Low end cpu vs high end cpu for gaming

[Easy Rhino]

let's say i have a gtx660, would a new dual core i3 proc bottleneck it?

now what about having something like a gtx680? would the same i3 bottleneck it. would it matter when gaming at high resolutions with AA?

[brandonwh64]

Nope the I3 would do fine.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

Nope the I3 would do fine.

in both cases?

[brandonwh64]

Mainly in both cases. The only time I would see it as and issue would be SLI or Xfire

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

Mainly in both cases. The only time I would see it as and issue would be SLI or Xfire

cool. so since most games are console ports the i3 wouldn't inhibit performance?

[brandonwh64]

I ran BF3 on my I3-2120 and a 560TI without issues just to see how good it would work. It did not see much of a frame drop from the 2600K.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

I ran BF3 on my I3-2120 and a 560TI without issues just to see how good it would work. It did not see much of a frame drop from the 2600K.

at 1920x1080 and some AA?

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

at 1920x1080 and some AA?

Yep. Ran 1080P with all high and 2xMSAA

[Jetster]

Thats crazy. What a nice chip that one is

[Black Panther]

When I used an (older e8400) dual core overclocked to 4Ghz on display 2560x1440 using an HD 5970 I used to get some stuttering in games like Skyrim with Hi-res mods using full graphic settings.

Once I put that pc on a 1680x1050 monitor all stuttering vanished even on full AA etc...

If I use an i7 930 @ 4Ghz with a 670 4GB, everything's smooth as butter, on 2560x1440. However I'm not sure if it's the extra memory of the graphics card or the better processor which is smoothing things out. From what I read, there isn't much of a difference between the HD 5970 and the 670, so I assume it's the latter.

[Easy Rhino]

so my assumption is pretty much correct. if gaming is the most intensive thing you do on your pc then as far as the cpu goes, you don't need anything more than an i3.

[brandonwh64]

Over all CPU performance is not that far off from a 2600K in gaming.

I3-3220 = 1694 points
I7-2600K = 2217 points

Applications: Gimp, Handbrake, mplayer, 7-Zip

[Black Panther]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

so my assumption is pretty much correct. if gaming is the most intensive thing you do on your pc then you don't need anything more than an i3.

I sure think so. My daughter can play any game she wants at full settings, without any stuttering, using an old E8400 @ 4Ghz, 4GB DDR2 RAM, and a 5970 on 1680x1050 resolution.

The same hardware suffered a lot on 2560x1440 though.

[Ikaruga]

It always depends on the application (game) and the resolution used. Generally (with some rare exception, less then 10 percent today) games tend to become so GPU-limited as the resolution increases, that an i3 or an i5 only makes 5fps difference, which means that a better graphics card delivers more most of the times. The SB/IB Intel CPU's are truly awesome, and an i3 will do very well in most of the games, especially if you play games in 1080p or above.

However, there are already games out there with decent quad core support, not to mention that this trend will become much more dominant in the future, so an i5 would be more future proof for sure, and again, it really depends on the games you are planning to play. If you want to play games like Planetside 2 or GTA (etc), an i3 won't be enough, me thinks.

[Aquinus]

The CPU does less work and the GPU does more work at higher resolutions because more time is spent on the GPU attempting to render the scene. All in all, as resolution increases, losses attributed by the CPU tend to go down and the bottleneck becomes the GPU. Crossfire only stresses the CPU out more because two GPUs tend to render scenes faster than just one, so more CPU power is used to prep the scenes that otherwise wouldn't have been rendered with a single GPU, which is the same effect as dropping the resolution. It is easier to render each scene so more time is spent prepping the next scene rather than using the GPU to render it.

Not that any of that information was needed, but all in all the i3 should do fine for most modern games as high resolutions sans 3D vision and multi-display gaming.

[brandonwh64]

Ikaruga does have a good point BUT the I3 has HT which should kick in during those multithreaded games. I only tested a hand full including BF3 and all ran just as good as the 2600K give or take a little.

[Delta6326]

Not to big of a difference from i3 to i5 fps

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=701

Diablo 3
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/506

Metro 2033
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/338

[eidairaman1]

might aswell call for a i5 then

[3870x2]

I wouldnt think of it as bottlenecking as much as scaling. You would be able to max every game out there with 2x 670s and a core 2 duo e2140.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

I wouldnt think of it as bottlenecking as much as scaling. You would be able to max every game out there with 2x 670s and a core 2 duo e2140.

ive always viewed it as having a CPU that is stronger than the video card

[Crap Daddy]

It really depends on the game. But here's an example (though with a GTX690 but I don't know if SLI is working here based on the framerates):



While I'm sure an i3 Sandy or Ivy can drive just as fine a GTX660 or a GTX680 it will always be inferior to an i5 or i7 when the game takes advantage of more/faster cores.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by Crap Daddy

It really depends on the game. But here's an example (though with a GTX690 but I don't know if SLI is working here based on the framerates):

http://img.techpowerup.org/121212/fc3 proz.png

While I'm sure an i3 Sandy or Ivy can drive just as fine a GTX660 or a GTX680 it will always be inferior to an i5 or i7 when the game takes advantage of more/faster cores.

idk dual GPU cards have always been a pain, it might be the way the configuration is for the driver too with SLi and PhysX

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Black Panther

I sure think so. My daughter can play any game she wants at full settings, without any stuttering, using an old E8400 @ 4Ghz, 4GB DDR2 RAM, and a 5970 on 1680x1050 resolution.

The same hardware suffered a lot on 2560x1440 though.

Having a powerful CPU does make a difference, especially if you're shooting for 120Hz on the latest monitors like I do.

I had an E8500 at 4.1GHz and noticed that my frame rates were dropping on demanding games. Got the 2700K I'm on now and they shot up, sometimes double. This was on my GTX 285 too. Frame rates are of course significantly better with my current GTX 580.

So yeah, don't shy away from getting the best CPU you can afford and overclocking the snot out of it!

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by qubit

Having a powerful CPU does make a difference, especially if you're shooting for 120Hz on the latest monitors like I do.

I had an E8500 at 4.1GHz and noticed that my frame rates were dropping on demanding games. Got the 2700K I'm on now and they shot up, sometimes double. This was on my GTX 285 too. Frame rates are of course significantly better with my current GTX 580.

So yeah, don't shy away from getting the best CPU you can afford and overclocking the snot out of it!

i feel the i5 will fit the bill better than an i3

[qubit]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

i feel the i5 will fit the bill better than an i3

Agreed.