Q. 1st computer specs
Intel core i7 3770 3.4 ghz , turbo boost 3.9
Dual channel 4 gb ram. 1.333 MHz
Intel hd4000 integrated graphics
All in one h77 intel chipset motherboard
2nd computer
Amd fx4100 quad core 12 mb cache 3.6ghz
Am3 + fx motherboard
Ati radeon hd7770 1gb
4gb DDR3 1333
I'm looking to play wow n other games
Intel core i7 3770 3.4 ghz , turbo boost 3.9
Dual channel 4 gb ram. 1.333 MHz
Intel hd4000 integrated graphics
All in one h77 intel chipset motherboard
2nd computer
Amd fx4100 quad core 12 mb cache 3.6ghz
Am3 + fx motherboard
Ati radeon hd7770 1gb
4gb DDR3 1333
I'm looking to play wow n other games
A. Uh... since gaming performance is determined 70% by your graphics card, computer #2 wins by a landslide... no, more like by a continent being dropped from orbit ;)
It doesn't matter that the Core i7 3770 is a much more powerful CPU, that's not the biggest factor determining your performance in games (except strategy titles like SC2 and Civ5, and you still need a decent graphics card)
Intel's HD Graphics 4000 performs about like a $50 standalone graphics card. It gets less than 1/4 the fps of a Radeon HD 7770.
Computer #1 is far superior for video editing, but for gaming it can't compete without a real graphics card.
It doesn't matter that the Core i7 3770 is a much more powerful CPU, that's not the biggest factor determining your performance in games (except strategy titles like SC2 and Civ5, and you still need a decent graphics card)
Intel's HD Graphics 4000 performs about like a $50 standalone graphics card. It gets less than 1/4 the fps of a Radeon HD 7770.
Computer #1 is far superior for video editing, but for gaming it can't compete without a real graphics card.
Can someone explain the idea here: when building a gaming computer GPU is more important than CPU?
Q. I mean I've read this on countless forums and I have no idea why people believe this. I for one don't agree with it for the simple reason that three years down the line which one of the two will you be able to upgrade? The GPU. Your CPU, which should be an Intel for gaming comps, will have an outdated socket in three years or so and when it does come time to upgrade you wont be able to get any new CPUs that fit into your motherboard and will have to run new games with what is now a low end CPU. Whereas if you got the highest end CPU you can afford and just a mid grade GPU 3 years down the line you'll be able to run the games on what will be now a mid grade CPU and a High End GPU.
Is it just a lack of foresight that dictates this view?
Is it just a lack of foresight that dictates this view?
A. You're correct that it's much easier to upgrade a GPU than a CPU, assuming that comes up a couple of years down the road, especially with an SLI or Crossfire motherboard. But ease of upgrading is really the only thing in favoring the CPU-first argument.
The points in favor of a high-end GPU are:
1) In most games, performance is primarily determined by the GPU. Whether it's Crysis 1 & 2, Just Cause 2, Battlefield, Call of Duty, WoW, whatever- your GPU has about 3X the impact of your CPU on overall performance. The CPU needs to be "good enough" to avoid bottlenecking, but beyond that point gains are minor compared to what a stronger GPU yields.
The exceptions are strategy games like Starcraft 2, Supreme Commander, Civilization, Dawn of War etc. In those titles, in-game fps is determined primarily by your CPU. And of course in those titles, Intel CPUs are significantly stronger (the FX-8150's dominance in Civ5 notwithstanding)
Anyway, RTS games don't generally have super-intense graphics like elite first-person shooters and MMOs, so anything of a Radeon HD 6850 level or higher is MORE than enough (in fact a Radeon HD 6770/GTX 550 Ti is usually plenty)
2) At the high-end for CPUs, what you're often paying for is higher core count. But core count is the red-headed stepchild of CPU specs when it comes to gaming. Clock speed and efficiency of Core architecture are far more important.
No games other than Civilization 5 utilize more than 4 cores, and most aren't coded to utilize more than 2-3 cores. So for gaming, 4 cores running at 3.4Ghz beats 6 cores running at 3.0Ghz. That's why AMD's Phenom II X4 975 &980 are stronger gaming CPUs than the slower-clocked X6 1100T and 1090T.
3) CPU horsepower is currently WAY ahead of what's needed for modern games. The very top-end CPUs provide significant advantages over mid-grade CPUs for tasks like movie editing, professional design/rendering and heavy-duty scientific work, but NOT for gaming. In the gaming arena, the highest-end CPUs are just expensive overkill.
For example, the Phenom II X4 955 and Core 2 Quad Q9450 are quite dated, but paired with a high-end GPU they're still capable of running the highest-end games smoothly- titles like Battlefield 3, Metro 2033, Crysis 1 & 2, Skyrim etc. While Core i5/i7 is much more powerful (especially 2nd generation Sandy Bridge), the primary effect of CPU advancements has been to bring higher performance down to lower price points. A $190 Core i5 from 2011 is more powerful than a $300 Core i7 from 2009. Even a $125 Core i3 2100 matches the performance of AMD's high-end quads in many games!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-2500-2400-2300_7.html#sect0
The Core i5 2500K has almost identical performance to the Core i7 2600K. It's actually better than the Core i7 in really CPU-intensive games like Dragon Age Origins and Starcraft 2... in those games, hyperthreading actually slows things down a bit rather than helping. But the Core i5 costs $100 less, which makes it a slam-dunk winner because those savings directly translate into a higher-end graphics card. If you're not overclocking, there's not much difference between a stock 2500 and 2400.
