CPU vs Video Card Importance

Lymond01 · Jan 6, 2011

I'm updating my 2006 system which currently has an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ (2.2 GHz, not OC'd) and an EVGA 6800GTS Superclocked card with 2 GB of memory. I recently played Dragon Age and, unless I turned the graphics to low, some of the battles became slideshows. The entire game, in fact, I had to have most settings at best at medium. Left4Dead 2 is the same way -- high model detail, but everything else is set to low for a decent gameplay experience.

So I set to building a new system and the first purchase was an EVGA nVidia GTX460 with 1 GB vram. On a recommendation from a friend, I tossed it into my old system. I loaded up Left4Dead 2, put all settings to max, and realized how frightening the damned zombies are as they stream in and out of the flashlight beam. Then I tried out Dragon Age, again on max graphics. Definitely a big difference there too, and everything ran smooth as silk.

My question then is: how important is the processor in all this? Should I save some money and just keep going with the older single-core processor with a shiny new video card? I recall running some tests with Battle for Middle Earth -- the number of units on the screen and how fast the game played with X number of units was a direct correlation with the speed of the processor. The quality of the graphics was the graphics card. (I had two systems to test with.)

But if my system isn't doing much else than playing a game, and the game is doesn't take advantage of multiple cores anyway, 2.2 GHz isn't a shoddy proc speed. Not saying I want to render video and play Crysis at the same time, but I was pleasantly surprised at how smooth and pretty everything looked on my system with just a new video card.

Thoughts?

Archer0915 · Jan 6, 2011

Honestly only you can answer those question. If it serves the purpose and you are not getting fregged on line then it works fine.

:welcome:

Immortal_Hero · Jan 6, 2011

I'm sure your CPU is restricting your new graphics card. However you will have to decide if removing that restriction plate is worth CPU + MOBO + RAM. Basically what I am saying is that your CPU won't let your GFX card live up to its full potential. The amount of untapped potential depends highly on the game, game's settings and resolution. In this case benchmarks like 3DMark can skew the results significantly. You may see a poor score in benchmarks but be able to play every game fine. It all depends on how and how much the application is using the CPU.

EarthDog · Jan 6, 2011

It depends on the resolution you game at. The lower the res, the more load the CPU has to shoulder.

Caviman2201 · Jan 6, 2011

EarthDog said:
It depends on the resolution you game at. The lower the res, the more load the CPU has to shoulder.

This is true, but it may not matter in most cases. This is true because at lower resolutions and detail, the GPU renders the frame so fast that it ends up spending a lot of time 'waiting' for the CPU to feed it data to render the next frame. Hence, it is 'bottlenecked' or 'CPU-bound' and can't perform to its full potential. At high resolutions/details, the GPU takes longer to render the frame and the CPU is often waiting or keeping up just fine with the GPU.

The key here is, though, that the difference might be between 80fps with a slower CPU and 100fps with a faster CPU -- which while a 20fps difference, is completely undetectable.

So, as most have said, if your system outside of games performs to your satisfaction and you're able to run the games you want at the resolution and detail you want, go ahead and feel free to leave your CPU/MB/RAM config as-is. Keep in mind, though, that outside of games, a modern multi-core, 4GB DDR3 configuration is definitely noticeable in Windows Vista/7.

TomWoolford · Jan 6, 2011

I would say that if it's working for you the way you've got it setup now, then leave it. However; that CPU is limiting the potential of that card and I'm sure your motherboard isn't Pci Express X16 2.0 either, so you're definitely due for an upgrade.

But like I said, If it aint broke, don't fix it.

wingman99 · Jan 6, 2011

I would wait till you need that extra cpu performance then upgrade. :burn:

Lymond01 · Jan 6, 2011

Thanks everyone. Great feedback. Perhaps I'll try out Dragon Age 2 (the whole reason for the upgrade) and see how that goes first.

tool_462 · Jan 12, 2011

Keep in mind that your card is capable of playing those games maxed out at medium to high resolutions, which coupled with that CPU it probably cannot do.

I'm a proponent of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but I'm also a proponent of "if I could be playing at max settings, why aren't I?"

bigben6 · Jan 12, 2011

you could build a dual core system so easily and cheaply, but as stated if your happy with the current performance, why do it? That being said I have to beleive that your cpu and mobo are leaving some performance on the table for that gpu...

wingman99 · Jan 12, 2011

It all depends on the games your playing if there running fine don't let the hype in this form encourage you to waste money, if the games are running fine you won't get a medial for heaving the newest CPU. :burn:

Neebos · Jan 12, 2011

Well just from my experience i had a GTS 450 that had died and it worked great before hand with a X4 9850 cpu. I would get somewhere around 60-90fps in things like L4D2, 40+ in Battlefield BC2. Now it being dead i'm forced to use a Geforce 9400GT i had in a box somewhere, Now my averages went down between 20-25fps, Much as 40 in L4D2.

I dunno if that helps any with your decision.

Kowalski3500 · Jan 14, 2011

Lymond01 said:
I'm updating my 2006 system which currently has an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ (2.2 GHz, not OC'd) and an EVGA 6800GTS Superclocked card with 2 GB of memory. I recently played Dragon Age and, unless I turned the graphics to low, some of the battles became slideshows. The entire game, in fact, I had to have most settings at best at medium. Left4Dead 2 is the same way -- high model detail, but everything else is set to low for a decent gameplay experience.

So I set to building a new system and the first purchase was an EVGA nVidia GTX460 with 1 GB vram. On a recommendation from a friend, I tossed it into my old system. I loaded up Left4Dead 2, put all settings to max, and realized how frightening the damned zombies are as they stream in and out of the flashlight beam. Then I tried out Dragon Age, again on max graphics. Definitely a big difference there too, and everything ran smooth as silk.

