CPU vs GPU

Ok so I've seen a number of threads around here that say the CPU speed isn't all that important for gaming as long as you have a decent GPU.

So can anyone explain to me then why some of the more recent games have a recommended CPU speed of 3ghz+?

I think CoH OF was one but I can't recall exactly which ones I've seen now but I have seen games that have this recommendation. If the CPU speed isn't so important and the GPU is more of a factor then why do games state they need such recommended specs?

 

Both are very important, as well as the drivers. You should be safe above the 2.4 C2D make with atleast 256mb card. There is a huge difference between my Dell P4 at 2 and the other, exactly the same at 2.6. I usually play CS, which is not very demanding, but surprisingly you can tell differences in sample, ie lag, jitter, responsiveness. Besides, you really wont find that many crapy cpu's wtih nicer gpus. Well there is my uninformed 2 frames...

 

When reading the CPU requierement, you have to read both the speed and the model. I am quite sure that 3GHz+ you read actually is a "3GHz+ P4 ". The Core 2 Duo processor perform better at the same spped than the P4.

Now, in today's market the GPU is far more important, since even a 'mid-level' CPU (say C2D 1.66GHz) is plenty for most of today games.

 

The CPU recommendations on games boxes are very misleading. Remember that processor power currently is not only determined by processor frequency. A 1.5Ghz Core2 will totally destroy a 4Ghz OC Pentium 4 Prescott.

 

As far as I know, the Supreme Commander and FC (not sure about Crysis) are the most CPU intensive games today. But generally looking, GPU is more important in today's gaming industry, but also the fact is, like gengerald said, that you can't find strong graphics without at least Dual Core processor inside these days.

 

Hmm ok so would a C2D 1.83ghz CPU coupled with an Nvidia 8400M GT 256MB GPU run GTR 2/Oblivion/Company of Heroes and many resource heavy games better than a AMD Turion 2ghz CPU coupled with an Nvidia Geforce GO 6100 GPU?

I'm still looking at upgrading and I'm just a bit concerned that whilst I can get the 8400M or 8600M I may be let down by the CPU, especially if it's less than 2.2ghz which my AMD Turion is currently - albeit single core. Would I be right in saying that the CPU would run at 2x 1.83ghz, but only if the games/apps support dual cores?

 

Even at C2D 1.83GHz the bottleneck is the GPU (for any of the 8800 series you would need like a C2D 2.2GHz to match it properly). From the two comfigurations the 1st will beat the second in everything. If you can get the 1.83GHz with an 8600m-GT, it is worthy.

 

Dedicated GPU > IGP

That's about 99.9% of the time or comparing current technology.

By the way, I thought CoH was more CPU demanding than GPU? Sorry I don't play it, just heard it played well with a hefty processor.

 

OK..a 1.66ghz C2D is plenty for ALL games...get the least available and OC or upgrade for much cheaper..CPU means VERY very little in gaming...and by very little I mean 1-2 frames per second little....dont let 3dmark blind you as it is cpu constrained but a certain degree, Unless you play exclusive RTS ( and the differenc between a quad core and a c2d t7250 is less than 3 fps) dont fall into the marketing trap!

 

There have been tests and the difference between a 1.66 and 2.2 are pretty much marginal in terms of fps , except in RTS type games.
Take the Gateway FX, weak CPU, strong gpu=strong performance

 

Two reasons.
First, when they say 3GHz, they mean "A Pentium 4 3GHz", which translates into something like a 1.5GHz Core 2.

Second, because games vary. Some may require a heftier CPU than others. But generally, the GPU tends to be more important.

 

Generally agree that the GPU is the most important component, but it's more than just RTSs that demand a good CPU. Turn/Phase based games (like Civ 4 and POA-2) as well as flight-sims (FSX comes to mind) will crawl on slow CPU systems, no matter what GPU you have.

 

Ok, so as long as I get a better GPU and my CPU is a C2D of at least 1.66 ghz I can safely assume that Oblivion and GTR 2 will run much better than on my current rig.

Good to know becuase Oblivion only runs in lowest settings and GTR 2 runs in medium-low settings and I kind of want both running better. I'm going to get an Acer Aspire 7720G with a 1.83ghz C2D CPU, an Nvidia 8400M GT CPU and 2gb of RAM (probably 4 on the boards if I can switch my RAM over from my current Acer Aspire 9302).

I guess I understand now why some games require more of a CPU and from what I've been reading I don't think there's anyway around that apart from buying a desktop. Just lucky I only want to get Oblivion and GTR 2 running better, all the other games I have/play run ok on my current Acer Aspire 9302.

Thanks for the advice guys

 

If possible aim for a 8600M, it will give you more flexibility when you upgrade games.

 

Yeah I would but I don't like spending £700/$1400+ which seems to be the going rate here in the UK for a laptop with a 8600M GS or GT.

The laptop I mentioned is only £580/$1700ish. And I can get it at the end of the month, by the time I want to upgrade any games it'll be time to buy a new pc anyway...

Thanks for the tip though

*goes off to search for an 8600M based laptop for less than £700*

 

@raven - check offers on compal resellers (ifl90/92 model range) with fairly high opinions' score in the compal subforums...

 

raven - an 8400 will only let you run those games at minumum settings, I highly recommend that you look for a more powerful GPU. (8600 class). a 1.6-1.8ghz c2d is fine.

the problem with going to a 8600 or 8800 is weight/size or price.

try taking a look at the LG p300

 

I am confused but of these 4 ,which one is the most powerful for graphic work and gaming.

