Nvidia claims GPU matters more than a CPU

I wonder why they would say that.....
No component is ever going to be more important than another, it's a balance between all of them.
my old Skt754 3700+ would utterly destroy the performance of my GTX's, likewise before I bought my first GTX my 6000+ was doing nothing when running with my 6800GS.
In gaming a GPU is certainly important, but you need a decent CPU paired with it, otherwise you're just creating a big bottleneck!

I agree to a point. You can't have a bottom of the barrel CPU and highend GPU without having some performance issues. You have to have at least a decent CPU to open up the full potential of a good graphics card. But by no means do you need a quad core CPU to game on the high end. I have an older e6400 Core2 (OCed of course) and it still screams along with the new 8800GTS. I don't think a quad would give me as much of a gain.

Not to be rude, but that is really a dumb statement. Not every comment has truth in it. Some statements are just false, dumb and uninformed... Like most of mine. You must be the product of public education. This I'm ok you're ok we all have differences... Celebrate diversity. Its garbage. Some lines of thought are superior to others. Its ok.

I have a feeling nvidia's statement was targeted toward gamers specifically. Who is going to get a highend GPU that really just wants to crunch numbers or encode video? I agree every situation is difference and you have to be smart with your component selection.

I think their argument is you will see better gaming performance from a video card upgrade than going to a highend CPU.

By far!

Of course a GPU would make a system fun. Then again, only gamers will spend money on a nice GPU.

As a general rule that I'm making up right now, if you spend half as much on your CPU as you do on your GPU (and your GPU was at least $150) you will have a good gaming machine as long as you're cool with a slight OC.

Yeah, one of my roommates has an 8800GT paired with a Pentium4 570 and he can play Gears of War and Quake Wars at 1680x1050 with settings maxed and 2xAA no problem. I imagine most other games would be similar.

Actually, LukeBird is 100% correct and you are the one making dumb statements. Just like anything else that has ever been designed, there are tradeoffs at play here. There absolutely is a balancing act between GPU and CPU, especially with more CPU tasks like physics and smarter AI being added into games. Then there is also the fact that the top-end video cards really need a good CPU to keep them fed. Case in point: my dad's Q6600 and 7950GT run Crysis way better than my 5200+ and HD3870. In fact, when I upgraded from a 1900XT to a 3870 there was almost no performance boost in Crysis. There is no question that for Crysis I would benefit more from a CPU upgrade than a GPU upgrade.

RE: nvidia's statement
Of course they are going to say that, they want to sell more cards. They also want to sell more chipsets so that they can sell double the cards to people who have money to spare. This is marketing at work, and they will say anything that sells more product. In reality there is no blanket statement to be made here about which component is more important. It is ALWAYS a balance and you have to look at the detailed requirements of each application. Yes games are often GPU limited, but that is not always the case.

And Scythe and Thermalright jointly say lowering your CPU and GPU temperatures can have huge gains in FPS.

So, if we are going to upgrade a part, NVIDIA says upgrading the video card will give you more performance. That is true. You can get a lot of performance by doing that. There also comes a time when upgrading you video card will do no good because you CPU is a bottleneck.

You know what gives you the best performance increase? You have to change out your cd/dvd ROM drive. Man that will give you INSANE performance increase......

wow that was fire lol. im neutral, both things are important

O K. I read it and interpreted it within the context of this thread. If you're going to purposely post something ambiguous with a context that differs from the thread at hand, then I suppose you will quickly become accustomed responses like mine. Why not focus that energy on something more productive?

LOL so my VIA cpu is just as good at gaming as a Core 2 Quad?

Nvidia is attacking with this cause they dont produce cpus, and want people with crap cpus to still buy there cards.

Actually, there is a very good reason that Chevy made a Camero with a 6 cylinder engine. Its because the majority of people don't care about being having the fastest car around, but simply like the style. With a 6 cylinder, they can have the style and reasonable fuel economy. Further, though you might not accept it, they even have a place at a drag strip, racing against other cars in the same horsepower/weight class.

Man, NV has been talking a lot of sh*t lately. They have denounced dual GPU setups (directed at ATI), took direct stabs at the 3870x2 performance, wont license SLI to Intel, and now they are up in the face of CPUs (Intel/AMD).

What is going on over there? NV seems like that drunk guy at a party who is trying to start a fight all of the time.

I guess that could happen if they overclock the CPU with liquid cooling to 3.5 - 4 Ghz, I don't see why not

Every part is important, but for gaming having a nice GPU has its benefits.

And the bitxhin'war between the two companies goes on

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] 2&Itemid=1

Because they don't make CPU's for the desktop? Because Huang doesn't have a clue what they'll do when AMD has Swift and Intel has Larrabee? It seems to me that Huang is the drunk man at the party.

Yes, that's why all the benchmarks for $450+ GPU's are done using Intel quad cores, usually the EE.

See my sig, but I'll get a Phenom 2.4 gigahertz 9750 on a Crossfire board in May when they arrive; then I'll go Deneb 3.0 gigahertz when it arrives. Benchmarks will still probably use Intel Penryn or Nehalem EE quads instead!

At least this Friday, I'll get a nice 20" LCD monitor. I should be less CPU limited @ 1680 x 1050 than at 1024 x 768.

Yep, I only get 9547 in 3DMark06, where all the quad core systems with 3870x2's get closer to 15,000. Why do you think they all use quads for benchmarks, whether games or synthetic?

3DMark06 doesn't even have configurations to compare mine too, only one other. If I had the address of that other system's owner, I'd send a condolence e-mail. I bet they're saving up for a better CPU too.

Now, why didn't Nvidia say that the monitor matters almost as much as the GPU? CPU limits usually end above 1280 x 1024.

I got a 3870x2 first, but never intended to game at 1024 x 768 for too many weeks. The only decision is whether it's okay to just go 20" 1680 x 1050 or spring for 24" 1920 x 1200? The difference in pricecould get a quad core right off the bat, but who wants a B2?