Discussion Best CPU x GPU combinations

[nufelevas]

To the purpose of helping to solve the problem: How much to spend on the CPU or the GPU?, given a limited budget, I made a chart to compare the best buys when CPU and GPU are combined, based on this Tomshardware article:

CPU Hierarchy 2019: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked

GPU Performance Hierarchy: Video Cards Ranked

Note that the RTX 2060 and the Radeon VII are not included on those Tomshardware articles, and many intel i5, i7 and i9 are listed not scored, so they cannot be pictured.
I added an RTX 2060 with the performance of a 170 Ti
I added a Radeon VII with the performance of a 1080 Ti, and the latest prices show on pcpartpicker, because the card is out of stock everywhere.

I posted the prices and price-performance charts for CPU here, and for GPU here.

The combined performance, for gaming, had been guessed as the product of the gaming scores of both CPU and GPU. Possible bottlenecks are not considered.

Tomshardware could do a great article testing the validity of this chart.

The X axis shows performance, and the Y axis shows price of GPU+CPU.
It does not accounts for differences in motherboards and memory, or the price of the PSU, which should be larger for high power consumption.
I simply don't know what motherboards, memory and PSU I should use for the comparison.

The size of the bubble correspond to the "application performance" score (productivity).

So the largest bubbles close to the best price-performance points show the best combined gaming and productivity combinations.

The first chart shows all the 840 combinations, and because it is confusing, the second chart makes a zoom on the most interesting zones.


The best combinations are shown in larger fonts, and the best ones considering productivity are shown in red fonts.

Conclusion:
The absolute worst buy for gaming is the Ryzen 3 2200G with an Rx 570. It is the best bang for the buck when saving the last cent, but it only provides 30% of the best possible performance.

The first sweet spot, for a budget gamer is the i3-8100 with an Rx 580 8 Gb. It provides 50% of the best performance possible for gaming, and has 4 cores.

However, close to this sweet spot, for the gamer which wants also good performance for non-gaming applications, there are a Ryzen 5 2600 (best bang for the buck) and the Ryzen 7 2700, paired with an Rx 580 8 Gb.

For the enthusiast, he can get close to 90% of the best possible performance on the next sweet spot, which haves either a Ryzen 5 2600X or an i5-8600K, both paired with an RTX 2070.

Close to this sweet spot, the best combinations for non-gaming purposes are the Ryzen 7 2700X and the i7-8700K, both paired with an RTX 2070.

The crazy one desperate for getting 95% of the best performance should get an i5-8600 with an RTX 2080. For 50% more cost, he will get 5% extra performance.
If he wants application performance, he can get a Ryzen 7 2600X or an i7-8700K paired with an RTX 2080.
The Radeon VII is close to the 2080, but it comes without UEFI, raytracing, tensorflow, and other features.

People, which lacks common sense, and wants to get the last 5% possible performance, can get it with an i5-8600K paired with an 2080 Ti. If he wants better application performance with an i7-8700K x RTX 2080Ti. Getting the last 10% will cost them 215% more money.

If Crazy Eddie needs 16 cores, and 32 threads, he can get an i9-7960X with an RTX 2080 Ti. He would pay 3X the price of a CPUxGPU capable of giving 90% of the maximum performace.

The sweet spots are the points were spending more money gives diminishing returns, as shown on this picture.

Here is a zoom on the sweet spot (the point where spending more money gives diminishing returns).

Here is the medium range

 

[geofelt]

An interesting exercise.
I have used the rule of thumb to budget 2x the cost of the cpu for the graphics card.

The types of games you play will skew the selection.
Games such as sims, strategy or MMO tend to be cpu centric and single thread performance is important.

Fast action shooters want faster graphics.
The higher the resolution, the stronger the need for good graphics.

Multiplayer games respond to many threads.

 

[nufelevas]

An interesting exercise.
I have used the rule of thumb to budget 2x the cost of the cpu for the graphics card.

The types of games you play will skew the selection.
Games such as sims, strategy or MMO tend to be cpu centric and single thread performance is important.

Fast action shooters want faster graphics.
The higher the resolution, the stronger the need for good graphics.

Multiplayer games respond to many threads.

this is the first chart (in logarithmic scale), but the bubble size, -and labels-, is the ratio GPU/CPU prices

here are labeled only the ratios close to 2

 

[King_V]

The types of games you play will skew the selection.
Games such as sims, strategy or MMO tend to be cpu centric and single thread performance is important.

Fast action shooters want faster graphics.
The higher the resolution, the stronger the need for good graphics.

Multiplayer games respond to many threads.

This exactly. I hate to be the pessimist, but this guide isn't actually that useful.

There is FAR more dependency for the CPU on which specific game you're playing.

There is FAR more dependency for the GPU depending on the monitor's resolution and/or max refresh rate, and if the consumer wants to hit the frames-per-second that the refresh rate allows.

For example, the i5-8400xRX580 8GB. Great combo when running on a monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and a 60Hz refresh rate. TERRIBLE if trying to get over 100fps on a high-refresh-rate monitor with the same resolution, or a 60Hz monitor of 3440x1440 resolution.

In fact, I'd say that, because of this, the guide you created is possibly detrimental.

 

[Eximo]

Price fluctuations and platform price are huge factors. A lot of the overclocked Intel systems would look even worse with motherboard and cooler taken into account.

 

[chalabam]

The types of games you play will skew the selection.
Games such as sims, strategy or MMO tend to be cpu centric and single thread performance is important.

Fast action shooters want faster graphics.
The higher the resolution, the stronger the need for good graphics.

Multiplayer games respond to many threads.

This exactly. I hate to be the pessimist, but this guide isn't actually that useful.

There is FAR more dependency for the CPU on which specific game you're playing.

