Low res gaming needs a faster CPU? nuh-uh.

[TechnicalFreak]

no, i dont. people are saying you need MORE CPU power at lower res, since the CPU is MORE IMPORTANT at lower resolutions.

that is the weird logic i'm trying to lay the smackdown on.

I don't get it, why would the cpu be more important at a lower res? The lower the resolution, the better the game would run - no need for more cpu power, right?

 

[Frick]

It's not the CPU that matters more, it's the GPU that matters less.

 

[HalfAHertz]

You should have just said that the CPU is the smallest common denominator the more you decrease your resolution

 

[TechnicalFreak]

You should have just said that the CPU is the smallest common denominator the more you decrease your resolution

Aha.. Now that makes sense (to me).
Thanks.

 

[Mussels]

I don't get it, why would the cpu be more important at a lower res? The lower the resolution, the better the game would run - no need for more cpu power, right?

because of the ass-backwards reverse logic people use.

If GPU matters more at high res, then CPU matters less... so at low res, the GPU matters less, and the CPU matters more.

I've seen and heard some weeeeeird logic to explain it, but thats what it boils down to.

It's not the CPU that matters more, it's the GPU that matters less.

Thats the truth, summarized as i did a few posts back (but hadnt figured out how to say in the first post)

You should have just said that the CPU is the smallest common denominator the more you decrease your resolution

shit mon, i cant even figure out what you mean there. stop usin fancy talk, y'all.

 

[LifeOnMars]

I guess its CPU choice sets the potential, GPU scales that potential. Or you could look at it the other way around if you like. For example, GTA IV (a mostly CPU bound game) runs far better with a faster, multithreaded CPU (FACT) That said, as you go up in resolution the CPU is going to be losing the amount of frames it is capable of maintaining so at the higher resolutions people are getting similar results with lesser graphics cards compared with more powerful cards as its more CPU limited than anything.

 

[Radical_Edward]

Thanks for posting this. Really clears things up

 

[1Kurgan1]

no, the CPU doesnt matter at all.


let me put it this way:

if you want 60 FPS at 1280x1024, is it going to take MORE, or LESS CPU power than 1080p at 60FPS?

Less. Never will it require more.


it has more impact on FPS percentage wise, assuming you have a GPU more powerful than you need - but thats does NOT make the CPU more important at low res, or the GPU more important at high res... it just means you're getting more FPS when you remove a bottleneck.


edit: i finally figured out how to word the bit stuck in my brain.


If your settings get you 60 FPS at 1080P, by dropping your resolution to 1280x1024 do you need more CPU power to get the same 60 FPS?

NO. you do not. Therefore, you do NOT need a more powerful CPU at lower resolutions. it is not more important.

You are way over thinking everything, you don't need to hold peoples hands this much. I don't think you grasp exactly what I'm saying, but I don't think it should have t be flat out said literally.

At a lower resolution games use a lot of the CPU and not much of the GPU, at a higher resolution games use more of the CPU and way more of the GPU. I'm not saying that a higher resolution doesn't add more stress, I'm saying that compared to the useage of the GPU from low to high res, the use of the CPU isn't as drastic, it's always under use. This really isn't that complicated, I'm not sure why your making such a large deal over it. I have never ever heard anyone say "at a lower resolution you need a better processor than a higher resolution."

To play at a high res you need an all around better computer, to play at a low res you need a decent cpu and videocard isn't such a big deal.

 

[Mussels]

no i'm not over thinking it... i'm seeing people give bad advice, and educating the masses as to why that advice is bad, rather than de-rail those threads.

you may not have seen someone say it... but look at the comments in this thread. They've seen it. i've seen it.


heres two of them:

Well good you cleared that point mussels, I was starting to think that it was only me getting confused while browsing some threads.

Thanks Mussels, I was beginning to question my own understanding of this after seeing so many posts about the issue. Was getting a little confused.

so thats three of us who've seen people giving this advice on the forums.

 

[DrPepper]

It's pretty much that the CPU has to do x amount of instructions per second regardless of resolution for the game to function. As resolution increases there are more instructions that need to be processed. Same applies with the GPU although it can already meet the base amount plus more = more fps than required. If you want to increase maximum fps chances are a faster cpu will do that but there is no reason unless it's for benchmarking or the cpu can't calculate the base amount of instructions for the game to function.

 

[1Kurgan1]

no i'm not over thinking it... i'm seeing people give bad advice, and educating the masses as to why that advice is bad, rather than de-rail those threads.

you may not have seen someone say it... but look at the comments in this thread. They've seen it. i've seen it.

What I mean by over thinking it, is your trying to find faults in what others are writing, I have been saying the samething as you the whole time, but I just had to flat out say every single thing instead of just saying "The CPU is used more" when that meant "the CPU is used more than the GPU at a lower res", and you thought it meant "the CPU is used more at lower res, then it is used at higher res."

