Jump to content

"Processor speed doesn't matter for gaming"


Recommended Posts

Isn't Crysis being bottlenecked by the GPU?

 

That's what I was thinking. Crisis usually works the gpu a lot more then the cpu.

 

I think your results as interesting but I think you should test more games before you can come to a conclusion.

 

All games are different some tax the gpu a lot while others go for the cpu. Just look at supreme commander you don't need the best graphics card in the world to run everything on high however if you don't have a good cpu your games will lag (especially if you fight on big maps against many players.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's what I was thinking. Crisis usually works the gpu a lot more then the cpu.

 

I think your results as interesting but I think you should test more games before you can come to a conclusion.

 

All games are different some tax the gpu a lot while others go for the cpu. Just look at supreme commander you don't need the best graphics card in the world to run everything on high however if you don't have a good cpu your games will lag (especially if you fight on big maps against many players.).

I never actually came to a conclusion (if i did it was only relevant to crysis) the title of the article is in reference to what I hear people say, hence the quotes, I had planned on doing some other games today but I don't have time since I'm working on an art project. Feel free to do Supreme commander yourself and post the results, I can't cause I don't have it :D, I'd love to see the results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any game that's GPU bound will rely very little on CPU speed. Games that are CPU bound (like the Source engine or SupCom) will benefit dramatically from faster CPU speeds.

 

In general most games these days are GPU bound though...which is why it's rare that you actually need a fast CPU for a game (except for a few).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very neat endeavor you're taking on but will need a vast amount of games to definitively prove things one way or the other. Of course there will be some exceptions. With the term "bottlenecking" thrown around so much maybe it will change some perceptions, maybe not. It could potentially show those contemplating a new gaming build within a restricted budget where they should prioritize their components. Many already know this of course but it could help cement the fact. It may save some people a lot of money(where's IVI?) and extend the usefullness of a lot of sytems who could get by with a new GPU rather than a completely new build or a large upgrade overhaul. Of course that doesn't future-proof anything but with hardware nothing is future-proof at the rate it advances.

 

My opinion is that this is a great thread with incredible informative potential. Really serves the gaming and self-building community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see the opening post of this thread?

 

So I'm procrastinating a project and someone said something like "processor speed doesn't matter, which I tend to agree with, so I did a couple of benchmarks in crysis at various processor speeds.

 

Test methodology: Okay so I ran HOC crysis benchmark at 3 different speeds on all very high settings (no filtering) at 1440x900 (my monitor's max resolution till I can get me that 24" ultrasharp) and I would look at the average fps of the first two runs (I couldn't get it to put benchmark results into the folder so this is all I could figure out since I wanted this done by 10PM).

 

Here are the results.

27.31fps 2-cores HT disabled at 1446Mhz (125 bclk, 12 multiplier) turbo mode off

33.74fps 2-cores HT disabled at 3.4Ghz (170 bclk) 3.57Ghz turbo mode on

34.34fps 4-cores HT disabled at 4009Mhz (200 bclk) turbo mode off

graphvb.jpg

(note: awesome government graph maker)

 

I've been using my comp at 1446Mhz since I about a couple hours ago, and you wouldn't even know it was going this 'slow' then again everything else on it is fairly fast. I think that the fact that at 1446Mhz it is still within (almost) 7 seconds is pretty good, and I'd say as far as crysis is concerned get a dual core (do they even make ones slower that 2.5Ghz now?) and a good video card and play to your hearts content... though crysis kinda sucks.

 

So I think it is safe to say that this could play most any game at 1446Mhz that isn't totally CPU bound. I didn't really prove anything, and this is pretty narrow, but maybe I've intrigued someone who will do more with the subject matter. Feel free to add on to this, and sorry I don't have much to say, I'm not much of a articler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like crysis ...?

CPU Speed does not count for squat if you are GPU bound! GPU. Most of you playing Crysis are GPU bound if you use any eye candy. Play at 1920 high settings 2xAA and vary your CPU speed and show me results. Showing results with weak settings does not a point prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you are not GPU limited you will see an improvement. At lower resolutions you will see that improvement with less than mid range settings

Indeed.

 

It all depends on your graphics card and the game/settings used. On my system going from 3ghz to 4ghz is a huge improvement in things like high res crysis, even though technically any system is GPU bound on crysis still. Overclocking the GPU gives a big improvement as well though.

 

On the other hand, if I was playing UT3, which is coded much more efficiently and is primarily CPU bound, then overclocking the CPU would be a much larger difference then overclocking the GPU. I could underclock my GPU and still run at the same speed since it is CPU bound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...