There is FAR more dependency for the GPU depending on the monitor's resolution and/or max refresh rate, and if the consumer wants to hit the frames-per-second that the refresh rate allows.

For example, the i5-8400xRX580 8GB. Great combo when running on a monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and a 60Hz refresh rate. TERRIBLE if trying to get over 100fps on a high-refresh-rate monitor with the same resolution, or a 60Hz monitor of 3440x1440 resolution.

In fact, I'd say that, because of this, the guide you created is possibly detrimental.

Your argument also applies to Tomshardware articles and rankings. You are arguing that a single game/monitor/application invalidates Tomshardware rankings.

Your argument makes nonsense because is not what the rankings are aimed to value.

Is not possible to make a single index to rank all CPU and GPU for all uses and cases. That's why Tomshardware used a geometric meaning. Some guide is better than none, and his problems show what should be investigated in the future.

Op adressed your concerns here:

Possible bottlenecks are not considered.

Tomshardware could do a great article testing the validity of this chart.

 

[WildCard999]

An interesting exercise.
I have used the rule of thumb to budget 2x the cost of the cpu for the graphics card.

The types of games you play will skew the selection.
Games such as sims, strategy or MMO tend to be cpu centric and single thread performance is important.

Fast action shooters want faster graphics.
The higher the resolution, the stronger the need for good graphics.

Multiplayer games respond to many threads.

+1, easy method and works well in most situations. If the resolution is deemed too low or the combo is considered overkill for that resolution then you can utilize Nvidia DSR or AMD VSR to run a higher resolution then scale it back to the native resolution, works, IMO, better then some AA settings.

 

[King_V]

The types of games you play will skew the selection.
Games such as sims, strategy or MMO tend to be cpu centric and single thread performance is important.

Fast action shooters want faster graphics.
The higher the resolution, the stronger the need for good graphics.

Multiplayer games respond to many threads.

This exactly. I hate to be the pessimist, but this guide isn't actually that useful.

There is FAR more dependency for the CPU on which specific game you're playing.

There is FAR more dependency for the GPU depending on the monitor's resolution and/or max refresh rate, and if the consumer wants to hit the frames-per-second that the refresh rate allows.

For example, the i5-8400xRX580 8GB. Great combo when running on a monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and a 60Hz refresh rate. TERRIBLE if trying to get over 100fps on a high-refresh-rate monitor with the same resolution, or a 60Hz monitor of 3440x1440 resolution.

In fact, I'd say that, because of this, the guide you created is possibly detrimental.

Your argument also applies to Tomshardware articles and rankings. You are arguing that a single game/monitor/application invalidates Tomshardware rankings.

Your argument makes nonsense because is not what the rankings are aimed to value.

Is not possible to make a single index to rank all CPU and GPU for all uses and cases. That's why Tomshardware used a geometric meaning. Some guide is better than none, and his problems show what should be investigated in the future.

Op adressed your concerns here:

Possible bottlenecks are not considered.

Tomshardware could do a great article testing the validity of this chart.

I don't see how this counters my point. The difficulty is in that these charts are attempting to correlate a sort of preferred or ideal GPU to a CPU.

Tom's Hardware generally tries to calculate the absolute performance of a CPU in isolation of other factors, or a GPU in isolation of other factors, both of which are completely valid.

Once you combine components like this, you have a problem. At this point, you need to look at the system as a whole, as well as its intended use.

I get the impression that this is an attempt to answer the question "What CPU should I get for my GPU" or "What GPU should I get for my CPU" which, while common, are, unfortunately, almost meaningless questions.

 

[chalabam]

I get the impression that this is an attempt to answer the question "What CPU should I get for my GPU" or "What GPU should I get for my CPU" which, while common, are, unfortunately, almost meaningless questions.

Obviously that is not the purpose of the chart, since it only haves new CPU available on the market, and you will not be able to find your CPU on the jungle of combinations.

His utility is when deciding how much money should be spent on a new CPU and GPU, for a given budget, to get the maximum performance at a given price, or the lower price at a given performance.

When you have more than 800 alternatives, you need some guide.

Those said, the price of the Threadripper 2950X must be wrong, or maybe that day Tomshardware link to Amazon should had been linking an used processor.

 

[mdd1963]

For 1080P/60 Hz gaming, the GTX1050Ti is a great start, but the GTX1060 (6 GB) or RX580 are both very good.

Any CPU at R5-2600 /i5-8400 or above is a pretty good starting point. (Naturally, the 2700X and 8700K are even better yet!)

I don't really subscribe to any CPU to GPU price ratios, as one can get a great CPU or GPU on sale that is perfect for mid-range gaming, and, I might get a bit more CPU than is needed now with intent to upgrade GPUs in 18 months' time. (an RX580 was on sale recently for $169, but, perhaps my desired CPU was $340...; who cares, there is no reason not to get a good cpu just because it cost more than the GPU, especially with today's CPU and GPU prices)

 

[nufelevas]

(Edited the charts to fix errors in prices)

 

[nufelevas]

I updated the GPU prices, added a RTX 2060 (assumed performance og a 1070 Ti), and added a Radeon VII (Assumed performance of a 1080 Ti)

The tomshardware article showed the same price for the 2070 and the 2080, and a lot of his prices were expired offers, so I used lower, widely available prices, and not necessarily the absolute best offers.

Also updated the CPU prices.

 

[nufelevas]

Those said, the price of the Threadripper 2950X must be wrong, or maybe that day Tomshardware link to Amazon should had been linking an used processor.

the price was wrong.That's why I checked all the prices and edited the first post.

 

[nufelevas]

(updated the charts with the official TH rating for the Radeon VII and RTX 2060)

here are shown the differences