CPUs overclocking and FPS o.O

[Mike20_14]

so many ppl say that a better cpu performance gives u better gaming experience (more fps) same for the ram how is this possible it doesnt make sense what i know is that processor doesnt do graphics it jus calculates the non visual stuff like money in game's levels all this stuff as for ram it stores the results of all the processor's calculations

 

[Baralis]

A better CPU performance can increase your FPS however this is only true in some cases. Think of it this way. A CPU has to process the information to relay to your GPU what to render. If your CPU is not fast enough to process enough instructions it will hamper your FPS. However if your GPU cannot perform as quickly as your CPU can send it instructions then a faster CPU will do little good in raising FPS.

That may not be termed correctly but you get the idea.

 

[Jay_83]

Well, this is why people always keep going on about BALANCE in setting up your PC. If you want to just game, you don't need a super-fast CPU, but you cannot get away with one that is too slow. First of all, the PC is a system of interconnected components that rely on each other. Second, there are many games out there that DO rely on the CPU a lot. Here's a link to CPU comparisons in Starcraft 2:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,review-32000-8.html
This shows you the FPS on different CPUs at different CPU speeds with graphics at the same level across all tests. As you can see, the FPS increases directly with CPU speed. This is because Starcraft 2 needs a lot of non-graphics related calculations done. Imagine a big battle, with the CPU calculating buffs/debuffs/damage/healing and stats changing on every unit. Now imagine one of the units in the middle of all this dies. The GPU needs to wait for that information before it can render the scene happening- it is relying on the CPU to tell it what to display.
This is somewhat simplified, but here you go.

RAM is a different story on desktop platforms these days and does not have a huge impact on performance (at least on platforms suitable for gaming. Certain low-end configurations, most recently AMD's Llano, owe a significant amount of performance to RAM). You just need to have enough RAM to avoid thrashing (O/S continuously swapping data between HDD/SSD and RAM, because it doesn't have enough physical memory available). And the speeds? Well, today's dual-, triple- and soon quad-channel configurations offer so much memory bandwidth that the benefit of memory running above, say, 1333 MHz is unnoticeable for gaming, as long as memory timings (latencies) are at decent (low) levels. The benefit IS there, but the rule of diminishing returns very much applies.

 

[gamerk316]

Basically, the CPU is the overall limiting factor: No matter how fast any other component is, if the CPU is too slow, performance suffers.

However, after some speed, other components [in games, the GPU] end up being slower, so farther increasing the speed of the CPU will not improve performance any farther [IE: The CPU is waiting on the GPU].

 

[casualbuilder]

cpu:gpu is the biggest thing. You need to keep these two as similar to one another as far as speed/quality as you can. This in turn will most likely require a bare minimum mobo, which usually dictates the Ram. Again, the cpu:gpu is the biggest, and as long as you have 4GB + of DDR3 1333 RAM, you aren't missing anything there. Just make sure you compare cpu performance with your gpu performance, as one or the other may hinder its partner.

Best AMD cpu for the price is probably the 955BE or 965 BE depending on OC'ing ambitions. If you are going intel, the i5 is plenty for the sli cards listed next, or an i7 would be the best bang for your buck with the higher 500s.I would recommend either a SLI of 460's or 560's, or a single 570 card or higher (580's are very nice!!!) If you are going AMD, do not go below a 6850...im a gpu snob, so sorry for the biased answer.

Hope this helps with my suggestions. Best of luck, and remember, it's ultimately your decision! Have fun with it.

 

[gamerk316]

^^ I disagree. I ALWAYS get a more powerful CPU to start, so I can do GPU upgrades later on without having to go through a CPU upgrade [which usually requires a mobo/RAM upgrade as well] as well to improve performance. I find the idea of getting a weak CPU simply to match the GPU as laughable.

 

[casualbuilder]

how many "gaming" rigs out there right now run lower than a 460/560? really...not too many true gaming rigs. So, all i was saying, since most people are worried about fps in a gaming rig, is buy accordingly. To take full advantage of even those lower end cards, you should power up a Phenom IIx4. Sorry for the confusion.

Overall though, gamer is right. If you have to choose which to go with first, cpu's are usually a much cheaper buy (noteably AMD's) compared to gpu's. Like i stated above, the 965BE is running for around $115 with a discount on newegg.com right now, and is considered the king for gaming for your money. i5's and i7's obviously trump that, but they also cost a lot more, even as much as your 570's and close to the 580's depending on the model i7.

All in all, +1 to gamer for that advice, and i edit: cpu > or at the very least = gpu

 

[Mike20_14]

what im saying is i dont think the more power u get on ur cpu the more fps u get u just have to get a cpu that can keep up?

 

[casualbuilder]

precisely. If your cpu cannot give the info to your gpu fast enough, you are not utilizing your gpu to its fullest potential. Same goes the opposite way. OC can adjust for a little bit of this, but overall, this is why i say to buy accordingly to your other hardware.