Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU GPU Combo

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 8, 2012 4:32:25 PM

hi, i3 3220 + GTX 660 vs. i5 3470 + hd7850.

ive been thinking about it quite extensively and i know that it will be harder to upgrade a cpu than a gpu

down the line but in my country the i5 is 115$ more than the i3 so the question is will i see a big difference in games for that

investments?


thank you!!

More about : cpu gpu combo

November 8, 2012 4:36:51 PM

hi, i3 3220 + GTX 660 vs. i5 3470 + hd7850.

ive been thinking about it quite extensively and i know that it will be harder to upgrade a cpu than a gpu

down the line but in my country the i5 is 115$ more than the i3 so the question is will i see a big difference in games for that

investments?


thank you!!!
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 4:48:12 PM

of those only 2 options

i3 3220 + GTX 660

I would OC the CPU some though!
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 4:50:27 PM

Some strategy games and CPU bound games like Civ 5 will be slower, but for most gaming, the difference between the i3 and the i5 will not be huge. Most games don't take advantage of all the cores, FPS in particular.

Here is a full bench comparison of the two processors in a variety of tasks:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=702
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 4:51:35 PM

ittimjones said:
of those only 2 options

i3 3220 + GTX 660

I would OC the CPU some though!



You can't overclock a 3220. Its not a K series chip.
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 5:57:10 PM

Topics similar to these have generated long discussions but at the end the solution has been the better CPU + the better GPU.If you cannot afford it rite now,save and buy a couple of months later.
You won't notice a big difference in today's games,but there certainly is quite a difference which will only expand in the newer titles.So when your buying you must be future proof.
November 8, 2012 6:03:39 PM

hi, i3 3220 + GTX 660 vs. i5 3470 + hd7850.

ive been thinking about it quite extensively and i know that it will be harder to upgrade a cpu than a gpu

down the line but in my country the i5 is 115$ more than the i3 so the question is will i see a big difference in games for that

investment?


thank you!!!
November 8, 2012 6:14:03 PM

Quote:
hi, i3 3220 + GTX 660 vs. i5 3470 + hd7850.

ive been thinking about it quite extensively and i know that it will be harder to upgrade a cpu than a gpu

down the line but in my country the i5 is 115$ more than the i3 so the question is will i see a big difference in games for that

investment?


thank you!!!


wont you get a cpu bottleneck when your gpu is so much stronger than your cpu? games are 75% gpu and 25% cpu, but that doesnt mean you can get a weak cpu and expect to be able to be able to max out games. for example games such as bf3 require a good cpu because of all the bullets flying everywhere, buildings toppling. id go with the i5 combo if i were you.
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 6:17:28 PM

deadlockedworld said:
Some strategy games and CPU bound games like Civ 5 will be slower, but for most gaming, the difference between the i3 and the i5 will not be huge. Most games don't take advantage of all the cores, FPS in particular.

Here is a full bench comparison of the two processors in a variety of tasks:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=702

What he said. And to add some of my own notes.

The 660 has limited memory bandwidth. Normally, this isn't an issue, but if you plan to crank up the resolution, texture quality, and AA, the card will slow down. On a good system, this just means you're playing in the 50 fps range instead of the 60+ range, so you may not even notice. The 7800 cards don't have that problem and will perform a little better than the 660 at those higher detail settings. They also have much better GPGPU power, if you do bitmining, folding, etc. I'd rather have a 7870 than a 660, but that's just my own preference.

The i5 has a slight clock bump over the i3 ( almost insignificant in gaming, ) four true cores ( opposed to the i3's Hyper-Threading, ) and a larger L3 cache ( also not used much in gaming. ) Hyper-Threading means the i3 can operate very similar to a true quad-core, though it doesn't do so quite as fast or efficiently. If you plan to run any CPU intensive tasks ( hobby Photoshop or 3D design work, ) the i5 will be notably faster. Is that worth the $100 difference to you?

Or you might want to bank on the i5 as a more future-proof chip. Games will eventually start utilizing more CPU resources like the cache and extra cores. If that happens soon, the i3 might start being underpowered as soon as 2014. If not, it will be a gaming workhorse through 2015.
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 6:20:11 PM

This next topics has been merged by Mousemonkey
  • CPU + GPU Combo
  • CPU GPU Combo
    a b U Graphics card
    a b à CPUs
    November 8, 2012 6:32:32 PM

    SedativeLeek said:
    wont you get a cpu bottleneck when your gpu is so much stronger than your cpu? games are 75% gpu and 25% cpu, but that doesnt mean you can get a weak cpu and expect to be able to be able to max out games. for example games such as bf3 require a good cpu because of all the bullets flying everywhere, buildings toppling. id go with the i5 combo if i were you.

