Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Any point in buying a high end CPU?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 18, 2011 5:49:56 AM

I'm planning to buy a new PC and I'm not sure which CPU is right for me. I'm a programmer and I know how fast my CPU needs to be to do development so my question is purely about gaming. Do new games really need that much CPU power so that having a mid-range CPU would actually be a bottleneck? What are those i7 990 extreme edition good for anyway, why would anyone want to buy them? And which processor should I buy for a high-end PC so that I'll be able to play pretty much any games today?
February 18, 2011 6:05:59 AM

Well, new games certainly can be CPU bottlenecked. Starcraft 2 is a good example of this, and it's not the only one. As for a good CPU to handle games, the i7 9XX are good, or the new i7s on the 1366 platform will be able to rock any new game hard.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 6:15:25 AM

Depends on your budget.

For me i myself would go for amd 955 or 965 or something since they arn't bad. If you want to go higher apparantly the 2500K from intel i5 is good also.

if you can aford it get those i7 processors. You dont need the extreme editions.

If you wanna play any game i reccomend getting i5 2500K (around 150 quid i think, not too sure)
and for a graphics card maybe a gtx 280 or if you want to go for osmething big, maybe gtx 460?

but im getting the amd phenom ii x4 955 or 965, and a gtx 260 or gts 450 so yeah.
Score
0
Related resources
February 18, 2011 6:24:35 AM

My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two :) , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?

(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)
Score
0
February 18, 2011 6:42:12 AM

Busac said:
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two :) , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?

(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)

How long are you planning to keep your cpu/computer for?

It always amazes me at the people who just look at current game results and if a cpu gives a passable result, they give it the big thumbs up.

Well what about games that come out in the one or two or three years after you buy your computer that are more demanding on the CPU?

As a desktop user, I would never spend $1,000+ for a i7 990x, and instead look at what I can get between $180 to $350, probably falling in around the $250 mark on average.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 6:48:06 AM

Busac said:
I'm planning to buy a new PC and I'm not sure which CPU is right for me. I'm a programmer and I know how fast my CPU needs to be to do development so my question is purely about gaming. Do new games really need that much CPU power so that having a mid-range CPU would actually be a bottleneck? What are those i7 990 extreme edition good for anyway, why would anyone want to buy them? And which processor should I buy for a high-end PC so that I'll be able to play pretty much any games today?


Hi. ok personaly i think that computers are a waste of money, i mean i still use them for gaming but technology is advancing everyday so what ever cpu you buy today will be outdated by abetter one tommorow (figure of speech) but you know what i mean. and core i7 is a waste of money in my opinion becuase you can buy a core 2 duo extreme wich is just as good and twice as cheap. my advice is would be a intel core 2 duo e8200. it has 6mb l2 cache, 1333mh fsb, 2 cores, 2.66GHz , intel virtualization technology, 64bit capability, intel trusted execution technology and execute disable bit. wich would be great for new games such as gta 4, crysis ect.... for a cheap price and good performance. but its not all about the cpu, i have seen gta 4 max settings on a celeron d 2.4GHz with 4gb ram and a hd radeon 5970 running at a decent frame rate, my guess was about 45 fps average. so it all comes down to ram and gpu more than any thing, i mean a good cpu is great but it dosent mean everything when it comes to gaming. and sorry about the long reply i got carried away i like to help people out with this stuff so they are not wasting there money on something that isnt worth it. but its your choice and how much your willing to pay. and by the way thats the cpu i have a e8200 and a ati 4750 1gb, 3gb ram windows 7 home and games run great.

