Is this true?

Forum Graphics & Displays : Graphics Cards Is this true?

i have read on one forum that when you play games on lower resolutions- Pc will use CPU more, but when you play on higher resolution(1680x1050+) Pc will use GPU more. especially for more fps.

is this true or not?

Reply to funcut

It mostly depends on the games you play but generally its true, higher resolutions benefit more from GPU.

Reply to Maziar

Its a tricky one. If you consider GPU usage and CPU usage as a ratio to each other when playing a game.

If you're playing Crysis full settings at a rediculous resolution, then this ratio will be heavily weighted towards the graphics card, as that is where most of the work is being done.

However if you're playing Crysis, minimum settings on a sub-hd 19" screen, then that ratio will shift further towards the CPU because the graphics card will not be doing as much work (the lower settings dictating not as much to render). However the CPU will still be doing roughly the same levels of work (all the physics, AI etc calculations still need to be made regardless of lower graphics settings).

In its most basic sense, the CPU makes the initial calculations of where everything is, where everything is going (debris flying, characters moving, guns firing, bullets flying and hitting things etc) and then sends that data to the GPU to be rendered according to the levels of quality and detail determined by the user (yourself) in the games video settings section.

So therefore, if your CPU isn't up to the task (its particularly old or slow or not enough cores) then you'll find that even though your graphics card is pretty good, the gameplay will be choppy because your CPU isn't sending the data through quick enough, especially in CPU intensive games like Bad Company 2 (frostbite engine etc).

This has turned into a full on essay, but i hope this helps.

^+2
Agree with 2 people above.

------------------------------ Core 2 Duo E6300 1.8 GHz (OC at 3.0 GHz) / Zigmatek HDT S1283 CPU Cooler / Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3 Motherboard / 2x1 GB DDR2 800 RAM / 2x160 GB Seagate HDDs / SilverStone ST50F 500W PSU / HIS IceQ 4 HD 4850 512 MB DDR3 / 17" LG Monitor
(Little Dinosaur)
Reply to wa1

thanks guys, i understand now
but games like GTA IV uses more CPU then games like Crysis

btw. will Athlon II X4 640 OC to 3.4 ghz and Sapphire HD 5850 make a good team?

Message edited by funcut on 11-12-2010 at 12:13:19 PM

Reply to funcut

Well the Athlon is a quad core but its marred by a lack of level 3 cache which helps. Its also clocked nice and speedy which will certainly help.

The 5850 is definitely a capable card, id say perhaps a little overpowered for your CPU, it would perhaps be better suited working alongside a Phenom Quad Core.

But saying all this, the setup is capable of playing the latest games just fine; i do predict that your CPU will be the first to be upgraded in your core setup though.

And yes, each game will use more CPU than others for various reasons. I'd say GTA4 uses more CPU than Crysis because GTA4 has to use the CPU to calculate (complex) AI, collisions and movements of lots of characters/cars on screen etc. Crysis won't have that problem as badly and therefore won't utilise CPU as much.

what about Phenom II X4 925? it`s 40$ more then Athlon

Reply to funcut

If you're willing to stretch to $40 extra then go for it. The 8MB level 3 cache really does make a difference in CPU performance in games.

Make sure your mobo supports that Phenom model though, if its AM3 and fairly recent then i'd say no problem, earlier AM3 boards may require you to flash the BIOS to the latest iteration to ensure full compatibility.

will there be any price drop for Phenom processors at Christmas?

Reply to funcut

Possibly with the advent of the new architectures coming from both AMD and Nvidia, AMD may slash the prices of the Phenoms to remain competitive with the new chips.

what are differences between II X4 925 and II X4 955? only in MHz or?

Reply to funcut

The HD6850 is very close to the HD5850 in terms of performance while costing much less. The HD6870 is similar in price but faster. Basically there's no reason to consider the HD5850 any more unless you are finding a great deal on one, perhaps used.
The 955 is a "black edition" which means unlocked multipliers. That can make overclocking a bit easier but it isn't a big deal. Other than that there is no real difference between it and the 925.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to jyjjy

jyjjy wrote :

in my country 6850 cost the same as 5850 maybe even more. 6870 is about 60-70$ more expensive.
so the best will be to choose 5850+ Phenom II X4 925

Reply to funcut

That sounds good. How do the prices of the GTX 460 and 470 compare?

Reply to jyjjy

Gtx 460 1gb is about 20$ cheaper, and gtx 470 is still100$ more expensive then 5850.
Is Sapphire 5850 any good? Can you OC 5850 to same strenght as 5870/470?

Reply to funcut

The HD5850 can actually OC extremely well if you get a version that lets you raise the voltage on the core. All of the reference models could do this but these days you need either the Asus DirectCU or MSI Twin Frozr version of the card. When you bump up the voltage those cards can often get up to 1000mhz on the core which should give performance in the area of a stock GTX 480.
If you can't find either of the versions of the HD5850 I mentioned above or they are too expensive I would probably go with the GTX 460 and OC the hell out of it. At reference speeds the GTX 460 is roughly 10% slower than the HD5850 but it can also overclock a very large amount and all of the GTX 460s allow you to raise the voltage on the core. The Asus and MSI GTX 460s are also the one's with the best cooling FYI.

Reply to jyjjy

We only have Sapphire(315$) Radeon(

380$) Gigabyte (390$) and XFX(430$)

Reply to funcut

Radeon is the name for all ATI/AMD cards. At those prices definitely the Sapphire. Even without the voltage control you should be able to get a decent OC. Or consider the GTX 460 like I said.

Reply to jyjjy

what are Sapphire good for? like MSI is good for OC, Asus can raise voltage

Reply to funcut

sapphire are good for cheap cards.

Reply to iam2thecrowe

Ask the community Add a reply

Related content

See all topics related to "Is this true?"

Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphics & Displays > Graphics Cards > Is this true?

Go to:

Help |
Forum rules

There are 2068 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Page generated in 0.300 seconds

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel