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



## trog100 (Feb 23, 2016)

i am bit bored so i am fiddling..

people say there is no point in having a fast gpu with a slow cpu.. without making any other changes i have just dropped my multiplyer from 45 to 30..

it does knock by 1440 firestrike extreme score down to 12000 odd from 14000 odd.. still pretty quick though..

windows seems the same.. i cant detect any difference and Just Cause 3 plays the same i cant detect any difference..

my system is in my specs.. i might go down to a multiplyer of 22 a tad less than half of what i normally run at..

i strongly suspect i still wont be able to detect any difference without running a benchmark.. 

what am i trying to prove.. buggered if i know.. blame it on too much time on my hands.. he he

trog

ps.. maybe an I7 at 3 gig aint slow.. to me it is though.. 

my vcore shows .918 at 3 gig.. i bet it would go lower..

my cpu tempts running wprime are 35 C..


----------



## GoldenX (Feb 23, 2016)

Well, a 2,2GHz Haswell is still a very fast processor, try running it at 2,2 but with just 2 or 1 core and HT disabled, so it seems similar to a cheap or old CPU.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 23, 2016)

i recon i would notice a difference with only two cores running at 2.2..  from what i read Just Cause 3 is said to need a fast cpu.. 

it does tend to suggest that the gpu is king.. given plenty of gpu power the cpu takes a major second place..

but i can try going lower and switching some of the cores off.. 

trog


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 23, 2016)

Your 4790k at 3 GHz is about equal to the 3.3 GHz 3770 listed in the recommended system specs for Just Cause 3 (Haswell is about 10% faster than Ivy Bridge). You won't notice a difference as long as you stay within the recommended performance gap set by the recommended system specs for the game. Cut your 4790k down to a non-HT dual core, or down clock it to the 2.5 GHz range and see what happens. Even tri-SLI GTX 980ti won't help if you don't have enough CPU power.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 23, 2016)

1. FS has a CPU test in it... bad test as inevitably the score will lower because you are dropping cores and core speed which the tests rely on.
2. Techrspot? Tests games and different clockspeeds of Intel and AMD processors.... go look there for your results....(this is tested on each game they review).
Example: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
3. Stop trying to 'detect' slow FPS and actually  measure it... you know, scientific method instead of this seat of your pants stuff.
4. What does Wprime have to do with this? You talking games or what?

In short, it will vary by game you test as to how many, if any, FPS you drop...however
this isn't a new thought and has been tested before.


----------



## SnakeDoctor (Feb 23, 2016)

Pop in a G3250 or an i3 and compare the difference or will need to run something at 4k that cause not great fps in the first place then downclock after 
Not too much point if already maxing out a game with stupid amounts of fps in the first place or compare without the sli maybe, seeing as your cpu and gpu's are beefy


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 23, 2016)

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


"Make up for" is a pretty generalized statement. A slow CPU can bottleneck just about everything. But with graphics intensive tasks, much of the CPU's job is to hand off tasks to the GPU and it really does not take a lot of CPU horsepower to hand off tasks. And from there, a faster GPU can speed up graphics processing. But some games and many programs are very CPU intensive so a faster GPU may toss the results up on the screen faster (once it gets them from the CPU) but probably not something you would notice.

So people who say there's no point in having a faster GPU with a slow CPU are really being narrow minded. It really depends on the tasks being performed. And of course, other factors factor in too. For example, if you have a small amount of RAM, that can bottleneck your system too - again, depending on the tasks being performed. And a slow hard drive can cause bottlenecks with disk intensive tasks. But you have 32GB and SSDs so no problems there.


----------



## Flow (Feb 23, 2016)

Most games wont loose much fps if you drop the multi of a modern i7 to defaults.
As for a faster gpu making up for a slower cpu, I pressume you're talking games that need a fast cpu to start with?
A fast gpu wont make up for the slow cpu if a game demands it. You can play at higher settings though, without loosing or gaining fps.
But as nowadays games rely more on the gpu, and most cpu's provide enough speed, you wont encounter that problem soon.
I do know from the past, it was for fps games and multiplayer shooters better to have a fast cpu first, and play with lower graphics until one could upgrade the card.

