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



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

I've been seeing some really weird comments from people, basically saying that if you game at low res, you need a more powerful CPU so that you dont get bottlenecked - but at a high res, CPU matters less.

This is some weird, whacked out logic and i'd like to clear up how people are getting this strange idea.

When you game at low or at high resolutions, the CPU is equally important. At higher resolutions your video card is likely to get bottlenecked quicker, thus lowering the overall FPS.

People are using that information and making the assumption that because the GPU is limited, the CPU isnt important - and therefore doesnt matter; and they then assume the reverse is opposite, that at a low res where the GPU isnt limited, the CPU must be the limit.

This is faulty logic. 
 The CPU power required by a game will stay the same between resolution changes, in fact, it goes HIGHER at higher resolutions due to feeding the video card the data it needs. 

If you turn down every setting in a game, your CPU may well turn out to be the limit - but at this point you've likely gone from 20 FPS to 200, making it totally _*pointless*_ to reccomend a faster CPU at that resolution, over a faster video card.

Dont get fooled by faulty logic - the higher the resolution used and more powerful your video card, the more powerful a CPU you're gunna need.


Personal comment: I've done about 20 revisions on this trying to make it as clear as i can. If someone comes up with something better, or points out a typo/screwup in my post, i will clear it up/post their version.


edit: as i said above, here is some quotes



Frick said:


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





newtekie1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





Perfectly summarizes what i'm trying to say... in a lot less words.


----------



## Dark_Webster (May 13, 2010)

Mussels said:


> Dont get fooled by faulty logic - the higher res and more powerful your video card, the more powerful a CPU you're gunna need.



I agree totally. If you have a weak CPU it will show either in low or high resolutions. I jumped from a X2 3800+ to a i3 530 and it's like night and day, my graphics stayed the same but i gained overall fluidness in games, because they were CPU intensive.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

I fixed that line you quoted due to bad English, but at least the meaning was clear.


----------



## DrPepper (May 13, 2010)

I'd have thought it was obvious logic that a higher resolution requires a faster cpu ?


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> I'd have thought it was obvious logic that a higher resolution requires a faster cpu ?



obvious to some, but i keep seeing advice in threads where people who are at high res are told not to worry about their CPU cause hte video card holds them back, and then see those people offering the opposite advice for low res gamers.


kinda like how it was obvious that physx was pointless (only 7 titles with hardware support) yet every man, his dog, and review, bagged ATI cards for not having hardware support for it...


----------



## assaulter_99 (May 13, 2010)

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


----------



## TIGR (May 13, 2010)

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.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 13, 2010)

Mussells, just a quick question, what would you deem as a faster cpu? Strictly core speed aka "gigahertz"? 

What I am saying is this, and this is just my own personal view, a dual core at or above 3.2Ghz may bottleneck a video card more than say a quad @ 3Ghz. Now when I say bottleneck I mean by 3-5%. Now if you take into consideration of how many frames you're dropping it isn't that much in reality. For example, 100fps with the quad minus 5% less than that for a dual which is 95fps**. Which you are still well above eye perception. 

If you are speaking more of the actual resolution? Well, cpu speed & cores help with a higher res but they are not going to hamper gameplay at all either with the same video card accounted for.


I wonder what happens when drivers become more "multithreaded", giving access for the cpu to help alot more, than what they are currently?

Please just take my post as a grain of salt. I for one am all for the "cheaper more gigahertz dual" in gaming. If that's where you were going with this thread you may ignore my post. 

**_Taking in account they are processors of same architecture_

Regarding PhysX, that's a totally different topic altogether UNTIL it get's more utilized in games for use on CPU only. Which I don't see that occurring with how nVidia owns licensed rights to it.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

faster as in faster. more cores, more cache, more MHz - if its faster than the original CPU at the task, its faster.

so by that definition, a dual core could be faster than a quad core in gaming.

If you had a 2GHz quad + and a 3GHz dual core, the dual cores far more likely to give you better FPS due to the single threaded nature of most games. Its not really relevant to the topic tho, just go by the assumption that we mean faster for the game at hand.