anyway hope iv helped you out, any more questions just email me, kylewonder44@hotmail.com
Score
0
February 18, 2011 6:56:32 AM

wonder44 said:
Hi. ok personaly i think that computers are a waste of money, i mean i still use them for gaming but technology is advancing everyday so what ever cpu you buy today will be outdated by abetter one tommorow (figure of speech) but you know what i mean. and core i7 is a waste of money in my opinion becuase you can buy a core 2 duo extreme wich is just as good and twice as cheap. my advice is would be a intel core 2 duo e8200. it has 6mb l2 cache, 1333mh fsb, 2 cores, 2.66GHz , intel virtualization technology, 64bit capability, intel trusted execution technology and execute disable bit. wich would be great for new games such as gta 4, crysis ect.... for a cheap price and good performance. but its not all about the cpu, i have seen gta 4 max settings on a celeron d 2.4GHz with 4gb ram and a hd radeon 5970 running at a decent frame rate, my guess was about 45 fps average. so it all comes down to ram and gpu more than any thing, i mean a good cpu is great but it dosent mean everything when it comes to gaming. and sorry about the long reply i got carried away i like to help people out with this stuff so they are not wasting there money on something that isnt worth it. but its your choice and how much your willing to pay. and by the way thats the cpu i have a e8200 and a ati 4750 1gb, 3gb ram windows 7 home and games run great.

anyway hope iv helped you out, any more questions just email me, kylewonder44@hotmail.com

What a terrible post.

Do you hate Busac's guts or something and are trying to lead him to disaster?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 7:01:54 AM

Busac said:
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two :) , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?

(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)


How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much GPU power? 2x580 GTX is way overkill
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 7:19:29 AM

Spending more than $300 on any CPU is a waste of money. You can just get an i7-2600k or less and still beat a lot of $1000 Extreme Edition CPUs. Also, the 1156 and 1366 sockets are being phased out in favor of the newer and faster 1155 Sandy Bridge chips.

Also as for the AMD side, even the 1100T or the 975BE can still be a bottleneck considering the GPUs you mentioned. If you get the 2500k or 2600k and are not happy with stock performance, they can be easily overclocked with a simple multiplier bump. Many people in this forum right now are running 2600k @4.6Ghz on air cooling and some higher. The performance is on part with the high end i7's from the last generation and only a 1/4 of the price.

It's a no-brainer.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 7:20:54 AM

Yeah the extreme core2duos are not "just as good" as i7s more like a low i3. Anyway I would agree that a top CPU isn't that important unless your spending ~$1000 on your GPU then you're crazy to bottleneck it with a low end CPU. Every month Tom's runs an article for the best gaming CPU's and GPU's and they point out a top end (particularly in the CPUs) that really doesn't make sense to go past. I suppose thats why they call it Past the Point of Reason. Until you hit that point though, if you have a top end GPU you can certainly unlock more of its potential by pairing it with a better processor.
You get the most value out of a computer if you minimize bottlenecks.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 7:29:51 AM

Any Extreme Edition Intel is a waste anyways. Look at the Pentium 4 EE that ran over $1500. Today a budget Dual Core Celeron can probably beat it. Usually the sweet spot for CPUs is $200-300. Anything above that is next years junk. Anything below that was already last years junk.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 7:58:29 AM

Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate them! I would like to keep this computer for a while and I realize that games will be more demanding in the future, I just simply don't understand how could they possibly need that much processing power. What wonder44 says kinda makes sense, even though I definitely don't want to buy a Core 2 Duo. If I get a decent CPU with reasonable performance today, it might look like junk next year compared to new CPUs, but will there actually be software that I won't be able to run?? I don't care if my CPU is slower than all others as long as it can keep up with whatever I throw at it.

Sandy bridge might be new but I don't see any real benefits. The integrated GPU is obviously of no interest to me, I don't really care about video encoding and power consumption is not bothering me too much either. The 2600 seems to be about the same price than 950 but I didn't see any sb motherboard with x16/x16 PCIe.

bearclaw99> I never said I plan to play SC2, that was just a reply to scotu's post ;) .
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 8:10:32 AM

If you get a current i5 or i7... you won't have any trouble, just not many future upgrade paths. Some people still like to get Core 2 Quads clocked over 3 GHz... and they are cheaper than the first generation i7 at the moment because people want to get rid of them, but the i7 has more benefits in the architecture.