At present I run into no problems playing games like witcher 3 and fallout 4 with my aging cpu.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> 1. FS has a CPU test in it... bad test as inevitably the score will lower because you are dropping cores and core speed which the tests rely on.
> 2. Techrspot? Tests games and different clockspeeds of Intel and AMD processors.... go look there for your results....(this is tested on each game they review).
> Example: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
> 3. Stop trying to 'detect' slow FPS and actually  measure it... you know, scientific method instead of this seat of your pants stuff.
> ...




dude as i said i am bored.. i have already read tons sh-t.. most of it bollocks.. i am simply amusing myself.. read the thread or dont but dont tell me what i can and cant do please.. he he

i mention just cause cos it happen to be the game i am currently playing.. 

i am now going to move down to 2 gig 4 cores with hyper threading .. just to see.. and cos i can.. 

trog

ps.. 20 x multiplyer 2 gig.. vcore reads .801

cpu temps running wprime 32 C..

now to see if it will play 1440 just cause 3 okay..


----------



## Frick (Feb 23, 2016)

I have some suggestions if you want some good reading. Start here.

Otherwise you can do some benches and make some nice graphs, that'll take some time too.


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 23, 2016)

A slow CPU can definitely help hamper your GPU. Taking Firestrike as an example I score 6681 with my cpu at stock speeds (3.5 Ghz) and with a 4.5 ghz OC it scores 7539. A significant difference considering I only have a $200 GPU and a $130 CPU.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 23, 2016)

i dont dispute the fact that slow a cpu will hamper a gpu.. that goes without saying.. 

what i am more interesting in find out for myself is just how much a fast gpu makes up for the slow cpu.. 

so far i am down to 2 gig.. pretty slow i think.. it certainly does hamper my pair of 980 TI cards no question of that.. 

but Just Cause 3 was still perfectly playable with the cpu at 2 gig.. 1440 frame rates mostly around 80 with highs around 100 and lows around 50.. 

which does kind of suggest that if you chuck enough gpu power at any game even a half assed cpu will do a good enough job.. 

it also kind of suggests (and not everybody knows this) that anybody with an older generation I5 or I 7 cpu aint gonna suffer that much because of this.. without a doubt the gpu is king.. 

trog


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 23, 2016)

trog100 said:


> what i am more interesting in find out for myself is just how much a fast gpu makes up for the slow cpu..


And again, it depends on the tasks you throw at them. I certainly would not base your decision on Just Cause 3 alone.


----------



## Frick (Feb 23, 2016)

trog100 said:


> i dont dispute the fact that slow a cpu will hamper a gpu.. that goes without saying..
> 
> what i am more interesting in find out for myself is just how much a fast gpu makes up for the slow cpu..
> 
> ...



Beeeenncchheeeees and graphs.


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 23, 2016)

Well for a GPU vs GPU comparison we have this: Exact same system only difference swapped GPUs. In fact the R9 380 was a free RMA replacement for the 270X after one of the fans failed on the 270X.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 23, 2016)

witcher had has a mention.. just to see i had quick run around in it.. cpu at 2 gig.. witcher fully maxed out at 1440.. frames rates around 70 fps.. 

witcher is very gpu dependant but not very cpu dependant.. the 1440 fps wasnt a deal different than with the cpu at 4.5 gig.. 

i am still at 2 gigs just to see how windows in general runs on a much slower cpu..

trog


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 23, 2016)

The main problem with most reviews comparing high end graphics cards... and even mid range ones in benchmarks and even real world tests is that they compare them using the most powerful CPU they have at the time. Nobody testing the newest GTX 980ti is going to run it on a motherboard with a Pentium III or Athlon 64. 

Also CPU performance depends on a number of factors, even slowing the processor down you still have to consider number of cores, hyperthreading, and if the particular piece of software being tested uses single or multiple threads as 8 threads at 1 ghz is still faster than 1 thread at 5 gz


----------



## trog100 (Feb 23, 2016)

chuck216 said:


> The main problem with most reviews comparing high end graphics cards... and even mid range ones in benchmarks and even real world tests is that they compare them using the most powerful CPU they have at the time. Nobody testing the newest GTX 980ti is going to run it on a motherboard with a Pentium III or Athlon 64.
> 
> Also CPU performance depends on a number of factors, even slowing the processor down you still have to consider number of cores, hyperthreading, and if the particular piece of software being tested uses single or multiple threads as 8 threads at 1 ghz is still faster than 1 thread at 5 gz



mostly it isnt and more so with games.. nothing much except cpu benchmarks and the odd specialist video software will use them..