The physX comment was just about the last thread i made like this, which has a link in my sig.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 13, 2010)

Thank you. My post was pure speculation on my part


----------



## newtekie1 (May 13, 2010)

I agree with Mussels.

The simplistic explanation I use is:

Lets say a CPU can do 100FPS in a game, it can do that regardless of resolution.
Lets say a GPU can do 60FPS@1680x1050, and 200FPS at 1024x768.
If you put the GPU and CPU together, the game will run at 60FPS@1680x1050, and 100FPS@1024x768.
Yes, a faster CPU would give you more FPS at the lower resolution, but not the higher.  However, the FPS are already high enough at the lower resolution that it won't matter.

Basically, there should never be a time when the game is limitted by the CPU, assuming you have a reasonable CPU.  If you reach that point, there are probably better things you can upgrade to move the bottleneck where it should be onto the GPU.  Either up the resolution/settings, or buy a bigger screen.  Obviously, if you have a Celeron 430 and an HD5890, this doesn't totally work out, but if you have a CPU that is reasonable then it does.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

newtekies done a decent job covering the part i had issues covering.

the only part i'd try and clarify even further, is that the CPU isnt the be-all and end-all like some say it is. If your GPU aint up to snuff at that resolution/settings, no matter what CPU you have, your FPS wont go any higher.

You need a CPU sufficient for the game at hand, and a video card sufficient for the resolution. That will give you a decent gaming experience on any system.

If you go into the extremes (high end SLI/crossfire/whatever) thats the point when you're gunna need an extreme CPU to get any benefit, and remove the bottlenecks. That wont happen with a single video card on a modern CPU from the same era.

You need a *balanced* system - one with a decent CPU _AND_ video card - not just one or the other. (no 5870's + P4's, no I7's with geforce 6200 turbocache)


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 13, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Lets say a CPU can do 100FPS in a game, it can do that regardless of resolution.
> Lets say a GPU can do 60FPS@1680x1050, and 200FPS at 1024x768.
> If you put the GPU and CPU together, the game will run at 60FPS@1680x1050, and 100FPS@1024x768.



Going by common variable that should be 165fps, and even then you are still well above eye perception, regardleess I know where you were going with it. Don't get me wrong but at that res you can still get away with a "cpu that does 50fps regardless of resolution" and still be fine @ 1680x1050 and 1024x768 due to eye perception levels. 

Clarify for me newtekie & mussels, are you meaning minimum fps and average? I think i am reading into this thread wayyy too much. LOL

EDIT:

The SLI comment is VERY VERY true.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

since the people stating the original (mis)information dont specify min, max or average, neither did i.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 13, 2010)

Of course, it's just at a lower resolution the videocard isn't stressed as much,so yes the CPU is more important at a lower resolution, but it's equally important at a higher one also. I would say it's more than the GPU isn't as important at a lower res.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 13, 2010)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Of course, it's just at a lower resolution the videocard isn't stressed as much,so yes the CPU is more important at a lower resolution, but it's equally important at a higher one also. I would say it's more than the GPU isn't as important at a lower res.



That's what I am saying but didn't know how to come acrossed. Thank you!!


----------



## heky (May 13, 2010)

+1 on that. I just dont get it how people can think any different?


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

heky said:


> +1 on that. I just dont get it how people can think any different?



See kurgans post. Even he states "CPU is more important at a lower resolution"

the truth is... its not any more important at all

its just that the VIDEO CARD is less important. the CPU's importance doesnt change at all.



1Kurgan1 said:


> Of course, it's just at a lower resolution the videocard isn't stressed as much,so yes the CPU is more important at a lower resolution, but it's equally important at a higher one also. I would say it's more than the GPU isn't as important at a lower res.




its one of those issues where wording it right and wording it ambigously can totally give someone the wrong idea. i've been wrangling this one mentally for a while, and i'm seeing people who are on the same side as me, making posts saying things that can be interpreted the wrong way (see the kurgan example above)


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 13, 2010)

Mussels said:


> See kurgans post. Even he states "CPU is more important at a lower resolution"
> 
> the truth is... its not any more important at all
> 
> ...



