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!  

This topic should be polled   , and i agree fully.


Right now current games need more GPU power than CPU power.  

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.

but it is only an issue for gamers.
non gamers is isn't true.
I think Nvidia statment is way to general.

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.

Does anyone know if MTW2 is CPU bound or GPU ? Just wondering out of curiosity, I mean, my system chugs along when I have 10K + units on the field, also my CPU usage is only at about 60-70 %. Since we are on the topic....

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.

Meh? I agree that you want to have a balance. I also think you need to offload the CPU as much as possible.

I do not think a low end processor will be faster or better than an high end processor. When was the last time you saw a Athlon 3200+ beat out a Q9650?

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

From the link of the OP:



That's a perfectly fine statement, even in its rather general perspective. "Cheap graphics" means "onboard" or "average laptop" graphics to me, maybe even with no dedicated video RAM. Even the fastest CPU cannot achieve good framerates in the target market of nVidia (> 1280x1024, full screen, high poly, high shader usage), with such cheap graphic hardware, if it has to do most things (even RAM transfers) itself.

On the other hand, a slow(ish) CPU can still get quite good frame rates if the polygon count is not too high, and if thus most of actual processing is happening on a fast, modern GPU.

These days, game companies invest a huge amount of effort in graphics (which means lots of polygons, shaders etc.). The other parts of a game, where a CPU may be heavily used (AI etc.) do seem to be unproportionally lower developed. So, of course, hardware support for the fastest growing part of games means more than CPU.

Plus, some things (AA, interpolation, resolution) do not affect the CPU at all (the CPU doesn't care a bit if the resolution is 800x600 or 1920x1600, or at least so it doesn't matter much).

There simply are not many options in the average game where you can tune for a slow/fast CPU, but any game is stuffed to the brim with options to adjust for a weak/strong GPU.



Duh. Target age of this statement? Maybe 13-16 years?  



This title is of course grossly misleading, no meaning whatsoever can be interpreted into it.

By far!

Good point. I agree to that!

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

I also upgrade my Video cards WAY more than my CPU to keep up with current games. I think my CPU had about another year left to it, but my graphics cards tent to need replace more frequently. I mean I don't NEED to upgrade, but if I want to stay on my game.. get it game.. I need to at least be in the moderately higher end.

Just a note: I read that Intel is doing away with their "Extreme" line of processors with the e8xxx series. Wonder why? There is no need for them. You don't see Nvidia giving up on the GTX line do ya?

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.

They aren't doing away with EE processors; they're just all going to be quads from now on.

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.

Like saying:

- A car engine is more important then the transmission. Sure, but by themselves you have a very large paper weight!

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.

In other news, Intel says CPU matters more than GPU. Also, Antec says your power supply matters more than the CPU and GPU.

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

Did you read my post? I didn’t comment on the technology or even enter into the technical question of importance. I said that not every comment has importance. My observation was a cultural one. My point was that we too often feel that everyone’s opinion should be weighted equally.

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......

There are three thing's that come to mind when i am thinking of how a new game will run on my rig. First is my GPU powerful enough to handle the graphic's? Second can my processor feed what my GPU and game needs to run smooth? And third do i have enough RAM at a good speed to load the LOD and high textures?

I see it as this...

1-GPU
2-CPU
3-RAM

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

There you go, making things so easy and sensible.   But such a formula will never please those who are determined to think that they can get better FPS if only they get a second GTX to increase the speed of their machine that has the equilalent of a SX486 with 64mb of ram with a 800x600 monitor.

One thing I think you did forget was the PSU. It seems to be a continuing thing that someone asks why their new SLI or Crossfire setup doesn't run, while ignoring that they have a 5 year old, 300wt PSU.

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?

I dont know what Nvidia is smoking but it must be good. Everyone knows that without the CPU decides who much you get out of your GPU.

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.

Yep but in life those that are ignorant and gullable never really get what it takes to have something that can get them ahead.

It's like why did Chevy make a Camaro with a crappy 3.8l V6 that runs 15 sec quarters when you could get the real thing(Z-28 or SS) and run low 13's/high 12's...Because poeple like that will see ohh look it's a Camaro and buy the thing only to get stomped by some v6 Accord.

Im stoked i just ordered the new GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H 780G board from NewEgg! Do i need it heck no! But the A33G board i have now is complete garbage compared i mean its a dang SIS for crying out loud!

LOL

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.

Hmm, I'd like to see NV show off their 9800 series GPU launch paired with e2140's or Celeron 420-L's.  

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.

Nvidia has been at the top of the heap since it released the first of the 8800 series. As computer enthusiasts, we got used to that, and paired with ATI's poor performance, got used to the idea that ATI wasn't capable. Now ATI seems to have gotten something right. That, coupled with some of Nvidia's poor decisions regarding licensing, has put Nvidia in a poor position.

Yeah, Nvidia is like the drunk at the party, except when starting the fight, though he thought he was taking on one guy that seemed to be two guys because he was drunk, it really was two guys.

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

 

Maybe that will be integrated into forcewares for the 9800 series on NV chipset mobos.  

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

fudzilla. I wonder why they call themselves that.  

And the bitxhin'war between the two companies goes on

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6252&Itemid=1

its true.... at least for gamers

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?