My question then is: how important is the processor in all this? Should I save some money and just keep going with the older single-core processor with a shiny new video card? I recall running some tests with Battle for Middle Earth -- the number of units on the screen and how fast the game played with X number of units was a direct correlation with the speed of the processor. The quality of the graphics was the graphics card. (I had two systems to test with.)

But if my system isn't doing much else than playing a game, and the game is doesn't take advantage of multiple cores anyway, 2.2 GHz isn't a shoddy proc speed. Not saying I want to render video and play Crysis at the same time, but I was pleasantly surprised at how smooth and pretty everything looked on my system with just a new video card.

Thoughts?

I hear you. I put an x1950 in a Socket A with a 2310 MHz Barton, over the older 7800GS and still had improvement

I put a GTS 250 in my sig system over a 7900GT and also, big improvement.

I play at 1680x1050 with 2x-8x AA and full AF in all games (all high settings but shadows in most games gets me about 20-40 fps) that I play. Oblivion, EVE, WoW, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Torchlight (although that is smooth on almost anything hehe).

I'm probably gonna get a GTX 560 or a 460 depending on the price, and it'll go in this build, and a new Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer build in about 6-8 months.

However getting a cheap dually for that socket is not a problem. They have some as low as $25 on the classifieds. The CPU is definitely holding back a GPU. Even my dual @ 2.457 could only manage 9334 3dmarks in 06 with the GTS 250. It should be up around 12000.

Edit: Thoughts on processor speed. 2.2 ghz is not a Shoddy processor speed. But it is an older architecture and the instructions per clock aren't nearly as high as the new AMDs, or the new I7s for that matter. Any newer AMD @ 2.2 Ghz in a single threaded app will be faster. That said, why not go for a cheap (and I mean cheap) used dual?

wingman99 · Jan 15, 2011

Kowalski3500 said:
Edit: Thoughts on processor speed. 2.2 ghz is not a Shoddy processor speed. But it is an older architecture and the instructions per clock aren't nearly as high as the new AMDs, or the new I7s for that matter. Any newer AMD @ 2.2 Ghz in a single threaded app will be faster. That said, why not go for a cheap (and I mean cheap) used dual?

Getting a newer used $25 2.2Ghz AMD is a waste of time, the new instructions will not be noticeable. When he has a problem running a application then he should just upgrade correctly.

Kowalski3500 · Jan 15, 2011

wingman99 said:
Getting a newer used $25 2.2Ghz AMD is a waste of time, the new instructions will not be noticeable. When he has a problem running a application then he should just upgrade correctly.

So...instead of doubling his processing power for a very low price...he should bypass this and buy a new computer? I may be naive, but where would $25 be better applied?

wingman99 · Jan 15, 2011

Kowalski3500 said:
So...instead of doubling his processing power for a very low price...he should bypass this and buy a new computer? I may be naive, but where would $25 be better applied?

Pleas show gaming links that double the out put of the $25 AMD CPU from what he has.

Because i don't know where your pulling your numbers from and i don't believe you do either. :shrug:

Kowalski3500 · Jan 16, 2011

wingman99 said:
Pleas show gaming links that double the out put of the $25 AMD CPU from what he has.

Because i don't know where your pulling your numbers from and i don't believe you do either.

I never said double the performance in games. I said double the processing power. Regardless, I did a bit of reading the OP over again and realized that he's already planning on building a new system anyway. So my previous "put a low priced dual in it" comment is moot anyway.

In regards to my earliest post in the thread. I should have been more clear. What I was saying is, the AMDs offered on Socket 939 don't offer nearly as good performance per clock as the new AM2 and especially the newest Phenom IIs, and that a New, am2 or newer, 2.2GHz would be far faster than any 939 could ever hope to be.

My comment about putting a cheap dual in it was because I didn't really realize (read) that he was building a new system anyway.

wingman99 · Jan 17, 2011

Kowalski3500 said:
I never said double the performance in games. I said double the processing power. Regardless, I did a bit of reading the OP over again and realized that he's already planning on building a new system anyway. So my previous "put a low priced dual in it" comment is moot anyway.

In regards to my earliest post in the thread. I should have been more clear. What I was saying is, the AMDs offered on Socket 939 don't offer nearly as good performance per clock as the new AM2 and especially the newest Phenom IIs, and that a New, am2 or newer, 2.2GHz would be far faster than any 939 could ever hope to be.

My comment about putting a cheap dual in it was because I didn't really realize (read) that he was building a new system anyway.

I see your point a dual core will help on dual core games. However he said he mostly plays games that use single core also he is having no problem now with his new video card playing games, he said everything ran smooth as silk. So if it's not broken no need to fix it, that's where i'm coming from. :grouphug:

bigben6 · Jan 17, 2011

wingman99 said:
I see your point a dual core will help on dual core games. However he said he mostly plays games that use single core also he is having no problem now with his new video card playing games, he said everything ran smooth as silk. So if it's not broken no need to fix it, that's where i'm coming from.

Dual core will still improve performance though, regardless, he is gonna see some speed, cause now W will run on one core leaving the other to do the game all alone... its his call, your on a computer forum, of course we are gonna look for some way to make it better/faster/stronger...

Archer0915 · Jan 17, 2011

Caviman2201 said:
The key here is, though, that the difference might be between 80fps with a slower CPU and 100fps with a faster CPU -- which while a 20fps difference, is completely undetectable.

Playing at smooth frame rates is not enough for online shooters. 80FPS will not give you the movement that 120FPS will.

CPU vs Video Card Importance

New Member

"The Expert"

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Registered

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Registered

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

"The Expert"

Similar threads