The CPU is more important than the GPU at a lower resolution is what it means. It is worded correctly, it just matters how much you want to look into it. And that really is a fact. If you read into it as the cPU is more important at a lower resolution than it is at a higher one, then it reads out wrong. But if you read into it that having a good cpu at a lower resolution and a crappy videocard isn't as big of a deal as where you need the full package for a higher resolution.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

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.


----------



## TechnicalFreak (May 13, 2010)

Example? A friend of mine has a system, and so does his son. My friends system is a rather new Compaq with a good CPU (can't remember rating), and a not so good graphics card.

His son has an older HP with not such good CPU, think it was a dualcore rated at 1.8Ghz.. But the graphics card is better.

Now.. I started both systems with CS:S, equal amount of bots (9 of them and then the player), and a resolution set to 1024x768.

On my friends system it doesn't drop below 60 fps, but stays around 60-70fps. But on his son's sytem it can't go beyond 60 fps. Both CS:S are configured same, with same settings for the graphics ingame and audio etc.

So this why his son can't go beyond 60fps is because the CPU is holding him back?
I know my system, current system, has less memory and so, but better CPU than both of them also bigger cache. But I can't remember if my graphics card was better than his son. However, my fps never goes below 80 when in a large open area.

So, both their systems at same resolution can be at around 60fps, but his son's can't go beyond that (for now), and this is caused by his CPU?


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 13, 2010)

Mussels said:


> 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.



Are you sure you don't mean this?



> If your settings get you 60 FPS at 1280x1024, by raising your resolution to 1080p *do you need more CPU power to get the same 60 FPS*?


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2010)

JrRacinFan said:


> Are you sure you don't mean this?



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.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 13, 2010)

Well it's obvious the way you stated in you're original quote/previous post. More of the "work" is offloaded to gpu at a higher resolution anyway. Like I said previously, I am reading more into the thread than what there needs to be.


----------



## LifeOnMars (May 13, 2010)

Once again it takes Mussels to tell it how it is. When I built my first ever rig (just under two years ago) I used an AMD windsor 6000X2 paired up with the HD4850, asking numerous people if this would be a good and balanced rig for playing all games well. I love to play a vast range of games at maximum settings and with a solid framerate and I thought, based on what others stated, that my system back then would be capable.....It wasn't  

For a noob, confusion and a bit of sadness hit when I finally realised that my new system was not capable of the higher echelon of framerates due to my relatively weak CPU - indeed, it was only CPU limitation that was spoiling my experience. I even tried crossfired 4850s at my lowly res of 1280x1024 with the same chip  WTF!!! Talk about mismatch.......the 6000 X2 wasn't even sufficient to push one HD4850 to the max, let alone a pair.

I'm not saying my system now is a perfect match....it isn't, even my Q6600@3.77 is not totally maximising the potential of the HD4870x2 I currently have, but it certainly scales far far better than my first ever rig and that has simply come from reading up on stuff, learning the right way and paying for something based on what I could afford to get the job done.

Now wheres my 6 core rig already


----------



## TechnicalFreak (May 13, 2010)

Mussels said:


> 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 (May 13, 2010)

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


----------



## HalfAHertz (May 13, 2010)

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


----------



## TechnicalFreak (May 13, 2010)

HalfAHertz said:


> 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 (May 13, 2010)

TechnicalFreak said:


> 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.



Frick said:


> 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)



HalfAHertz said:


> 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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

Thanks for posting this. Really clears things up


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 13, 2010)

Mussels said:


> no, the CPU doesnt matter at all.
> 
> 
> let me put it this way:
> ...