Honestly, the only reason to buy any CPU or graphics card or anything over $300 is if you work for Pixar or Lucasfilm and need to render full CGI animations or something. Home users will not see any benefit in the speed and only notice a reduction in the wallet. Just think, your current computer is much faster than the ones used in 1991 to make Terminator 2... and most people's computers are still better than the ones used to make the new Star Wars Prequels. Most of the time they had custom built Xeon setups with custom graphics cards, but even the home user can do it today.

But if you do work for Pixar and need a $1000 CPU and a $1000 video card, you won't save money, just time in rendering.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 8:18:38 AM

I was having a discussion in another forum the other day about the processing power of the flight computers used by NASA in the 1960s and 70s... and by today's standards, a modern cell phone is already 100x more powerful in calculations and functionality.

If you want to get a decent gaming rig though, any Core 2 Quad over 3GHz, Core i5/7 over 2.66GHz or any AMD over 3.4GHz with 4 cores will suit you just fine.

The only reason they have extreme lines is for large companies that really need the speed difference to save money and time in video production. Even servers with 4 or more physical CPUs each with 4 or more cores still won't do anything for you in games. :D  So anything in the $200-300 range will be great for now and 2 or 3 years.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 8:29:56 AM

That's exactly what I was thinking... for CPUs at least. GPUs never seem to be powerful enough :D , if you want to get 2x60fps in 3D in games that will come this fall you'll probably need all the power you can get. But that's because it's so easy to increase the model details / texture sizes / number of light sources / etc. With CPUs... I don't plan to do any advanced audio / video editing, CGI or folding@home so I guess I'll be fine.

Btw I found out that the 1155 motherboards have x8/x8 PCIes because of an inherent 16 lane limit of the architecture. I know that benchmarks show there is very little difference with current GPUs but I think I'll rather stay safe...

EDIT:

So if I was to look for some older CPUs such as Core 2 (or AMDs but I'm not familiar with them at all), what are my motherboard options? Would I be even able to find any reasonably modern motherboard that would support my GPUs?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 9:19:14 AM

If you want full x16 on each lane, better choose an i7 with the 1366 socket.

Core 2 Quads are on the LGA775 socket and it's becoming extinct sooner than later. Also remember that the Sandy Bridge 1155 sockets are the new mainstream, whereas there will be better ones on a later socket LGA2011 coming in a few months that will support full x16 lanes on all slots and 4 channel memory.

If you find Core 2 boards, it will likely be the same x8/x8 or x8/x4/x4.

But don't let x8/x8 discourage you, even the highest end graphics cards there will be less than a 5% difference going from x8 to x16.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 9:21:14 AM

Many graphics cards cannot even fully saturate the PCIe 1.0 fully, let alone PCIe 2.1. So 2 GTX580's both on x8/x8, I don't think you will notice any performance hit versus x16/x16 with that.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 11:06:58 AM

^^ HardOCP ran a test with SLI 480's at x4x4, and found no FPS difference. PCI-E 2.0 has more bandwith then we need right now.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 12:33:29 PM

wonder44 said:
Hi. ok personaly i think that computers are a waste of money, i mean i still use them for gaming but technology is advancing everyday so what ever cpu you buy today will be outdated by abetter one tommorow (figure of speech) but you know what i mean. and core i7 is a waste of money in my opinion becuase you can buy a core 2 duo extreme wich is just as good and twice as cheap. my advice is would be a intel core 2 duo e8200. it has 6mb l2 cache, 1333mh fsb, 2 cores, 2.66GHz , intel virtualization technology, 64bit capability, intel trusted execution technology and execute disable bit. wich would be great for new games such as gta 4, crysis ect.... for a cheap price and good performance. but its not all about the cpu, i have seen gta 4 max settings on a celeron d 2.4GHz with 4gb ram and a hd radeon 5970 running at a decent frame rate, my guess was about 45 fps average. so it all comes down to ram and gpu more than any thing, i mean a good cpu is great but it dosent mean everything when it comes to gaming. and sorry about the long reply i got carried away i like to help people out with this stuff so they are not wasting there money on something that isnt worth it. but its your choice and how much your willing to pay. and by the way thats the cpu i have a e8200 and a ati 4750 1gb, 3gb ram windows 7 home and games run great.

anyway hope iv helped you out, any more questions just email me, kylewonder44@hotmail.com


This is very painful to read, and extremely short sighted. You think computers are a waste of money? Why are you on Tom's Forum? I don't like drag racing, but I don't go to drag racing forums trying to hand out advice...