the real problem with most reviews  is they are all trying to exaggerate the differences.. they create an artificial scenario which does just that.. exaggerate the differences..

i just had another play with Just Cause 3 with my normal 70-ish frame rate cap.. with a g-sync monitor 70 fps seems to produce very good very smooth results without  my PC turning into a room heater.. i just played the game in my normal way and liberated a town.. this time not looking at a frame rate counter.. the game played exactly the same with the cpu at 2 gig as it does with it at 4.5 gig.. nice and smooth without any problems..

we aint talking small differences here in cpu power.. we are talking f-cking huge ones..

i have five different profiles set up in my bios.. 4.2.. 4.4.. 4.5.. 4.6.. and 4.7..  al finely tuned with minimum stable vcore voltages.. this is the first time i have tried silly low clock speed figures.. i must admit that i am a tad surprised that a cpu intensive game like Just Cause 3 still plays okay with my cpu as low as 2 gig..

i did say i was just bored and filling in time..fiddling about..  no fucking way am i gonna produce charts.. the would simply earn me much flack.. cos they would not be saying what most folks want to here..

you dont often get to hear what a pair of 980 ti cards behave like with a slower cpu.. all i can say is pretty good.. way better than most folks would think.. he he

trog


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 23, 2016)

Fast car on slow traffic ridden road = slow going
slow car on fast open road = slow acceleration but likely faster than above.

see even your 3 cylinder Geo Metro is eventually going to get up to speed on that open road. Whereas even a world record setting rocket car is going to be stuck in traffic on the other road. 

The question as Bill Bright elaborated on is what are we doing. In most games the cpu is the car and the gpu is the road. So a slow cpu + fast gpu will still cut it once the settings are right. But certain simulators require more from the cpu than the gpu in which case the cpu is the road and the gpu is the car. So in that scenario the slow cpu is the problem since its handling most of the load. 

bottlenecks are a just as much a battle of "what am I doing" as they are "what am I using to do this task."


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 23, 2016)

Here's an idea... try the very same game Just Cause with g-sync/vsync turned off so you're not artificially limiting the frame rate your dual 980Ti's are capable of. Then you might see a difference in framerate, with 2 $1000s GPU any system had better be able to get 70 FPS no matter what cpu they are using. It's how high (or low) the framerate can go without being limited by artificial means that matters.


----------



## JunkBear (Feb 24, 2016)

NO. It's like if your eyes are super fast and they can see lot images at same time. But on the other side your brain can't compute all this visual information.


----------



## xorbe (Feb 24, 2016)

JC3 seems pretty CPU intensive, in my testing.  My other A10-6700 system just doesn't crank out the frames even when I use a GTX 960 at low resolution / low quality settings. ie, I can set the 960 to low or high settings, and the fps barely changes.  CPU bottleneck.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 24, 2016)

i did run an unlimited test and when running a benchmark did see a difference.. just not a big enough one to to make any of the games i have unplayable..

the point is if 70 fps is enough and i would say it is.. my pair of 980 ti cards will still play any game i have chucked at them even with my cpu clocked right down to 2 gig.. good enough not to see a difference unless a frame rate counter is active.. i have tried three games so far.. all at 1440.. mad max.. just cause 3 and witcher.. they all played fluidly with no problems..

i have also run firestike extreme with my cpu at 2 gig.. i score just over 10000 pretty much the same as what they have listed as 4k gaming machine.. still pretty a good performance even if limited with a slowed down cpu.. 

firestike extreme.. cpu at 4.5 gig just over 14000.. cpu at 3 gig the score is 12000.. cpu at 2 gig the score is 10000.. 10000 is what pair of 980 cards with a good cpu would score.. 

running benchmarks will show a difference i have never said or implied anything else.. playing a game for real so far dosnt show any noticeable difference.. pretty much like normal windows use dosnt.. i am still on the 2 gig setting giving it a fair test.. 

it certainly suggests any amd cpu (slower then intel or not) wont have the slight problem playing any of todays games..

it does tend to suggest that overclocking a higher end cpu wont show any gaming gains ether.. not at real life resolutions.. plus given decent gpu power any benchmark gains wont translate into real life gains..



trog

xorbe.. JC3 is both cpu and gpu intensive.. not easy on the hardware thats for sure.. 

but i am starting a new day running a nice under volted and cool 4.4 gig with a 1.2 vcore safe in the knowledge  i aint missing much.. my little underclocking experiment did serve some purpose..

trog


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 24, 2016)

I think the most pertinent quote is 




trog100 said:


> good enough not to see a difference unless a frame rate counter is active


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2016)

chuck216 said:


> The main problem with most reviews comparing high end graphics cards... and even mid range ones in benchmarks and even real world tests is that they compare them using the most powerful CPU they have at the time.