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 (May 13, 2010)

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:



assaulter_99 said:


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





TIGR said:


> 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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

Mussels said:


> 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_One (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

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_One (May 13, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

naoan said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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


----------



## epicfail (May 13, 2010)

n-ster said:


> 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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

n-ster said:


> 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.



n-ster said:


> 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 (May 13, 2010)

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 (May 13, 2010)

naoan said:


> 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 (May 13, 2010)

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


----------



## HalfAHertz (May 13, 2010)

naoan said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



I'd disagree.

Let's dissect a simple situation and go through the whole process step by step.

We have your typical shooter - relatively intensive on the hardware.

What is the job of the GPU? It is to generate the visible geometry and apply texture and lighting.

What is the job of the CPU? It is to run all of the game code. That includes but is not limited to the following: NPC AI, Environmental effects, physical simulations, geometry collisions,sound code path, visual code path, networking code path, etc.

In both high and low res the graphical geometry and the game code are finite - they are bound to some pre-coded proportions and have an actual start and an actual end. The GPU generates only what it is meant to do.
Back to our fps example: You are hiding inside a tunnel. The GPU will only generate the inside of that tunnel, it will not generate the mountain or the sky or the bird that pooped on that tree over there otside the tunnel.
But oh no, Bob saw you and has started shooting at you. Here comes the CPU to the rescue. It captures the information that is fed over the network and calculates how far and in which direction Bob is located relative to your position, it calculates if the path of the bullet that was just fired at you and thus finds if the trajectory of that bullet is on a collision course with the corner you're trying to hide behind. It sends information to the sound card to make a "Bang" noise and information to the GPU to show an indication on your GUI that you're being fired at. Wow the CPU sure is busy.

Ok now let's view the above example from two the two viewpoints. The first is 800x600 and the later 1600x1200. Yey math time! 800x600=480 000 pixels  and  1600x1200=1 920 000 pixels!So even tho that in both cases the exact same events unfold and have to be calculated by the CPU (i.e. tunnel, bang, ouch) the GPU has to render only 1/4th of the information. 

So in the end while the work for the CPU is a constant - it's the same in both cases, the work for the GPU decreases and thus the CPU becomes the common denominator in the situation and bears greater importance...Now I deserve a cookie for all my writing!


----------



## n-ster (May 13, 2010)




----------



## JATownes (May 13, 2010)

GREAT Example, with an in-depth explanation.  I liked it.  Here is your cookie:






(Sorry I took a bite)

LOL...N-ster beat me to it.


----------



## n-ster (May 13, 2010)

Mines a peanutbutter one, and it is an e-cookie... and it has a message... mine owns yours


----------



## Benetanegia (May 13, 2010)

HalfAHertz said:


> So in the end while the work for the CPU is a constant - it's the same in both cases, the work for the GPU decreases and thus the CPU becomes the common denominator in the situation *and bears greater importance...*



You are essentially right, but you are still wrong on the context of what Mussels is saying and you are contributing to what Mussels is trying to avoid. And what he is trying to avoid is all those recommendations where people wrongly recommend other people a CPU upgrade over a GPU upgrade simply because they play at low res.

Example, someone has a E8200 CPU and a 8800GT and plays at 1440x900. He gets 30fps on a certain game and as you can guess, he would like to have higher fps. 

Recommendation: "get a Q9650 or at least a E8600, because at your resolution the CPU is more important than GPU."

FALSE. Simply false. Yes at 1440x900 a better CPU will give higher fps than the slowest one (so will at higher res tho), but will NEVER give better fps than a better GPU along with the slow CPU. And if your fps are already low, like in the example or as in needing higher fps, a faster CPU will not help at all, because it's almost 100% sure it's a GPU bottleneck. CPU bottleneck never happens at low fps, unless you have a prehistoric CPU or you are playing the crap that GTA IV is.

Returning to the example I used:

E8200+HD5870 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q9650+8800GT no matter the resolution you play at.