And I've played several games on my i7-930 system that actually utilize the 1-2 cores that it's using to a high percentage, and I expect in a few years games will be out that will use more of the power and would crush the core 2 duo.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 5:38:28 PM

dadiggle> I don't currently have a desktop, my work laptop is mobility-oriented (with integrated GPU) and I've recently returned an Alienware notebook because it was having graphical issues. Then I've realized that I could probably get much better performance with a desktop PC.

Yeah that's what I'm saying, currently the lanes aren't utilized but what about future? LGA2011 would be awesome but that isn't coming for a couple of months and I don't really want to wait too much, also I have no idea what price to expect from that.
Score
0
February 18, 2011 11:15:49 PM

Busac said:
dadiggle> I don't currently have a desktop, my work laptop is mobility-oriented (with integrated GPU) and I've recently returned an Alienware notebook because it was having graphical issues. Then I've realized that I could probably get much better performance with a desktop PC.

Yeah that's what I'm saying, currently the lanes aren't utilized but what about future? LGA2011 would be awesome but that isn't coming for a couple of months and I don't really want to wait too much, also I have no idea what price to expect from that.


:hello:  Since LGA2011 is going t be used for Sandy bridge EE processors, it will cost a lot to buy a compatible processor. A Phenom ii x4 955 would suit your needs more than adequately (link below).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Phenom-3-2GHz-Processor-Box...

If you want, and I would recommend it, then a hexacore might be useful (no games would make use of all of the cores, but in a couple of years, quadcore'll probably be a minimum requirement for the more graphically advanced games. 1090T black edition is a good one (link below)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Phenom-1090T-Six-core-Proce...

Or if you'd rather buy an intel then the 2600k would be good (or just the 2600 if you are not going to over clock (link below))

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-Sandybridge-i7-2600K-Quad...

Judging by the fact that you don't want to wait for a good mo'bo' to be released, i'd get the 1090T or the 955, though all three cpu's are good.

Sorry about how long it is.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2011 11:35:17 PM

LGA2011 will be more expensive because it is for the extreme computer enthusiasts. Just like LGA1366 is much more than 1156.
Score
0

Best solution

February 19, 2011 2:38:23 AM

Busac said:
My budget is big enough, I want to get a GTX 580 or two :) , and was considering something along the lines of i7 950. But even this feels a bit overpowered for anything I might want to do. How could Starcraft 2 possibly utilize so much processing power?

(About sandy bridge: the current motherboards don't look all that awesome and I don't feel like waiting a couple more months for some better ones to come out.)


SC2 Is really processor intensive, for both gameplay and graphics. There's a ton of AI for unit control and computer players that can tax most processors. In addition, there's also a bunch of graphics stuff that needs to be done on CPU in that game. Reflections on water require CPU processing power, that when enabled, require more than a stock speed i5-760 to run on max settings @ 1080p. Also the transparency effects of higher graphics settings use depth sorted alpha blending that requires CPU processing. My i7-920 @ 3.4GHz can play SC2 on Ultra settings w/ a GTX 260. My roomate's computer with a stock i5-760 and 2xGTX460s in SLI cannot (he has to turn of reflections).
Share
a c 107 à CPUs
February 19, 2011 3:18:41 AM

Busac said:
... but I didn't see any sb motherboard with x16/x16 PCIe.

