• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Does fast gpu make up for a slow cpu.. ??

basically once the resolution and settings are cranked up it pretty much all becomes gpu limited... at very low resolutions or settings with very high frame rates.. a faster cpu will give you even higher frame rates.. pretty much wasted at whatever low resolution or settings are being run.. 100 fps may turn into 105 fps or 150 fps may turn into 160 fps..all meaningless because none of it will effect game play in the slightest..

but load the gpu enough to slow the frame rates down as most gamers will do and its all gpu limited.. at 40 fps no cpu octo core or not will help much.. only a faster gpu will help..

my own tests should have proven this.. witcher is gpu heavy and cpu light.. i got similar frame rates running my cpu at a very slow 2 gigs as i do at 4.5 gig.. witcher fully maxed out at 1440 is pretty much all gpu..

just Cause 3 on the other hand showed a huge difference at 2 gig.. JC3 is very cpu heavy.. but even at a low 2 gig i was still seeing an average of 80 fps.. still very playable.. but a big drop from the average of 120 i see at 4.5 gig..

if i dont have a frame rate counter running running 1440 i cant see any difference between running my cpu at 2 gig or at 4.5 gig.. the three games i have tried at 2 gig all played fluidly.. witcher.. mad max.. Just cause 3..

i could try few more but i would expect the same result.. all my games would still be very playable with my cpu clocked at 2 gigs..

i reach my own conclusions.. that is enough for me..

trog
 
I'm talking 3dmark, like you were... but I guess you moved on to games.

You can look at techspot reviews of games and see what cpu speed does for amd and intel cpus in the games they review. It will supplement your work. ;)
 
a rare sight.. the valley benchmark (1440) with the volume knob turned down.. a nice smooth 70 fps.. cpu temps not much higher than some would see at idle and the gpus at less than half power..

i run my games the same way.. they look just as smooth as the valley benchmark does at 70 fps.. i have already answered my "how many frame rates are enough" question.. 70 fps or there abouts seems plenty fine for me..

and dare i say it.. the whole scenario would look exactly the same with my cpu at 2 gig.. :)


slow.jpg


trog
 
Last edited:
The thing about multi-cores and games is even if the game does not take advantage of the extra cores of the CPU, Windows does. And Windows can use those cores for other tasks, like your security programs.
 
Depends on the game. Some games are more CPU oriented. These tends to be flight sims, simulators in general like ArmA or RTS games. Most games lean more towards the GPU. Using Tomb Raider and Metro 2033/Last Light as an example, going from a stock AMD 965 to an i5 4670K OCed to 4GHZ gave me roughly 2 more frame rates in the benchmarks. Essentially unnoticeable. Upgrading from my GTX 670 to GTX 970 saw a large performance jump.

In Battlefield 3 my maximum frame rates remained roughly the same, but the minimum was raised by a lot. Previously it got into the mid 30s and after the upgrade it maintained a smooth 60. In most areas I got 60 on both CPUs, but clearly the AMD 965 was bottlenecking it. ArmA 3 jumped from 24 to 48 frame rates with the same settings.

If you're short on cash and can only upgrade one, the GPU is the better option for most games. But ideally you will want to have both a modern CPU and GPU for a good experience.

Note: The benchmarks I ran were at 1080, AA and full graphics settings. Not ideal for showing CPU performance but I am interested in seeing the real performance difference in game.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top