EDIT: I would like to contribute another issue that I see a lot and that is often used in such wrong recommendations. Performance comparisons should always be made as a relation of the fps of one setup to another, making a division of both fps numbers. Never as a substraction of the two. I've seen substraction being used plenty of times and is closely related to the thread since the people that make the wrong recommendations often use this as a reason. i.e the faster CPU adds (on top of the slower one) 30 fps at low res and only 3 fps at high res, so CPU is more important at low res. Only problem with that is that the slower CPU is churning out 300 fps at low res and 30 on high res so difference is exactly the same 10%, and thus the CPU is just as important in both cases.

slow CPU low res = 300 fps
fast CPU low res = 330 fps
slow CPU high res = 30 fps
fast CPU high res = 33 fps


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (May 13, 2010)

*To counter your point*



LifeOnMars said:


> Once again it takes Mussels to tell it how it is. When I built my first ever rig (just under two years ago) I used an AMD windsor 6000X2 paired up with the HD4850, asking numerous people if this would be a good and balanced rig for playing all games well. I love to play a vast range of games at maximum settings and with a solid framerate and I thought, based on what others stated, that my system back then would be capable.....It wasn't
> 
> For a noob, confusion and a bit of sadness hit when I finally realised that my new system was not capable of the higher echelon of framerates due to my relatively weak CPU - indeed, it was only CPU limitation that was spoiling my experience. I even tried crossfired 4850s at my lowly res of 1280x1024 with the same chip  WTF!!! Talk about mismatch.......the 6000 X2 wasn't even sufficient to push one HD4850 to the max, let alone a pair.
> 
> ...



There are several single or dual threaded games that an X2 6000 can nearly push dual 4850s to the limits in. Naturally these are not exactly cutting edge new games but FEAR is a single threaded game that an X2 6000 can push about 120 out of a possible 150 FPS at max detail at 1080p with dual 4850s. When you move to 2560 * 1600 an X2 6000 is no longer the bottleneck in that game. Naturally an X2 6000 stinks today compared to the new chips from AMD and Intel but it aint crap just yet. I will be putting together a rig with that chip and dual 4850s so I just might be inclined to test it out.(Windows XP 32 bit OS) One thing to note is that some benchmarks don't jive with actual gameplay. Resident Evil 5 is one where the fixed bench has almost no bearing on actual gameplay since it is way more demanding than the actual game.

So to sum up this thread short and sweet. If your CPU is fast enough at a low resolution it is likely to be fast enough at a higher resolution if your GPU/GPUs are up to the task. Remember you only need a constant 60 FPS with no dips lower than 35 FPS or so for smooth gameplay.

Just use your head and don't expect an X2 6000 to run Ghostbusters or any highly threaded game designed for I7s.


----------



## Mussels (May 14, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



you're discussing the one part i couldnt find the 100% correct way to word.

YES, if you want MAXIMUM FPS you need a GPU that is not burdened (say a 5970 at 1024x768) and then you need a fast CPU to get that higher FPS.

But as i said earlier, if you're already getting 60FPS at the higher res, you're gunna get 60FPS (or more) at lower res - never slower, never needing a more powerful CPU.


People are mistaking the fact that you may need a better CPU to get more FPS when your GPU is unburdened, with thinking the CPU is more important than the GPU.


its not that its more important, its just that it has more effect since your CPU is unburdened... but if you OC'd your GPU or got a faster GPU, the faster CPU would also benefit you at the higher res.


----------



## kid41212003 (May 14, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



The post that actually explained everything.


----------



## LifeOnMars (May 14, 2010)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> There are several single or dual threaded games that an X2 6000 can nearly push dual 4850s to the limits in. Naturally these are not exactly cutting edge new games but FEAR is a single threaded game that an X2 6000 can push about 120 out of a possible 150 FPS at max detail at 1080p with dual 4850s. When you move to 2560 * 1600 an X2 6000 is no longer the bottleneck in that game. Naturally an X2 6000 stinks today compared to the new chips from AMD and Intel but it aint crap just yet. I will be putting together a rig with that chip and dual 4850s so I just might be inclined to test it out.(Windows XP 32 bit OS) One thing to note is that some benchmarks don't jive with actual gameplay. Resident Evil 5 is one where the fixed bench has almost no bearing on actual gameplay since it is way more demanding than the actual game.
> 
> So to sum up this thread short and sweet. If your CPU is fast enough at a low resolution it is likely to be fast enough at a higher resolution if your GPU/GPUs are up to the task. Remember you only need a constant 60 FPS with no dips lower than 35 FPS or so for smooth gameplay.
> 
> Just use your head and don't expect an X2 6000 to run Ghostbusters or any highly threaded game designed for I7s.