You didn't look hard enough. There are SB motherboards with NVIDIA's NF200 PCIe bridge chip that will run 2-way SLI at x16/x16. The ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution is one of those motherboards.
Score
0
February 19, 2011 4:04:45 AM

AMD Phenom II x4 or > will suit your need just fine
Little bit more secure is Sandy Bridge, considering if price on SB i3 is lower 200$ then I would personally go with it. Well, I guess you can argue about that...
If looking into the future and possible demand in core's power, then maybe i7-2600k is a better choice, but for me really, paying 100$ only for Hyper-Threading is such a awful waste of money. Just look at them http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52214,52209

This is all depends on your budget. If you got 1000$ and don't mind spend all of it on a system then just go for i5-2500k. I got mine for 750(after rebates) with i5-2500k, gtx 460, 4gb ram, 21''5 led lcd. Knowing that you bought alienware system then you probably got more than 1000$ budget. I would not go lower than Phenom II x4 on cpu. What would I do with 1000$ budget? well not much, just get a better gpu.

Off topic... I wanted to go for maybe slower cpu and spend more on gpu but i5-2500k was just too sweet to give up on. Now only board is keeping me from selling my toshiba crapy latop with ati x1200 gpu and enjoy full realism of directx 11 =\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I AM DYING, I DIDN'T PLAY GOOD GAMES SINCE, well... since css, which is not even good by today standards(x1200 run it at like 12-30 fps on min setting). Oh well, just got to relax and watch more of a crysis footage *_*

Score
0
February 19, 2011 7:06:35 AM

Thanks for the links Thaizasaskand. Phenom II 1100 actually doesn't look that bad but a quick search didn't find any AMD motherboards that would support SLI and 2x SATA-III RAID which I was kinda hoping to get. (I guess it makes sense with AMD vs. NVIDIA.)

scotu> Hm I see. That sounds a bit troubling :( . Now I'll have to seriously start reconsidering...

ko888> That's not real x16/x16, it uses the nForce 200 chip. LGA 1155 simply cannot use more than 16 PCIe lanes. Although it probably doesn't make much difference.

dimamu15> I totally understand that feeling :D . I plan to max out my GPU but that will be pretty expensive I'm trying to optimize the CPU cost now.

So it seems that everyone is trying to discourage me from LGA 1156, is there any reason why I *really* wouldn't want to buy it?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2011 8:19:56 AM

You really wouldn't want to buy it if you want a future upgrade path. If in 2 years you want to change CPUs, then you will need to change everything all over again. Just waiting a bit for the 1155 will give your system a lot more upgrade paths considering there is only going to be 1 or 2 more confirmed chips coming out for 1156.
Score
0
February 19, 2011 11:54:01 PM

Hm yes I see but with LGA 1155 I won't be able to upgrade the CPUs too much either. I think I'll stick to LGA 1366 and when it starts running old just buy a new board.
Score
0
February 19, 2011 11:54:25 PM

Best answer selected by Busac.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 2:49:38 AM

Busac said:
Hm yes I see but with LGA 1155 I won't be able to upgrade the CPUs too much either. I think I'll stick to LGA 1366 and when it starts running old just buy a new board.


You can surely upgrade to newer CPUs on 1155. It is new, and they just haven't released many CPUs yet. Yet is the keyword. As for 1366, there has only been 1 or 2 confirmed future releases for it before it is slated to be replaced with LGA2011.

I'm not just speaking from a gaming point of view, I also run many virtual machines for software testing and development. Clock for clock most of the 1155 Sandy Bridge chips are already faster, number of cores be damned. If you already have a 1366 socket board, then no need to ask, of course you already made an investment and you should stick to it. But just remember the CPUs you have seen for 1155 are just the mainstream in which are already faster than the 1366 enthusiast chips. When LGA2011 hits as the new high end enthusiast board, then Intel has effectively killed all older generation chips from 775-1366. They will no longer be economically viable to buy new.
Score
0
February 20, 2011 12:07:55 PM

Chad Boga said:
What a terrible post.

Do you hate Busac's guts or something and are trying to lead him to disaster?


look i dont hate anyone. i was helping and if thats such a problem for you leave the website alone please.
i have a core 2 duo e8200 and gta 4, crysis, cod mw2 and so on all run at max settings. with fraps(35-40) fps, without, about (45-55). so i dont see what your problem is mate. and its cheap in new zealand and most other countrys, and a good performing one for a low budget.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 12:32:41 PM

wonder44 said:
look i dont hate anyone. i was helping and if thats such a problem for you leave the website alone please.
i have a core 2 duo e8200 and gta 4, crysis, cod mw2 and so on all run at max settings. with fraps(35-40) fps, without, about (45-55). so i dont see what your problem is mate. and its cheap in new zealand and most other countrys, and a good performing one for a low budget.



