CPU importance in gaming?

When comparing various laptop cpu's (namely various clocked core duo and core 2 duos) how much of an impact is there?

Reason I ask is this: I am looking at some E1705 machines and noticed that the machine comes configured with a 1.73ghz 533mhz FSB Core 1 Duo. 64bit compatability aside, how much of an impact would there be on STRICTLY GAMING in comparison with something like the 2.0ghz 667mhz FSB Core 2 Duo? My thoughts were maybe buy the system with the cheapest 1.73ghz cpu and upgrade later to a Merom myself.

Will the 7900 GS be going to waste on the 1.73ghz cpu with slower frontside bus?

 

Probably not too much performance impact, though I do recommend getting Merom now if you are sure you are going to upgrade later/ getting Vista when it comes out. The whole shaboozle with core 2 duo mobile line will not have a great impact on gaming.

Only with desktops is that different. The Core 2 Duo extreme edition, when overclocked, improved FPS in Doom 3 by two times! It's from some magazine, forgot which one, might eventually get back on that.

Gaming should not be the focus of the new processor, it should be Vista. I highly recommend getting Vista now, though!

Oh, and no, your 7900 gs will perform great either way!

 

Cool. Yea, I know 64bit is a good idea with Vista around the corner... but the ability to drop a Core 2 Duo in the system later when I actually need it sounds appealing to me. Vista still runs on 32bit systems with 99.9% of its featureset. With Vista64 just around the corner, you would think hardware/peripheral manufacters would get on the ball with 64bit drivers. Totally not the case. I'd imagine for atleast a few months after Vista64 hits, there will be hardware makers still lagging behind with 64bit drivers.

I do appreciate the advice about gaming. I really wish there were more benchmarks done on gaming style laptops like this. I suppose they are so rare and such a niche market that there isn't money on reviewing/comparing tho.

I am so tempted to opt for the UXGA 1920x1200 screen, but it scares me to think how certain games would perform at that resolution.

 

Games will scale alright, especially now that drivers will allow you to scale without screwing up the aspect ratio (not nearly as bad as the stretching used to be on a widescreen). I'd say go for the higher res since it'll be much nicer on the desktop like that.

 

Oblivion or F.E.A.R. would run.. actually they might run pretty good.. but that's a lot of pixels, so I think you could go for the lower res and get GREAT performance and just use that saved money for the Core 2 Duo. But at that res, games have to be beautiful.. I just don't know how they'll perform.

Counter Strike Source, a pretty demanding game on certain levels, runs at about 30fps with high settings at 1680x1050 on a 7600.. so... I dunno truthfully.

 

According to the WinSuperSite, which is actually an excellent resource for all things Windows, apparently Vista still bites the big one in 64-bit mode, just as bad as XP Pro x64 does.

I wouldn't worry about 64-bit. The way Microsoft can't seem to get their act together with it leads me to conclude it's not going to be relevant for quite a while.

 

High end games are usually cpu-bound, so for powerful gaming systems, the CPU typically ends up being the main bottleneck, and so, for those systems, get th ebest CPU you can.

For midrange or low-end systems, the CPU is much less important, as you're usually held back by the graphics card more than anything else.

About 64-bit, the problem isn't really Microsoft, it's the hardware vendors who are too lazy to write 64-bit drivers for their hardware.

 

It's been said that the Core 2 Duo offers no improvement in gaming over Core Duo. It shines in number-crunching and floating-point calculations and that sort of work.

I think it will be a long time before 64-bit applications start becoming the norm. The average user takes a long time to adopt a new format, and I don't expect 64-bit OS and applications to be any different. The 64-bit applications will be there, they just won't replace 32-bit for a long time to come.

Oh yeah, FPS gaming at 1920x1200 is awesome. It opens up so much of the surrounding environment that you wouldn't be able to see at lower resolutions.

 

The cpu is most important at low graphics. At high settings the gpu is more important.

 

The GPU offloads all of the massive 3D calculations from the CPU. The CPU's job is to maintain the application. This includes all of the I/O and networking.

 

Ummm... what? As far as I know, the camera is just gonna show whatever it shows. That has less to do with resolution and more to do with screen size. Sure, on the desktop things are gonna seem smaller. But say if you put a movie in, the people aren't gonna be smaller just because you have a higher resolution. The same is true for games.