4) Money. Even putting bang/buck aside for a moment, the difference between a pair of CPUs $100 apart is less than the difference between a pair of GPUs $100 apart. Typically on the CPU side you might be talking about a 10-20% gain in fps. But on the GPU side, it's more like 50-100% gain.
It's the difference between a single Radeon HD 6770 and a pair running in Crossfire. Between a $50 GeForce GT 430 and a $150 Radeon HD 6850. Between a $150 Radeon HD 6850 and a $250 Radeon HD 6950. Between a $250 Radeon HD 6950 and a $350 GeForce GTX 570. You'll almost always gain fps by spending on the GPU side- your fps loss on the CPU side is much smaller.
GPU performance:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GT_520/18.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/359-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560ti/page8.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/6
CPU performance in BF3:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/3
SC2 and Skyrim:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,766589/Starcraft-2-CPU-benchmarks-Intel-on-top-quads-without-performance-benefit/Practice/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html
Sockets change, I don't think there's any way around that. All we can do is pick one that appears to have some longevity, go "high-end enough" (which isn't too tough) and hope it's still popular later.
The points in favor of a high-end GPU are:
1) In most games, performance is primarily determined by the GPU. Whether it's Crysis 1 & 2, Just Cause 2, Battlefield, Call of Duty, WoW, whatever- your GPU has about 3X the impact of your CPU on overall performance. The CPU needs to be "good enough" to avoid bottlenecking, but beyond that point gains are minor compared to what a stronger GPU yields.
The exceptions are strategy games like Starcraft 2, Supreme Commander, Civilization, Dawn of War etc. In those titles, in-game fps is determined primarily by your CPU. And of course in those titles, Intel CPUs are significantly stronger (the FX-8150's dominance in Civ5 notwithstanding)
Anyway, RTS games don't generally have super-intense graphics like elite first-person shooters and MMOs, so anything of a Radeon HD 6850 level or higher is MORE than enough (in fact a Radeon HD 6770/GTX 550 Ti is usually plenty)
2) At the high-end for CPUs, what you're often paying for is higher core count. But core count is the red-headed stepchild of CPU specs when it comes to gaming. Clock speed and efficiency of Core architecture are far more important.
No games other than Civilization 5 utilize more than 4 cores, and most aren't coded to utilize more than 2-3 cores. So for gaming, 4 cores running at 3.4Ghz beats 6 cores running at 3.0Ghz. That's why AMD's Phenom II X4 975 &980 are stronger gaming CPUs than the slower-clocked X6 1100T and 1090T.
3) CPU horsepower is currently WAY ahead of what's needed for modern games. The very top-end CPUs provide significant advantages over mid-grade CPUs for tasks like movie editing, professional design/rendering and heavy-duty scientific work, but NOT for gaming. In the gaming arena, the highest-end CPUs are just expensive overkill.
For example, the Phenom II X4 955 and Core 2 Quad Q9450 are quite dated, but paired with a high-end GPU they're still capable of running the highest-end games smoothly- titles like Battlefield 3, Metro 2033, Crysis 1 & 2, Skyrim etc. While Core i5/i7 is much more powerful (especially 2nd generation Sandy Bridge), the primary effect of CPU advancements has been to bring higher performance down to lower price points. A $190 Core i5 from 2011 is more powerful than a $300 Core i7 from 2009. Even a $125 Core i3 2100 matches the performance of AMD's high-end quads in many games!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-2500-2400-2300_7.html#sect0
The Core i5 2500K has almost identical performance to the Core i7 2600K. It's actually better than the Core i7 in really CPU-intensive games like Dragon Age Origins and Starcraft 2... in those games, hyperthreading actually slows things down a bit rather than helping. But the Core i5 costs $100 less, which makes it a slam-dunk winner because those savings directly translate into a higher-end graphics card. If you're not overclocking, there's not much difference between a stock 2500 and 2400.
4) Money. Even putting bang/buck aside for a moment, the difference between a pair of CPUs $100 apart is less than the difference between a pair of GPUs $100 apart. Typically on the CPU side you might be talking about a 10-20% gain in fps. But on the GPU side, it's more like 50-100% gain.
It's the difference between a single Radeon HD 6770 and a pair running in Crossfire. Between a $50 GeForce GT 430 and a $150 Radeon HD 6850. Between a $150 Radeon HD 6850 and a $250 Radeon HD 6950. Between a $250 Radeon HD 6950 and a $350 GeForce GTX 570. You'll almost always gain fps by spending on the GPU side- your fps loss on the CPU side is much smaller.
GPU performance:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GT_520/18.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/359-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560ti/page8.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/6
CPU performance in BF3:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/3
SC2 and Skyrim:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,766589/Starcraft-2-CPU-benchmarks-Intel-on-top-quads-without-performance-benefit/Practice/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html
Sockets change, I don't think there's any way around that. All we can do is pick one that appears to have some longevity, go "high-end enough" (which isn't too tough) and hope it's still popular later.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
