How important is processor speed for graphic cards?

Is speed from a processor important for graphics cards? I heard that ATI's are processor dependant, but I have no idea what that means

 

Most of the newer processors won't bottleneck the newer graphics cards, so, anything above 1.8 GHz is alright to get the 100% out from your graphics card.

 

Of course, if you have a low end cpu but high end GPU, the cpu will act as a bottleneck and you will not receive the full benefits of your high end GPU. This can also work the other way around and your GPU acts as a bottleneck if you have a high end cpu but low end gpu. Ram can also be a factor too.

 

Processors and graphic cards are not really "connected", even though one could be significantly better then the other. Instead, it is the game and the game engine which can vary depending on how the game runs. Take Crysis as an example, it takes a good amount from the Graphics card, but could run if accompanied by a weaker cpu. Where as GTA 4 takes a quad core to make it run well

 

Ok lemme find that old bottleneck analogy I made a while ago....

Ex: I have 50mL of milk and I want to make a cake which needs 100mL. I have enough of the rest, but I lack 50mL of milk. Therefore, milk is the limiting factor in this scenario. No matter how much I boost the rest of the ingredients, if I lack the proper amount of milk, I won't have a proper cake of the size I initially wanted(a 100mL milk cake).

The same applies to computers. If the rig is not properly balanced, the weakness of one part may eventually bring down another at a certain point. If you keep trying harder and harder stuff on the computer, eventually you'll hit a point where a part isn't providing enough for what you're doing(same as the milk wasn't providing enough for the cake) and that part is your bottleneck for that thing.

In the CPU's case, this is rare. In general terms a 2.0GHz dual core is enough for most gaming and won't be bottlenecked aside from the rare exception of games.

 

Nice analogy, Forever_Melody, I like it, it explains why a component may bring down everything in simple words, keep up the good work!

Even an Old / Slow DIMM of Memory may bring the entire system down.

 

question, with my laptop, i have a fsb of 1333 on the cpu and on the ram i have ddr2-800

and with my older laptop i had a fsb of 1066 and my ram was 1333. but when i look at cpu it said ddr2-667

can you explain this and hot my new one will affect performance. i alreadly know the second one will downclock to match your cpu but not vice versa

 

Dual channel will effectively double your throughput. So 667x2 = 1333, and 800x2=1600.

Good analogy by Forever_Melody. But any system is only as strong as its weakest component. You can build a car out of carbon fiber and it will be as strong as heck. But use plastic bolts and it doesn't really matter.

 

thanks alot. my first one is ddr2-800 but i just checked cpu-z and it says 400. but i have dual channel symmetic so this means i have ddr2 at 400. but since i'm using two it's now called 800


so this mean's it's a marketing gimmick if i'm correct right?

(ex:ddr2-800) if someone use only one ram or their motherboard doesn't support dual or triple channel memory then their really only getting 400mhz(fsb on the ram.)

even if it's effective, which i guess it is, they should put something on the box noting that your ram speed will be affected under those conditions.

so triple channel memory is even lower then dual correct?
1600/3= is about 599 per stick. where as if it where dual it would be
1600/2=800(799) per stick

 

Uhh Aeris, that is quite wrong really. My 8800m GTS used to struggle with crysis back when i first got it with the T5550 at 1.83 GHZ.

When i upgraded to my T9300 i got a VERY significant boost of about 5 or more FPS in crysis and 9FPS in every other game. Now i can MAX out any game except and play Crysis at CCC LVL 4 at 1440 900 at about 35 FPS solid.

Your Computer is as Fast as it's weakest component.

 

Well that's what I was saying >.>

A thing is only as good as its worst component. This applies to lots of stuff, not just computers.

At one point, there will be a bar where a part won't be able to provide enough power for the rest of the computer so that part is your bottleneck.

What I emphasize is that more often than not the GPU is this component rather than the CPU. Unless of course you have a very imbalanced machine(ex: single core CPU with 3 SLI GPUs).

 

I've found that some poorly optimised games can max out CPU relatively easily. There are some maps in Team Fortress 2 for example that chug on a 2.0 dual core because the textures are huge and the processor is working overtime to move them into place on the map.

 

Lol, this reminds me of limiting reactants in chemistry.

But then my bottleneck is my GPU. -___-

 

My laptop does better than my desktop ever since the desktop board had a problem and only runs single-channel with 2T timings, even though the 8800GT should be superior to the 9800M GS.

The modern laptop processors are pretty powerful, so in most cases the GPU is always the limiting factor. Since laptops are not truly customizable, it would be difficult to end up in a situation where a next-gen GPU is combined with a previous-gen CPU.

 

Well that's exactly what it is in a nutshell lol I just wanted to use something a bit more fun than chemical reactions you know?

And yes, the limiting factor will in most cases be the GPU as games are in general(not all of them but in general) more stressing on your GPU than your CPU.

There are of course exceptions to the rule, but I'm saying as in a general fashion.

 

Yeah frequency isn't the important thing now. A T5550 is far from a 1.8ghz E6320

 

While we´re on the subject: The Sony Vaio FW with Radeon 4650 DDR3 and 2 GHz T6400-processor is now available in Sweden. I would rather have a bit more powerful P-processor but that would set me back another 400 USD..

Is it possible the T6400 will bottleneck considering the fairly strong 4650 DDR3?

 

Depends on the game. A CPU intensive game will notice a bottleneck on the CPU, but in general a T6400 should be fairly powerful enough for most games that aren't CPU bound.

 

Many people simply refuse to accept that even a 2.0 Ghz Core2Duo is enough for decent game performance when paired with a very good high end GPU at higher resolutions such as 1680 X 1050.

I see people configuring a laptop for gaming with a 2.98 Ghz Core2Duo because they think it will give them a major performance boost over a 2.0 Ghz Core2Duo for example, when in most cases, it simply will not, especially considering price to performance ratio.

I remember a reseller suggesting that I get a 2.66 Ghz Core2Duo over a 2.0 Ghz Core2Duo saying I would get much better gaming performance at 1680 X 1050 with the same GPU which will hardly ever be the case.

If it was at 1024 X 768 res then that's a different story

 

It depends on the game really. Some games are more CPU reliant than others.

I've experienced lag on WC3 with a desktop 9600GT because my CPU wasn't enough to handle large amounts of units on the map(this was before I upgraded mind you).

For general purposes 2.0GHz will suffice for most games aside from RTS, Flight Simulators and the rare exception of CPU bound games like GTA4.

As I've said, the GPU will likely bottleneck a game before the CPU.