That's not a problem - that's a good thing! They should use the most powerful/fastest CPU, motherboard, RAM and drives possible.

By using the most powerful CPU available, that removes the CPU from the equation (test results) by ensuring the CPU is not creating a bottleneck and skewing the results.

As I noted above, for many graphics tasks, the results are dependent on how fast the CPU can hand off those tasks to the GPU. If the GPUs are sitting there in wait states until a slow CPU can hand off the next task, the full potentials of the GPUs will never be realized.

You can't determine how much water a 6" drain pipe can drain in one minute if you are feeding water to it from a 1/2" garden hose.

So, if the comparative review is to be considered unbiased and legitimate, they must use the most powerful CPU, fastest and gobs of RAM, a motherboard with the fastest bus speeds, and drives with the fastest access and reads times to properly, fairly, and accurately test and compare any graphics card, from high-end to entry level.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 24, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's not a problem - that's a good thing! They should use the most powerful/fastest CPU, motherboard, RAM and drives possible.
> 
> By using the most powerful CPU available, that removes the CPU from the equation (test results) by ensuring the CPU is not creating a bottleneck and skewing the results.
> 
> ...



that makes sense when reviewing a graphics card.. what dosnt make sense is what they (to me at least) do when reviewing  a cpu..

they always exaggerate the difference by using a very low resolution that would not be used in the real world.. this cpu is better at gaming when it reality at a more normal (higher)  resolution sthe difference would not be noticeable..

i am gonna stick my neck out here and say.. the higher the resolution the less difference a cpu makes.. at normal gaming resolutions any half decent cpu will do the job well enough.. assuming the gpu power is there.. if it isnt the fastest cpu on the planet wont help..

trog


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2016)

trog100 said:


> i am gonna stick my neck out here and say.. the higher the resolution the less difference a cpu makes..


Then stay away from guillotines then! Because like everything thing else, it depends on the task. It is important to remember that gaming is but one task users use their computers for. And actually, when looking at the big picture, the majority of users are not gamers, or gaming is just a minor pastime function.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 24, 2016)

a pretty dumb answer bill.. forgive me for saying so.. 

i do know the majority of users are not gamers but cant quite figure out where guillotines come into it.. he he

you need to gen up on the smart assed replies bill that one wasnt very bright.. he he

trog


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 24, 2016)

My answer to your question. Is of course a GPU will make up for a slow CPU on GPU intensive games. Try running your slower clocked cpu with few cores on a game like Skylines, Latest Civ game and other CPU intensive games.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2016)

Wow Trog. So denigrating others by resorting to personal insults is how you handle it when someone says something different from you? Pretty puerile, no?

My answer was sound, BTW. You made a blanket statement, 





> "the higher the resolution the less difference a cpu makes"


 Fact of the matter is, that was a dumb statement for the exact reason I stated.



> but cant quite figure out where guillotines come into it..


Really? Wow! You cannot even follow your own lead about "sticking your neck out" and getting it chopped off with a guillotine??? And you question my brightness? 

(Edit comment: fixed quote typo)


----------



## trog100 (Feb 24, 2016)

ahh.. sticking my neck out.. guillotine.. he he..

i take back my comment.. my apologies.. 

but here is a gaming cpu review done as i think it should be done.. one using real life settings and resolutions and not made up ones to exaggerate the difference which in the real gaming world would not be there..

the guy does take some flack and is accused of cherry picking his games.. always the case when some folks see what they dont want to see. he he

http://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3948

trog

ps.. this thread is about slower cpus and the effect on gaming bill.. your comment as regards all the users who dont play games was a tad out of context i think.. but lets move on.. 

the cpu comparison review i linked to is on the front page which is the only reason i read it..


