slick2500 Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Sure this article is a little outdated but saying that the cpu don't matter much for gaming is a load of BULL!also look at the last System builders marathon on toms. if that is not a bottleneck i don't know what is! Better gpus yet much lower performanceStop recommending people to buy bulldozer if you are not telling them the whole story!Edit: Sorry for sounding like a 12 year old fanboi but bulldozer will introduce a bottleneck in a gaming pc... Anyone else find the Metro 2033 test odd? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjloki Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I am planning to put together a pc from scratch but i need to know what processor is most recmended for hardcore gaming a free one ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sword_fish Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 my former setup; pentium D 820 2.8 ghz, Asus p5rd1-vm mobo, 9800gt 512mb, 2GB DDR400 combo. the 9800gt replaced a dead 7300gs btw and i thought i will be that happy with the 9800gt..... not at all, there were hangs,freeze and crawling with my games still. and later i got this i7 920 built, plugged that old 9800gt..... that was night and day! much more with my GTX560-Ti now, happy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjj226_Angel Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Any reasonably recent quad core is more than enough for ANY gaming. That is not necessarily true. I mean yes it will do the job, but there will be some frames lost and gained here and there. You can go look at any bench mark and see that, it isn't a secret. All I was saying is that if anyone saw any type of bottle necking, it would be confused for the CPU not performing as well as it should be in SOME games. Most games the CPU really does very little and the GPU just chugs away, but start looking at games like crysis 2 and the benchmarks for it, and you can see some frame rate improvement with a faster quad core CPU than just any quad core CPU. I am not going to argue what is better because I know my words will be taken way out of context, so I am just going to stick with the benchmark numbers and say that not all CPUs are made alike, and some games can really suffer if you cheap out on the CPU. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 That is not necessarily true. I mean yes it will do the job, but there will be some frames lost and gained here and there. You can go look at any bench mark and see that, it isn't a secret. All I was saying is that if anyone saw any type of bottle necking, it would be confused for the CPU not performing as well as it should be in SOME games. Most games the CPU really does very little and the GPU just chugs away, but start looking at games like crysis 2 and the benchmarks for it, and you can see some frame rate improvement with a faster quad core CPU than just any quad core CPU. I am not going to argue what is better because I know my words will be taken way out of context, so I am just going to stick with the benchmark numbers and say that not all CPUs are made alike, and some games can really suffer if you cheap out on the CPU. Suffer is a funny word when talking about essentially unnoticeable differences. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Sure this article is a little outdated but saying that the cpu don't matter much for gaming is a load of BULL! also look at the last System builders marathon on toms. if that is not a bottleneck i don't know what is! Better gpus yet much lower performance Stop recommending people to buy bulldozer if you are not telling them the whole story! Edit: Sorry for sounding like a 12 year old fanboi but bulldozer will introduce a bottleneck in a gaming pc... Much lower? You're reading the charts backwards. The only "slow" test is Metro 2033 and that's because nvidia pretty much owns in that game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
medbor Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Much lower? You're reading the charts backwards. The only "slow" test is Metro 2033 and that's because nvidia pretty much owns in that game. Nope. If you look at any resolution except 2560x1600, or any of the non gaming tests it is behind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Nope. If you look at any resolution except 2560x1600, or any of the non gaming tests it is behind. Ah, I was reading it wrong (I was on my phone). Regardless, at 1920x1080 and higher, it's never behind by much...certainly not enough that you'd ever see the difference at high quality levels. Who really cares about performance that is clearly CPU-bound at well over 100 FPS (with the lone exception being Crysis)? The whole point is that no matter what CPU you have - if it's pretty much any quad core you're going to be just fine playing essentially any game. Sure, you'll lose a bit of performance in CPU-constrained games...but who cares when the performance is "good enough"? Without an FPS meter you'd never notice the differences in real use - especially since the AMD-based system doesn't slow down much when going from "low" detail levels to "high" detail levels. I'd have put a LOT more stock in that review if it had compared the same cards with the same GPUs. Who knows what kind of Crossfire scaling versus SLI scaling influence we were seeing there. I'm not saying anyone should go out and buy a BD-based CPU - but if they already have one - there's no real reason to "upgrade". Edited January 19, 2012 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
medbor Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Ah, I was reading it wrong (I was on my phone). Regardless, at 1920x1080 and higher, it's never behind by much...certainly not enough that you'd ever see the difference at high quality levels. Who really cares about performance that is clearly CPU-bound at well over 100 FPS (with the lone exception being Crysis)? The whole point is that no matter what CPU you have - if it's pretty much any quad core you're going to be just fine playing essentially any game. Sure, you'll lose a bit of performance in CPU-constrained games...but who cares when the performance is "good enough"? Without an FPS meter you'd never notice the differences in real use - especially since the AMD-based system doesn't slow down much when going from "low" detail levels to "high" detail levels. I'd have put a LOT more stock in that review if it had compared the same cards with the same GPUs. Who knows what kind of Crossfire scaling versus SLI scaling influence we were seeing there. I'm not saying anyone should go out and buy a BD-based CPU - but if they already have one - there's no real reason to "upgrade". I agree! But if it was BF3 on ultra i think the extra fps would be beneficial, so becaue of the cpu you would have to skimp on the graphical detail. It's jsut funny to realize that you "upgraded" from BD to SB Edit: The review actually compares a 1200$ system with BD to a 1000$ SB system, the 20% extra should crush the performance straight through but no... sure we are comparing both intel to amd and amd to nvidia, but still performance wise bd is after. and the OP actually wants to buy a processor new, not asking if he should upgrade from bulldozer (that i would not recommend, since it is capable enough) Edited January 19, 2012 by medbor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 I didn't upgrade from BD...I sent my BD back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now