And I have a feeling that when people write "the CPU is used more", they meant in relation to the GPU at a lower resolution, thats what I have always assumed, I would never ever have thought they meant that a low res would be more stressful on a CPU. But I would have assume that it's less stressful on a GPU, looking at card reviews you can see low res ever low end and high end cards are close in performance.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Agreed, quite often with this subject thought, peoples thoughts on the subject are not conveyed well to writing and therefore can lead to misinterpretations, yours is clear here. What some people say is, "at low resolutions/detail if you want to increase framerates perhaps because you have a mid ranged card but a demanding game, quite often the user may see more performance gain from raising the CPU speed rather than increasing the core speed of the GPU, that does depend on the hardware involved though to a certain degree".

A very old article that pretty much sums up the theories is here, and it is old!.....

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1419

 

[newtekie1]

I'm not reading through all of the comments, but I did read some.

Saying the CPU is more important at the lower res is wrong. Period.

However, I can see the logic behind that saying, it is only wrong because it is worded wrong.

What should be said is: You need a stronger CPU at a lower resolution to not bottleneck the GPU.

Using my example from earlier in the thread, if I wanted to see that 200FPS the GPU was capable of at 1024x768, I would need a stronger CPU to do it. That is where the logic comes from. The people trying to express it are just wording it wrong.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I'm not reading through all of the comments, but I did read some.

Saying the CPU is more important at the lower res is wrong. Period.

However, I can see the logic behind that saying, it is only wrong because it is worded wrong.

What should be said is: You need a stronger CPU at a lower resolution to not bottleneck the GPU.

Using my example from earlier in the thread, if I wanted to see that 200FPS the GPU was capable of at 1024x768, I would need a stronger CPU to do it. That is where the logic comes from. The people trying to express it are just wording it wrong.

We were probably writing at the same time as I have said similar, although I always get worried about my wording on these matters..... take a look at the link and the following page of my post above.

 

[epicfail]

I havent sayed this to people but for me you might wanna try and make it sound not true but.

BC2 i run better with everything fps and performance, with everything maxed then everything on low.

Same for CSS
Same for MW2

 

[n-ster]

I've seen a ton of people saying this, and while I was sceptical at first, I was starting to believe it LOL, Thanks Mussels, for the clarification.

Mussels - The MythBuster Mod

 

[monte84]

There is a greater variance between framerates of different CPU's at lower resolutions than at higher resolutions.

for instance my 9850 x4 may give me 100FPS max detail at 800x600 where as a core i7 may give you 150FPS @ 800x600 but at 1920x1080 they maybe closer to = of say 60FPS (game dependant of course)

That where the misconception of needing a better CPU at lower resolutions, which isnt really the case, you will just get higher highs. Which is almost irrelevant.

Simple concept, misinterpreted.

 

[naoan]

The way I see it :

At lower res gpu have no problem producing maximum frame rate for the game thus making the cpu dictate the final fps (cpu bottleneck).

The opposite happen at higher res where your GPU actually struggle to keep the frame rate as high so while the cpu may be capable of churning out 100FPS but the gpu can only give 60 and that's what you get.

Did I got that right? a question remain though, does the cpu actually give the same frame rate at lower and higher res if hypothetically GPU isn't the bottleneck at all?

 

[n-ster]

The way I see it :

At lower res gpu have no problem producing maximum frame rate for the game thus making the cpu dictate the final fps (cpu bottleneck).

The opposite happen at higher res where your GPU actually struggle to keep the frame rate as high so while the cpu may be capable of churning out 100FPS but the gpu can only give 60 and that's what you get.

Did I got that right? a question remain though, does the cpu actually give the same frame rate at lower and higher res if hypothetically GPU isn't the bottleneck at all?

So many factors can determine that, but my bet it is lower frame rates at higher res, and by a good margin

 

[epicfail]

So many factors can determine that, but my bet it is lower frame rates at higher res, and by a good margin

Comparing same res Max and low i had 20 fps dif in bc2 lol.
in CSS its the same exact thing.
in MW2 20-40 fps better.

Same Res but Everything Max i get better fps so there must be something screwy on my part

 

[n-ster]

well, max and low setting are a completely different thing... Max settings, the CPU offloads stuff to GPU, hence the fps change for you

 

[naoan]

So many factors can determine that, but my bet it is lower frame rates at higher res, and by a good margin

Yes I also think it would be like that but even so the GPU still end up being the biggest bottleneck so it isn't apparent in real world it seems.

well, max and low setting are a completely different thing... Max settings, the CPU offloads stuff to GPU, hence the fps change for you

Now I'm confused, do you mean to say that some calculation originally being done in CPU got offloaded to GPU?

 

[GSquadron]

This thread is the same as einstein's first postulate
That is why people don't get it even with examples
The cpu and gpu, limit each other
To take as much advantage as possible
the limit should be as near as possible for both

 

[epicfail]

Now I'm confused, do you mean to say that some calculation originally being done in CPU got offloaded to GPU?

if you have high your GPU does more stuff if your on low your CPU will have more work if i read right.

 

[n-ster]

I'm not sure though, but I think that's what is happening, so don't take my word for it