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2016)

trog100 said:


> i take back my comment.. my apologies


No problem. Thanks.


trog100 said:


> the guy does take some flack and is accused of cherry picking his games.. always the case when some folks see what they dont want to see. he he


Yes, when folks see what they don't want to see, but really, it is just always the case. No review can address all scenarios so there has to be some "cherry picking" going on. This is just matter of basic statistics. It is also how every browser is number 1, every new TV show is number 1, and how both AMD and Intel are number 1.

Take polls and surveys. They only take a "sampling" and therefore, always (or the professional ones do anyway) come with a ± percentage "margin of error". The more samples, the more accurate. But unless they can sample 100% of the voters or scenarios, there will always be a margin of error.


trog100 said:


> ps.. this thread is about slower cpus and the effect on gaming bill..


Going by the your extremely generalized title, "_Does fast gpu make up for a slow cpu.. ??_" and the fact you just once, briefly, mention just one game as just one example, I would hardly call the subject of this thread exclusive to the effects of slower CPUs on gaming.

This is a technical forum, as you are well aware. If you want specific "contextual" answers, I suggest you pose specific questions limited to a "cherry picked" contextual scenario instead of leaving it up to wide interpretations, expecting everyone to read your mind and automatically know the context of your boredom driven inquiry.

As for your link, yes, it does conclude the performance difference between those two specific CPUs for gaming does not matter. But note it goes on to say, 





> Buying a Core i7-6700K over a Core i7-6600K makes sense if you do a lot of video encoding or you run other applications which require a lot of processing power from numerous threads.





> but lets move on


Good idea.


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 24, 2016)

Seems I opened a can of worms. I apologize.

When I stated that they always use the fastest CPU possible it wasn't a negative point, just saying how come they don't test the same GPUs with multiple processors so the reader (consumer) knows what type of performance a system similar to his would do with a given GPU. 

Most of us will never be able to afford a $1000 i7 5960X so knowing an R9 Fury X can hit 44K in Firestrike with one does me little good, I'd rather see how my FX-8320 does with the same card and see if going that extreme of a videocard is worth it for my processor. 

A good reviewer would test multiple GPU/CPU combinations to gauge performance for different budgets. in most cases you aren't going to pair a $1000 GPU with a $140 CPU. Most people don't have that kind of money so why only test a $200 ~ $400 GPU with a $1000 i7 5960 when we know the consumer is going to be using at most a low end i7 or I5... or an AMD FX 8 or 9 series.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 24, 2016)

Any modern i5/i7 will run any modern games with ease and there's little between them cause 99% of games don't take advantage of HT or more than 4 cores(threads). You seem to be veering off your original OP that review doesn't show how a less capable and slower CPU performs against a high end one, in fact you have a high end top of the range quad and a high end top of the range quad with HT. I'm still waiting for your benches with 2/3 cores disabled and clock speed of <2GHZ

And yes with regards to your comment on him cherry picking his games, none of the games he tested are particularly CPU intensive anyway.

Just look around the forums and you'll see plenty of threads with users who still have 1st gen i7/i5's/ C2Q/Phenom systems where there is a big difference between their systems and similar GPU's who have a very capable i5/i7 etc


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2016)

chuck216 said:


> Most of us will never be able to afford a $1000 i7 5960X so knowing an R9 Fury X can hit 44K in Firestrike with one does me little good, I'd rather see how my FX-8320 does with the same card and see if going that extreme of a videocard is worth it for my processor.


This is a critical point to remember. Most user cannot afford monster graphics cards either. So game developers code games to have good "game play" on much lessor systems.


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 24, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> This is a critical point to remember. Most user cannot afford monster graphics cards either. So game developers code games to have good "game play" on much lessor systems.



Actually I'm at somewhat of a dilema right now along the same lines I currently have a fairly new R9 380 (it was basically "free" an RMA replacement for a year old R9 270X with a bad fan) but am considering using part of my tax return to upgrade to either an R9 390 or 390X. but the upgrade would only be worth it if I could get significant gains @ 2560X1440 over my current GPU.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2016)

The problem with measuring performance in a synthetic application is that the number of cores matter due to the Physics tests that it runs. It loves cores and clockspeed. 