I would recommend going for the WXGA+ screen. While it may not look as nice as the WUXGA, especially considering it's matte, it's still pretty decent. And the lower resolution allows you to run at native res, turn of AA, and crank up the settings to max. I play F.E.A.R. at 1440x900 (native) with all settings at max and Soft Shadows on, and get consistenly over 25fps, usually above 35-40. People with the WUXGA can only do that at 1920x1200 with the 2500M or the 7900GTX. Just something to think about.

 

Yes, I got two games that run great at 1920x1200, Doom 2 and HL2 The rest of my games choke, ie. Oblivion, at 1920x1200! So I have to run at a fuzzy non native REZ.

I wish I had a glossy 1440x900....

 

Well, the main game I plan on fireing up on UXGA would be World of Warcraft and possibly Battlefield 2. I am so back and forth between the two resolutions. I am dead set on everything else on the E1705 .. and it's just come down to the display. 1440x900 vs. 1920x1200.

Every stat is better on the UXGA which is obnoxious because I will get better performance @ 1440x900 .... and the glossy screen DOES make colors look better.



*thanks to hazel_motes and his e1405 review for the picture comparing non-truelife e1705 (left) vs. truelife e1405 (right)


Oh, and I believe chrisyano meant that with higher resolution, more subtle details in the distance are drawn more accurately, not that the cameras field of view changes. Edges are more crisp and detailed at high res.

 

The CPU only matters to an extent - gaming with a low-end Celeron or Sempron isn't ideal, although you certainly can. It is best to make the system balanced. A good example of an unbalanced system is the AMD Turion-equipped SLI notebooks. The GPU is no longer a bottleneck with dual Go7900-series cards, and the CPU comes into play - the Turion doesn't allow them to reach their potential. As a matter of fact, a laptop isn't a practical SLI machine at all, best off getting a desktop if you are interested in that sort of performance.
/rant

Don't shell out more than you have to for a CPU. A Core Duo & C2D are fantastic gaming CPUs (there is really no difference in performance between them with regards to gaming), just don't shell out money for the 2.16 and 2.33GHz versions.

 

Thanks Chaz you've put me at ease now.

I finally made up my mind and went with the 1.73ghz Core Duo along with the 1440x900 WXGA+ screen. I figured it's going to make my system last longer being able to game natively at the lower resolution. I'll be sure to take plenty of pictures and what not when it gets here. I am no journalist but I'll deffinatly let you guys know how I feel about it!

 

Yes, but with a high-end GPU, suitable SLI'ed and everything, the bottleneck is typically moved back to the CPU.

But that only applies if you have a *really* high end GPU, or more of them. Once you get that high, the CPU starts becoming a noticeable bottleneck again.

 

I'm curious where you're getting this 1.73GHz Core Duo. I only know of 1.66, 1.83, 2.0, 2.13 and 2.33GHz Core Duo's. You should be fine with your decision, digitaltrav

 

It's a budget core duo with a cut back front side bus. 1.73ghz, 533mhz fsb. There's also a 1.60ghz 533mhz fsb core duo. The 1.73ghz core duo places between the 1.60ghz and 1.66ghz cpu in terms of performance in most tests. I would have rather gotten the 1.66ghz core duo but unfortunately, Dell isn't offering it as a current option on the E1705. They're likely using people like me to unload all of their extra cpu's so they can replace their entire product like with dual core, Core 2 Duo chips.

Like I said, I am saving a little money here and if I find it to be insufficient, there is always the ability to upgrade to a merom when they drop in price a bit.

 

Ahhh. A little on the slower side, but it should be a plenty quick laptop nontheless, especially since it's dual-core. That will make a lot of difference in your day-to-day usage, everything will just seem more fluid and responsive than on a single-core machine. I'd call it good Mine's kinda jazzed out because I get a new one every 3 years or so, so I figured I want to keep it so it'll be nice still in 3 years.

 

Yea, I think it will be plenty of CPU for a 7900 GS .. if I went with a 7900 GTX I think I would have gotten something a little faster on the cpu side, but if all else fails, a Core 2 Duo won't be that expensive down the road. Right now they're a bit over priced and delaying shipements of laptops. $225 for an "upgrade" seemed like a bit much considering it -IS- a notebook computer.

 

digitaltrav, we really do think alike