    These cards and CPUs aren't so out of alignment to get a bottleneck anywhere. The actual distribution of CPU vs GPU workload really varies by game and graphic detail levels. Games like Civ and StarCraft put a much bigger load on the CPU than most first-person action games, which conversely are more GPU dependent. Running at low graphics generally shifts the load to the CPU as well, since modern GPUs are more than a match for 720p. Crank the detail and the GPU has to work a lot harder for every single frame, so the card becomes the limiting factor. But really, so long as you're not pushing high detail across multiple monitors or minimum detail at 720p, you won't notice any bottleneck.

    As for BF3, the CPU utilization comes into play during multiplayer matches because it has to process all the input from the other players in the map. You won't see this during single player and the CPU load doesn't scale up with the graphics either. And regardless, a good i3 is more than enough to get smooth frame rates at 1080p when paired with a good GPU ( a 660 or 7870 are sufficient. )
    November 8, 2012 6:32:50 PM

    RedJaron said:
    What he said. And to add some of my own notes.

    The 660 has limited memory bandwidth. Normally, this isn't an issue, but if you plan to crank up the resolution, texture quality, and AA, the card will slow down. On a good system, this just means you're playing in the 50 fps range instead of the 60+ range, so you may not even notice. The 7800 cards don't have that problem and will perform a little better than the 660 at those higher detail settings. They also have much better GPGPU power, if you do bitmining, folding, etc. I'd rather have a 7870 than a 660, but that's just my own preference.

    The i5 has a slight clock bump over the i3 ( almost insignificant in gaming, ) four true cores ( opposed to the i3's Hyper-Threading, ) and a larger L3 cache ( also not used much in gaming. ) Hyper-Threading means the i3 can operate very similar to a true quad-core, though it doesn't do so quite as fast or efficiently. If you plan to run any CPU intensive tasks ( hobby Photoshop or 3D design work, ) the i5 will be notably faster. Is that worth the $100 difference to you?

    Or you might want to bank on the i5 as a more future-proof chip. Games will eventually start utilizing more CPU resources like the cache and extra cores. If that happens soon, the i3 might start being underpowered as soon as 2014. If not, it will be a gaming workhorse through 2015.



    thank you for responding. i know the i5 is better than the i3 but im not sure the margin is worth 115$. in my country the 7870 costs more than the 660 which is on sale.
    do you think i should take a lesser GPU and take the i5 and when the time comes ill upgrade?
    does anyone hear have any exprience with i3 + high end GPU?

    thanks
    November 8, 2012 6:46:27 PM

    deadlockedworld said:
    Some strategy games and CPU bound games like Civ 5 will be slower, but for most gaming, the difference between the i3 and the i5 will not be huge. Most games don't take advantage of all the cores, FPS in particular.

    Here is a full bench comparison of the two processors in a variety of tasks:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=702


    i looked at the gaming FPS diffrences and they are quite lrage sometimes 60 FPS diffrence. is it really that profound?
    a b U Graphics card
    a b à CPUs
    November 8, 2012 6:50:55 PM

    dmd4ever said:
    thank you for responding. i know the i5 is better than the i3 but im not sure the margin is worth 115$. in my country the 7870 costs more than the 660 which is on sale.
    do you think i should take a lesser GPU and take the i5 and when the time comes ill upgrade?
    does anyone hear have any exprience with i3 + high end GPU?

    thanks

    Planning a build only to shortly upgrade afterward just costs more money and should be avoided, unless you have to have the machine right now. If you really want the i5 and a great video card, put off the build for a bit and save up more money, if you can.

    Only you can answer if the extra processing power is worth the $115. If you're not doing any heavy content creation, or just dabbling in it as a hobby, then I'd say the i3 should be sufficient for your needs for a while to come.

    A 660 on sale vs a full price 7870 is an interesting question. The 660 is marginally faster than the 7870 at normal detail settings. Only when you crank up the AA does the 660 slow down a bit. So if you don't plan to play games with AA past 4x, and you don't plan to use the GPU for general computing, then the 660 is a solid choice.
    a b U Graphics card
    a b à CPUs
    November 8, 2012 6:56:13 PM

    dmd4ever said:
    i looked at the gaming FPS diffrences and they are quite lrage sometimes 60 FPS diffrence. is it really that profound?

    That page also shows Diablo and Skyrim running over 100 fps. My guess is the benchmark scores were done with a massive GPU so the CPU became the "bottleneck." But even with that limitation, you're still more than playable. With a lesser GPU, expect the fps difference to be minimal.
    !