Synthetic benchmarks that do that should have little to no bearing on your GPU choice... look at the GAME performance... or, if you insist on running synthetics, look at the GPU score and FPS only as those should not change with the number of cores.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 24, 2016)

Unigine Heaven benchmark is great for just raw gpu power since cpu isn't utilized that much.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> The problem with measuring performance in a synthetic application is that the number of cores matter due to the Physics tests that it runs. It loves cores and clockspeed.
> 
> Synthetic benchmarks that do that should have little to no bearing on your GPU choice... look at the GAME performance... or, if you insist on running synthetics, look at the GPU score and FPS only as those should not change with the number of cores.



Number of cores matters in modern gaming too at least if developers are smart. it makes little sense to code a came for a single processor when most CPUs these days have 4 or more cores and/or hyperthreading.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2016)

Not really... have a look at games and see if they scale past 4 cores... while synthetic benchmarks from 3dmark Vantage forward have Physics tests in them, you will unequivocally NOT see the same % gains found in those benchmarks translate to games with a CPU switch. SOME games will do so, but not many at all will gain or come close to the gains you see in those synthetics. You CAN use those if you have the same CPU and its clocked pretty close. It will give you a GENERAL idea. The best method, IMO, is to use games to show differences. 

Again, synthetics like that when tested with a hex/octo core from Intel will show larger gains than you will see in gaming and would not be a valid comparison.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> The problem with measuring performance in a synthetic application is that the number of cores matter due to the Physics tests that it runs. It loves cores and clockspeed.
> 
> Synthetic benchmarks that do that should have little to no bearing on your GPU choice... look at the GAME performance... or, if you insist on running synthetics, look at the GPU score and FPS only as those should not change with the number of cores.



purely personal opinion this but i think 3Dmark does a good job showing general gaming performance.. it includes the cpu buts its gpu biased as are most games..

the problem with looking at games is they can and do massively vary.. one needs to look at too many of them.. 3Dmark does pretty much the same thing all in one go.. which is what its intended to do..

plus it give many comparisons and is a universally used tool.. but as i say its purely my own opinion.. like many things its all open to debate..

purely me but the first thing i look at is a systems 3Dmark score.. if that comes up crap i go no further.. 

trog

ps.. its easy to nip into my bios.. and make any changes i want.. switch off hyper threading.. slow the cpu down.. switch of some of the cores.. my advice is simple.. run your own tests.. i do..

this thread in a way does relate to another thread i started.. how many frames per second are enough for a good gaming experience.. that never got anywhere.. this thread wont ether.. he he..

i have reached my own conclusions.. once you answer the how "many frames per second are enough" question.. anything over that figure is just a waste of time and energy..


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 24, 2016)

chuck216 said:


> but am considering using part of my tax return to upgrade to either an R9 390 or 390X. but the upgrade would only be worth it if I could get significant gains @ 2560X1440 over my current GPU.


Yeah, I would have to assume you would see some gains - whether "significant" or not is another matter. I just don't know. I guess much would depend on what you expect for your money. You certainly don't get twice the performance by adding a second card.

PS - don't forget to make sure your PSU can handle a 2nd card or you may be using up more of that tax return!


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2016)

If you have the same CPU as the review, sure you can compare and it would be valid.

But if you compare say, 3DM Fire Strike, with a quad no HT versus an octo core Intel, that result will be woefully off because of those tests using all cores of the CPU.


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 24, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Yeah, I would have to assume you would see some gains - whether "significant" or not is another matter. I just don't know. I guess much would depend on what you expect for your money. You certainly don't get twice the performance by adding a second card.
> 
> PS - don't forget to make sure your PSU can handle a 2nd card or you may be using up more of that tax return!




Actually I was going to replace the 380 with a 390 or 390X and give the 380 to one of my roommates. Not going Crossfire just replacing if I were to go crossfire I could save money by getting a second 380 there is evidence my favorite game (an MMO) doesn't get significant gains from X-fire/SLI setups. 