That's all fantastic......

Now can you send me your i7 rig so I can reach my HD4870x2's potential...cheers 

You honestly make a good point but seriously, I like to play ALL types of games, alot of which nowadays are becoming coded to utilise much more of the CPU as well as the GPU and are limited by the processors potential, regardless of what shiny new graphics card you have. Hence, an X2 6000 with dual HD4850s is essentially a mis match or an unbalanced system especially if you are someone who wants to have good frame rates with pretty much every game. Sure, its fine for heavily GPU dependant games but even then its not pushing those puppies and the difference between the min and max fps makes for a rollercoaster of a gaming experience.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (May 14, 2010)

*For 2560 * 1600 I like.....*



LifeOnMars said:


> That's all fantastic......
> 
> Now can you send me your i7 rig so I can reach my HD4870x2's potential...cheers
> 
> You honestly make a good point but seriously, I like to play ALL types of games, alot of which nowadays are becoming coded to utilise much more of the CPU as well as the GPU and are limited by the processors potential, regardless of what shiny new graphics card you have. Hence, an X2 6000 with dual HD4850s is essentially a mis match or an unbalanced system especially if you are someone who wants to have good frame rates with pretty much every game. Sure, its fine for heavily GPU dependant games but even then its not pushing those puppies and the difference between the min and max fps makes for a rollercoaster of a gaming experience.



The ultra cheap Phenom X3 8750 @ 2.4 ghz is not bad for even 1920 * 1200.(Only $70 at Newegg) It really does a good job and yes an X2 6000 and dual GPU 4850 setup is not a great match. It just happened to be what I had left in spare parts. But it is surprising just how many games are still playable with the meager dual core. 

Oh, and if somebody really thought that a faster CPU would help you MORE at lower resolutions for some reason then they should get their drinking water tested. Surely something is amiss.... 

One more thing....

In my experience min framerates have been greatly affected by GPUs more than CPU. Generally Nvidia GPUs have better min frame rates than ATI.


----------



## LifeOnMars (May 14, 2010)

I had an X3 8750 rig also, it was better, but not by much. It only clocked up to the same speed as the X2 6000 and in alot of cases was outperformed by it. I can only imagine what its like having an i7 rig as since I have had my Q6600, gaming has improved vastly and its an old chip.


----------



## Polaris573 (May 14, 2010)

I think the best solution to this is to do your research and appropriately balance your system.  If you intend to play games and you're designing a system with a really powerful "x" and a weak "y" it's time to go back to the drawing board.  Whether you plan to game at 1024x768 or 1920x1080.


----------



## johnspack (May 14, 2010)

Well,  the stock test in 3dmark06 is at 1280x1024.  My gtx280 got 12k on my windsor athlon at 3.3ghz.  Same card with my 3.87ghz e8400 gets 17k.  At higher res,  I didn't notice as dramatic of a difference,  although there still was one.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 14, 2010)

johnspack said:


> Well,  the stock test in 3dmark06 is at 1280x1024.  My gtx280 got 12k on my windsor athlon at 3.3ghz.  Same card with my 3.87ghz e8400 gets 17k.  At higher res,  I didn't notice as dramatic of a difference,  although there still was one.



Good point there, however I would think that the overall score won't give the full picture as there are 2 CPU tests in there that are biased in favour of raw multithredded speed and are not linked to the gpu (I think), I am guessing that looking at the SM2 and SM3 scores and comparing them might give a more accurate confirmation of what's being said but that test as a synthetic benchmark is perhaps deliberatly more over reliant on the CPU than an average game might be.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2010)

So let me see if I get this: as your graphics card power increases towards infinity, you don't need any CPU at all...


