dethred said:
I know about 7 people that are PC enthusiasts. Zero of them, including myself, game at anything above 1600x1200. Most are still at 1440x900. This is why I love [H] reviews, because they don't assume everyone is gaming on a 30" Dell. Case in point, a friend of mine upgraded from a 3700+ to an E6400 and his gaming experience increased substantially, and he's on a 22" LCD. Its good to have a decent CPU to go along with you GPU, so when games come out that are in fact CPU dependent, and simply aren't able to be played at higher resolutions, you have an extra bit of performance ready.
Click to expand...

A 3700+ is too slow for todays games so its not surprising he saw an improvement lol.
 
Dethred said:
Case in point, a friend of mine upgraded from a 3700+ to an E6400 and his gaming experience increased substantially, and he's on a 22" LCD.
Click to expand...

Well the 3700+ is an ancient single core CPU and the clock isn't that high. The point is that you don't need the core2extreme's and super-overclocked quad cores to max out most GPU's. As long as your CPU gives you a baseline FPS higher than what you require for comfortable gaming anything faster doesn't contribute anything. Actually what your friend did is kinda what we're talking about here - upgrading his CPU when it actually makes a difference which it certainly did for him in this case. But if he were to upgrade from that E6400 to a QX6600 or something he probably won't notice a bit of difference.
 
trinibwoy said:
Well the 3700+ is an ancient single core CPU and the clock isn't that high. The point is that you don't need the core2extreme's and super-overclocked quad cores to max out most GPU's. As long as your CPU gives you a baseline FPS higher than what you require for comfortable gaming anything faster doesn't contribute anything. Actually what your friend did is kinda what we're talking about here - upgrading his CPU when it actually makes a difference which it certainly did for him in this case. But if he were to upgrade from that E6400 to a QX6600 or something he probably won't notice a bit of difference.
Click to expand...

QFT, I just upgraded fm a 3000+ to E6750 and got a major performance increase.
 
this isnt a thread to argue over anything its just stating that if you have a decent dual core cpu ie-4400+ or higher you don't need to rush out and buy a new cpu if you game at high rezzes thats it.
Will you see gains at lower rezzes....yup, this is more a thread aimed at the idiots who tell people to buy new quad cores when people already have good duallies and who could benefit from getting a new graphics card more. Balance is always important and having a shitty card or a shiitty cpu is never gonna cut it, either way you need a good cpu to drive 8800gtx's and above but you don't need anything over 4400+ if you game at any kind of high rez...well not yet anyway.
And were not talking sli either thats a whole new ballgame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top