Chad Boga has a valid point. And these days CPU means a lot in gaming with high setting enabled. By your logic I could just run 2 or 3 GTX580 video cards in SLI with a Celeron and still get killer framerates. Newsflash, 35-40fps is horrible and uncomfortable for 90% of the people in the world. I get more than that on Crysis Warhead with a 9800GT which is old as can be. If you check any current graphics card benchmarks and CPU benchmarks... most people with a mid range graphics card and a decent quad core CPU are getting 60-120fps in most games these days. And getting above 60fps is key for comfortable viewing since it will be the same or near the same as your monitor's refresh rate. 35-40fps is jerky and can be very annoying during high action sequences. I used to use my 9800GT with a Pentium D 805 (Dual Core 2.66 GHz CPU) and in Left 4 Dead my fps was only 40-45... after I upgraded to a q8300 with the same 9800gt my fps was over 80 with AA set to 2 @ 1600x900... In my AMD 965 quad core system with GTX465, I play the same game on 1920x1080 with max AA and filtering and still have over 100fps... I can't stand anything under 60fps... I'd rather go back to my old 8 bit Nintendo.

If you have a good CPU, it can offload PhysX processing from the graphics card and help with reflections, light sources, and scaling. Also if the game you are playing relies on a lot of heavy AI or you're playing a massive multiple player game, you need the CPU to take care of those things. Your GPU has nothing to do with the in-game AI or if it has heavy multiplayer loading. Sure having a super GPU will give you better shader, rendering, and graphics processing, but the game still depends on CPU a lot... why do you think most of the games since 2010 have minimum requirements that are a dual core with over 2.4GHz speed, but the recommended is quad core over 3GHz speed? The GPU cannot make up for the lack of a CPU, that is an fps bottleneck from the get go.

Don't set up the original poster to fail, and if your posts suck... don't take it personal, just try to make a valid point and work on your grammar and spelling before you hit the submit button.

Like Chad said, if you hate computers and think they are a waste of money, then you are not a reliable source to be giving computer advice. Like a person who hates kids but works as a primary school teacher... makes no sense.

It's like telling people you hate seafood... and when they want to order the fish you complain that since you hate it they should hate it to. LOL :D 
Score
0
February 20, 2011 1:43:09 PM

1965ohio said:
Chad Boga has a valid point. And these days CPU means a lot in gaming with high setting enabled. By your logic I could just run 2 or 3 GTX580 video cards in SLI with a Celeron and still get killer framerates. Newsflash, 35-40fps is horrible and uncomfortable for 90% of the people in the world. I get more than that on Crysis Warhead with a 9800GT which is old as can be. If you check any current graphics card benchmarks and CPU benchmarks... most people with a mid range graphics card and a decent quad core CPU are getting 60-120fps in most games these days. And getting above 60fps is key for comfortable viewing since it will be the same or near the same as your monitor's refresh rate. 35-40fps is jerky and can be very annoying during high action sequences. I used to use my 9800GT with a Pentium D 805 (Dual Core 2.66 GHz CPU) and in Left 4 Dead my fps was only 40-45... after I upgraded to a q8300 with the same 9800gt my fps was over 80 with AA set to 2 @ 1600x900... In my AMD 965 quad core system with GTX465, I play the same game on 1920x1080 with max AA and filtering and still have over 100fps... I can't stand anything under 60fps... I'd rather go back to my old 8 bit Nintendo.