----------



## GSquadron (May 14, 2010)

Guys that is all math:
Gpu=Infinite
Cpu=0
All you get is 0 fps
Gpu=0
Cpu=infinite
All you get is again 0 fps
Gpu=10
Cpu=9
You get 9 fps
Gpu=9
Cpu=10
You get again 9 fps


----------



## HalfAHertz (May 14, 2010)

qubit said:


> So let me see if I get this: as your graphics card power increases towards infinity, you don't need any CPU at all...



Um read my analysis again. You always need a certain CPU performance envelope no mater the resolution. Lowering the resolution doesn't change anything. You can't get less performance at a lower resolution because the CPU demand doesn't magically grow. In most cases you'll always see your fps rise as you lower resolution, unless of course you're playing some mega RTS wit 1000000 units on screen all picking their nose at the same time - in such a case your fps won't change  .

Let's try this again. You have a nice midrange pc and get *43fps at 1920x1080* in a popular fps title. Ok great but you're tired of playing on your 22'' monitor and want to try something new. Hey is that an old projector  over there? Ah too bad it only does *1024x768* - but wait a sec, now you can stretch the image on your entire wall. Oh wow look at that, now you're pulling *120 fps* and with some additional AA you don't even see the jaggies. Hm, where are those stereoscopic glasses fro some nice 3d fx...


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2010)

HalfAHertz said:


> Um read my analysis again...



I was just kidding.  Please read it again carefully and you'll see what I mean...

Mussels's OP is of course, correct.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Guys that is all math:
> Gpu=Infinite
> Cpu=0
> All you get is 0 fps
> ...



Exactly right.


----------



## GSquadron (May 15, 2010)

If the game crashes, which is the real problem???
Gpu or Cpu????


----------



## qubit (May 15, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> If the game crashes, which is the real problem???
> Gpu or Cpu????



It could be anything: buggy game, drivers, a/v software, overclock, PSU, overheating components etc etc.


----------



## claylomax (May 15, 2010)

Apparently . . . http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpus-and-games-2010.html


----------



## Tatty_One (May 15, 2010)

For those that understand the principles of what Mussels has said but struggle with the terminology/wording check out the link I posted in post 37 , both the page that is linked and the following one in the review, the review and graphics cards are old, the principles remain the same, you will then possibly see the different angles.


----------



## GSquadron (May 15, 2010)

Well i posted the crash thing, cuz my rig crashes in Stalker:clear sky T_T
After 40 mins of play of course, but again it does not have to crash :S
Still waiting to know how much of my gpu is being used


----------



## qubit (May 15, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Well i posted the crash thing, cuz my rig crashes in Stalker:clear sky T_T
> After 40 mins of play of course, but again it does not have to crash :S
> Still waiting to know how much of my gpu is being used



This is off topic. I suggest you create your own thread asking this question, giving as much technical detail as possible - then we can all pile in to fix the problem!


----------



## Tatty_One (May 15, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Well i posted the crash thing, cuz my rig crashes in Stalker:clear sky T_T
> After 40 mins of play of course, but again it does not have to crash :S
> Still waiting to know how much of my gpu is being used



Sounds to me like a memory prob.


----------



## anonemus (May 18, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Guys that is all math:
> Gpu=Infinite
> Cpu=0
> All you get is 0 fps
> ...



Now if we can state this in plain English, this would clarify things more...


----------



## epicfail (May 18, 2010)

anonemus said:


> Now if we can state this in plain English, this would clarify things more...



your only as good as your weakest link


----------



## GSquadron (May 18, 2010)

epicfail said:


> your only as good as your weakest link



What does this mean?


----------



## JATownes (May 18, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> What does this mean?



I think it means:



> your only as good as your weakest link



  Sorry, just couldn't resist giving you a hard time.


----------



## anonemus (May 18, 2010)

It also means "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link"


----------