1 T7500+ NV8400GS.
2 T8300+ ATI HD2400.
3 T7300+ ATI HD2600.
4 T7500+ ATI HD2400XT.


I currently have T7250 and T8300 at my work and dont see any speed differnce unless I am using Adobe CS3 RAW convertor.

 

I vote for number 2, you need a quick clock over cache, but I am not sure about that ATI card as I have no experience with em.

 

I'd say go with #3, it's easier to upgrade your CPU later than to do anything with the VPU.

That #3 combo just so happens to be what I'm running now, and it does a pretty good job, althoguh I'm looking at upgrading the CPU soon (or replacing the entire laptop when Montevina comes) as it's feeling slow in video editing. To the OP, the difference in CPUs for photoshop is slight, it's there, but hard to notice because its still small time differences we're talking about. It's more noticeable in heavier workloads like video transitions/rendering and pro 3D apps.

For most games it's more than enough, but still limited on the GPU end for gaming, but all of the above would be more than enough for your work.

I say #3, is the best fit and allows for an upgrade option. But maybe I am biased.

 

i have basically te same setup to #1

this wont be good for the latest games coming out on the market, probably the most graphically taxing game that I can run is World in Conflict.

Easily runs BF2, M2TW, AA, CoH etc

 

Thanks alot , I think I will get the no3 combo and the Montevina comes out here get it too.

This means I think I will have to get a 15.4 since NV8600GT or ATIHD2600 is not available for a 14.1 or smaller.

 

Oh really? if you can play BF2 on that set up , I dont need a bigger one with more powerful GPU.

Since the no1 set up is the cheapest here.

Thanks for your input.

 

gengerald , thanks for your input , I read 3 very contradicting articles on the GPU, so I dont know if it is a good card(HD2400).

 

Ya, you may want to see about going with Nvid instead. A quick penryn and 8x series would be mighty nice.

 

Thank you , I think I will get the one running cooler at a shop.

 

Umm so if the 8400 will only allow me to run them on min settings, how come I'm running them on practically that with an IGP (Geforce GO 6100) at the moment.

And the problem, a big problem for me is the price and the size.

I'm looking for a replacement for a 17" notebook, I don't want anything less because I like having the full keyboard + number pad and a 15" screen just seems too small to me.

Then theres the price - to get a decent 17" notebook I have to spend around £600, this increases the more I look for a better GPU. And I can only find 8400's in the 17" Acers and anything made by someone else which does have the 8600 GPU is just way too expensive for the spec imo. Either that or the cheap ones all have Intel GMA's which are worse than the Nvidia GeForce GO 6100 I currently have judging by the GPU list here :shudders:

 

That is because you have things such as HDR disabled. If you enabled that one setting, your game won't run at all regardless of how low you tweak all other settings. On a 8400, you will be able to turn on HDR, set your resolution to native, set all your other settings to medium(ish), and still be able to push a solid 30fps. HDR makes a lot of difference to the looks in games, so although you might be thinking you're running games such as Oblivion in medium settings, you are not.

And speaking of a budget of £600, you can get something like this, which is slightly better speced than a 8400m GT and will be much better built than any Acer laptop:
http://asuslaptop.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=Asus_laptop_F3SG-AP015C

 

You guys have obviousely not played UT3.That game runs the CPUs(dual or quad) at close to 100% at almost all times. My 2.2 barely cuts it.

 

How about CS: Source? On a 40 player server my fps barely averages at around 40, while the stress test gets me 110fps average with all settings maxed. I've got a T8300 processor and it's barely runs better than my 4 year old AMD 1.8 ghz.

 

Sorry you're wrong.

True clock for clock Core is faster but not that much, especially since most games don't that much advantage from two cores.

 

Ok now your confusing me - what's HDR and what settings would I actually be running Oblivion in on a 8400 card with HDR enabled?

And thanks for the link, shame it's a 15.4" though. Not really worth it though seeing as that Asus is £635.67 Inc. Tax and I can get an Acer for £600 which is 17" with a similar GPU... (My Acer has lasted a year and isn't dead yet and I've hammered it... So I'm confident of going with another Acer, just about anyway)

 

HDR is a new lighting technique which was first supported by the Geforce 6600 GPU. It creates much more realistic scenes than previous lighting models.
A 8400m GT should be able to run Oblivion at 1280x800 with HDR enabled but AA/AF disabled with everything else medium at about 30 fps, if you have a fast CPU and at least 2GB of RAM.

 

Oh I see. Well at least it'll be better than it is currently - it's running in 600x400 or whatever is the lowest res and everything is on the lowest settings. And inside it's ok but suffers at times, but outside in the wide blue yonder it's like watching a slideshow.

I've seen notebooks with the 8600 for about £700-£750 so I may stretch to buying one of those. I definitely can't afford £1000+ for one with an 8800...

 

the 'game recommended' cpu specs are laughable.

i downloaded orange box for my m15x and when firing up HL2 Lost Coast, steam had the nerve to tell me that my cpu was lacking.

of course i run the 'source engine' test in the game and come out w/ around 70 fps with everything maxed out to the tee.

i have a 2.2 ghz T7500 w/ the 8800gtx. knowing that cpu is not a major factor gaming, i had no problem 'accepting' the merom chip as an early adopter. unlike others, i didnt throw a tizzy when they introduced penryn... it just doesnt matter that much.