I'm going to upgrade my processor from an old AMD 3500+ to an e8400. Obviously this is a huge jump, as the e8400 is probably one of the best processors for gaming out there that's under $225. However, I will not be upgrading my old BFG 7900 GS right away, so my PC will have a big weak spot with that card. I've made a list of games that I would like to get, and am wondering which one is the most CPU heavy, meaning that it relies more on the CPU to do it's processing instead of the GPU. Any suggestions? I'm obviously not going to be maxing any game from 2007-2008 at 1680x1050 with my current card regardless.

FSX...

none of them really, you want cpu intensive? get Supreme comander

 
Microsoft's Flight Simulator by far.

Yup... You looking for a VERY CPU intensive game that doesn't need a whole lot of GFX power...
 
Flight Sim X is your game!  Even Flight Sim 2004 was alot more CPU intensive than gfx, will run flawless on newish systems

 
Yep I'll second that, the only game ive had where oc'ing my e6300 from 2.4 to 2.6ghz gave me like another 15-20 fps (at the start of multiplayer 2v2.)  Not really convinced that its very multi-threaded except with several a.i. opponents in skirmish mode, so a dual core should really fit perfectly.  My old 7900gt with a huge oc could do 50+ fps during the early stages of a multiplayer game, 1400x900 resolution, 2xAA, high settings with some on medium.    

I third SupCom. You put 1000 unit cap, 8 players and all super duper high settings with a res over 1280*1024 and you will see your uber rig  
starting to chug away under the load. Im currently running a 6000+ @ 3.4ghz with 4gb 1066 OCZ and an 8800 ULTRA OC'd. I take strain, and someone online usually always has a crap PC so the game starts to LAG big time. Its a very CPU intensive game i find. In fact, even 2 players with a 500 unit cap on high will push your pc to the limits. The expansion Forged Alliance cleaned up alot of the memory leaks and allocates quad cores alot better so thats probably a big help if you are a quadie.
 
Most people will probably vote Crysis as there is a lot of coverage dealing with the fact that the engine will only run smoothly on a future PC. At the moment the only rated rig that can play it on absolute ultra settings with a consistently decent and smooth fps is the Intel SkullTrail. But thats overkill. And about 0000045% of the population own a rig close to that. Which A. doesnt really impress me and B. is probably just over the top coding or an innefficient engine. Make no mistake it does look pretty though. Then again some games come close and dont need such a hectic system. See Jericho for an example.

Is Company of Heroes about as CPU intensive as Supreme Commander? I have it, and as you would imagine it doesn't run too nicely on my current rig at 1440x900 which is my only option. I want to get the expansion .

I will refrian from any negative comments by saying 2 words: Hell No. And opposing fronts is aweomse, definitely get it. Also, there making a COH2.

well I might not get OF seeing that it's not CPU intensive... I will get it eventually though, when I upgrade to my 8800GT or whatever.

If you want something to push your CPU hard, Flight Simulator X is about the best thing you can get. SP1 added compatibility with up to 256 cores, and you don't even need that high-end a graphics card. I've found that FSX runs best on an ATI graphics card with TONS of memory. Can't remember exactly but my flatmate has a pretty old ATI card with 1GB of memory on it, and FSX runs better on that than it does on his Macbook Pro with an 8600M GTS (and also better than on my old 8600 GTS).
 
So yea, if you're looking for a CPU intensive game, FSX is your best bet. That thing can max out my 3.6 GHz Q6600 for crying out loud

 
Sorry for the double post but... what? You're basing whether or not you'll buy a game on how much it makes your CPU work?
 
Whatever happened to the good old days where people bought games because they were great instead of over-fancy interactive cinematic sequences (read: Crysis)

Sorry, you might have misinterperated my situation:

I am getting a new motherboard and processor in about a month. Unfortunately, I can't afford to get a new graphics card with it. I also can only afford one game to buy with the new stuff. I'm looking for a game that can take advantage of the new e8400, so I can see what it can do, and how it pushes my system. Eventually, of course, I'll get opposing fronts, because I love COH. I'm not trying to be a graphics whore, I just want something that will take advantage of my super powerful CPU in comparison to the old AMD 3500+ that I had, in the time that I will not have a powerful graphics card.

Reading a few posts, apparently the FSX is cpu intensive, but is it more so than Supcom?
 
I have Supcom so I can testify that it is the most cpu demanding game I have ever played. With a 3.15GHz Q6600, my rigs starts slowing down towards 30mins into the game. That's when there's about 2000units roaming about, fighting constantly with marks of battle being created every second.
 
Naturally, playing on a 80km by 80km map with 8000units is a killer. My pc doesn't even last 10mins, probably due to XP's ram limit.

Sorry boys, I have been rippen COH for some time and I use fraps and play competitively online. I have no problem running it on ultra 8xcsaa at 1680x1050, but in a 2v2 the game goes down to 17-18 fps because I bottleneck my Pentium D. When I turn my settings down some there is little difference. In 1v1 and in lower action I am above 40fps in game. Mt performance test numbers are 130 max 70 average and 30 min. My budy has basically same system but with a C2D and he gets 10 fps better minimum in game but the same performance test numbers. Go out of game and see your task bar when the game gets a rockin and you will see you cpu worken hard. Considering games should run above 40fps in High action I would say it's cpu intensive.
And where did you hear COH2, I am a member of various coh sites and I have heard nothing like that?

 
 
XP and Vista ram limit in 4gb. If you have 4 gb installed windows reads all of it minus the space taken by video ram its just not displayed. it will usually read 2.5 but there is 3.5 accessible by drivers and windows plus the 512 video ram making 4 gb all together, its just not displayed, it is there though. Its a common misconception.

FSX is THE most cpu intensive game I've come across, and I have supcom so that pretty much answers your question there. While SupCom is intensive, having an 80x80 map with 2000 units isn't going to overload your CPU, it fills pretty much all your ram (it won't hit 4gb because as far as I remember programs only have an individual allocation allowance of 2.5gb) and your video memory, at which point things get cached on the hard drive and that just slows everything down
 
Also, the OP said he has Vista 64-bit, so getting 4gb RAM would actually result in 4gb RAM, not 4gb - video, bios, etc.

I was talking about the 2GB limit per program in windows XP. You know, no program can exceed 2GB of memory space.