If you have a good CPU, it can offload PhysX processing from the graphics card and help with reflections, light sources, and scaling. Also if the game you are playing relies on a lot of heavy AI or you're playing a massive multiple player game, you need the CPU to take care of those things. Your GPU has nothing to do with the in-game AI or if it has heavy multiplayer loading. Sure having a super GPU will give you better shader, rendering, and graphics processing, but the game still depends on CPU a lot... why do you think most of the games since 2010 have minimum requirements that are a dual core with over 2.4GHz speed, but the recommended is quad core over 3GHz speed? The GPU cannot make up for the lack of a CPU, that is an fps bottleneck from the get go.

Don't set up the original poster to fail, and if your posts suck... don't take it personal, just try to make a valid point and work on your grammar and spelling before you hit the submit button.

Like Chad said, if you hate computers and think they are a waste of money, then you are not a reliable source to be giving computer advice. Like a person who hates kids but works as a primary school teacher... makes no sense.

It's like telling people you hate seafood... and when they want to order the fish you complain that since you hate it they should hate it to. LOL :D 


look whatever. all im saying is it was smooth on the celeron. and yea your right it should have been laggy but it wasnt. but like i said a good cpu is good but it doesnt mean everything. e.g. intel core i7 with a intel gma 4500 would lag, add a good gpu and it will run well. see... its not all cpu, if it were then gma 4500 could run crysis on max settings. but yeah i understand your right but i was making a valid point from my point of view, you cant tell someone EXACTLY what they wanna hear, this is for your opinions to be shared not argued with. :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 2:08:42 PM

It is about balance. All GPU would suck, all CPU would suck. You are right. I'm not really arguing... I just seem to write a lot, I'm one of the ranting posters... LOL. :) 

I think the only reference of argument was not your computer logic, just that your first post seemed hostile and said you hate computers because they are a waste of money... and that usually gets most people going on a forum about helping people with computers. It's like going to a seafood restaurant and hating seafood and complaining about it to the people around you eating. We are sorry if you hate computers, but that had nothing to do with the post. That is what Chad Boga and I are really getting at. Sorry for ranting again, LOL :pt1cable: 
Score
0
February 20, 2011 8:12:06 PM

Thanks 1965ohio, those number you mentioned and how CPUs can be used in games that was actually very helpful. I don't mind long posts at all if they contain interesting information ;) .
Score
0
February 21, 2011 3:36:19 AM

1965ohio said:
It is about balance. All GPU would suck, all CPU would suck. You are right. I'm not really arguing... I just seem to write a lot, I'm one of the ranting posters... LOL. :) 

I think the only reference of argument was not your computer logic, just that your first post seemed hostile and said you hate computers because they are a waste of money... and that usually gets most people going on a forum about helping people with computers. It's like going to a seafood restaurant and hating seafood and complaining about it to the people around you eating. We are sorry if you hate computers, but that had nothing to do with the post. That is what Chad Boga and I are really getting at. Sorry for ranting again, LOL :pt1cable: 


its all good i just think that they are because a console saves money and you dont need to worry about lag or upgrades. but ok
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2011 3:46:14 AM

Most console lifespans are also around the same 3-4 year upgrade cycle as computers. NES to SNES to N64 to Gamecube to Wii... Sega to Sega CD (and a few others) to Sega Saturn to Dreamcast... Playstation 1 to 2 to 3... xBox to xBox 360 (working on a replacement as we speak)...

I'm sure I left out many, but if you bought all these consoles when there were new, just like a computer... You can buy a cheap computer today and still have much more capability than the consoles listed. Even PS3 and xBox 360 are started to get dated compared to budget gaming machines.

And if you were like me and owned all the consoles above, then you are guilty of wasting money on the computer cycle too... LOL :p 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2011 11:03:59 AM

Well, I used to be a console addict but became a PC convert around the time of the original xBox.
Score
0
February 23, 2011 6:48:23 PM

consoles should just stop existing. If you assume than anyone with a console is also going to have a PC, if instead of buying a console, they put that money into a better computer, they'd have both a better gaming machine and a better computer for their other computer uses.

Just need a way to remotely connect a computer to a tv, wirelessly to quench the tv vs monitor thirst.

lol and I'm a Pro-Am console gamer too
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2011 2:42:05 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!