As far as PSU... no problem I've got a platinum rated Corsair 850W


----------



## trog100 (Feb 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> If you have the same CPU as the review, sure you can compare and it would be valid.
> 
> But if you compare say, 3DM Fire Strike, with a quad no HT versus an octo core Intel, that result will be woefully off because of those tests using all cores of the CPU.



no octo core cpu will make an unplayable game playable but 3Dmark does have to be used with a modicum of common sense.. i have a general idea of what a 3dmark score needs to be for good game play.. to me its not what has the higher score its more about what scores high enough.. my own system scores way more than high enough and to be honest its set up to run in cruising mode..

a bit like the 300 watt rms sound system i have connected to it.. i use the PC equivalent of a volume knob.. some folks on here do seem to have a problem with volume knobs.. maybe its an age thing.. any "youth" i once had is long gone.. 

i am too old to be playing a game like Just Cause 3 but tis my kind of game.. i recon its brilliant.. he he..

trog


----------



## chuck216 (Feb 24, 2016)

trog100 said:


> no octo core cpu will make an unplayable game playable but 3Dmark does have to be used with a modicum of common sense.. i have a general idea of what a 3dmark score needs to be for good game play.. to me its not what has the higher score its more about what scores high enough.. my own system scores way more than high enough and to be honest its set up to run in cruising mode..
> 
> a bit like the 300 watt rms sound system i have connected to it.. i use the PC equivalent of a volume knob.. some folks on here do seem to have a problem with volume knobs.. maybe its an age thing.. any "youth" i once had is long gone..
> 
> trog



Actually more cores can make a difference even in single threaded applications (at least with my AMD it does) because when testing CPU benchmark that are supposed to be "single core/threaded" such as CPU-Z's built in one and watching the resource monitor you can see it's not one core that uses 100% of it's power but rather 3 or more each using between 20~50% with the load varying amongst the cores. It's only when using the multi-thread test that all core hit 100% use.

Also about the "volume knob" most modern CPUs have an "automatic volume level" control that depending on demand can slow or speed up the CPU take for example my 8320 it goes from 1.7 Ghz to 4.0 Ghz depending on load on it's own.


----------



## arbiter (Feb 24, 2016)

The answer to the question is yes and no, cause it depends on game/app you are using. Some games and app's can use hardware differently. Like how a game like be more cpu dependent and where as others is more about gpu.


----------



## Beastie (Feb 24, 2016)

My CPU is not the fastest but it is overkill for gaming. It easily keeps up with my GPU in every game (except Supercom, which did use 100% of one core even with my old  G210 ).

Any half decent CPU will do an adequate job even with the fastest GPU in most games. CPUs have pretty much overtaken gaming ATM IMO.


----------



## Flow (Feb 24, 2016)

Well, in reality it wont make a cpu intensive game smoother if the cpu is too weak. You simply need the clocks and/or architecture in that scenario.
If on the other hand such a game would run on a single core 2Ghz cpu, then you could crank up grapical settings with a faster gpu and even gain some fps.

In any case, lowering your current cpu wont paint a true picture, or you would have to really slow it down to a snails pace. We can already see that with overclocked and non overclocked i5's and i7's which in general wont show much difference in fps.
But, if you do manage to slow your cpu down, to a point where your game is loosing fps and starts to stutter, then you should run it with the faster gpu, and see if there really is a difference.
Using an older game for this will help also, many modern games rely more on the gpu and not so much on the cpu. Something the industry already wanted several years ago.

But imho, if your game is struggling to get 40 fps, then a faster gpu wont improve on that. I experienced this already with BF4 where my fps stayed the same, whether on low or high settings.
Mind you, fps was not bad, but a faster video card did not bring extra fps, just extra eye candy.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2016)

trog100 said:


> no octo core cpu will make an unplayable game playable but 3Dmark does have to be used with a modicum of common sense.. i have a general idea of what a 3dmark score needs to be for good game play.. to me its not what has the higher score its more about what scores high enough.. my own system scores way more than high enough and to be honest its set up to run in cruising mode..
> 
> a bit like the 300 watt rms sound system i have connected to it.. i use the PC equivalent of a volume knob.. some folks on here do seem to have a problem with volume knobs.. maybe its an age thing.. any "youth" i once had is long gone..
> 
> ...


sort of...

Here is the thing... it can raise some scores 10s of percentage points above what it 'should score'. So you may have a situation where you think xxxxx score gives you playable or over a certain amount of FPS, but it was due to the overclocked octo instead of 'your' stock quad. The difference between AMD cpus and intel is pretty big as well. There is a reason those who benchmark at hwbot don't use amd for 3d...because it blows in the cpu test killing your overall score.

Again, don't use 3dmarks to 'get an idea' unless it's the same cpu you use.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 25, 2016)

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


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2016)

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.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 25, 2016)

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.. 








trog


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 25, 2016)

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.


----------



## Flogger23m (Feb 25, 2016)

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.


----------

