GPU vs. CPU Upgrade: Extensive Tests

[robertito]

I think you need a balanced system. A shiney new 9800GTX will be severely bottlenecked by a P4 and would then be a waste.

 

[johnbilicki]

Intel has had dual-dual cores (that they tout as quad cores) for a while now though they STILL haven't dropped below $200 on Newegg. I'm more then happy with my Opteron 185 on socket 939. What I'd REALLY like to see is what if any performance gain I'd get if I upgraded from my Opteron 185 to say Phenom 9550 or even an X2 5000 black box. There are still people showing up to LAN parties with socket 462s! As upgraders we want to see the biggest bang for the buck without nuking our wallets on a single given component.

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

I still think my 2x 7950GTX SLI I have in my Sager NP 9262 will be ok for current games. If not I will replace them with some 8800 or something when prices drop a bit more.

 

[mbmcavoy]

Agreed with scy. My machine (don't laugh please) is a Pentium D 805 (2.66GHz, big Zalman cooler), ECS C19A-SLI board, with dual 7600GTs. It's been overkill for most of my uses (WoW), but I recently started playing Assassin's Creed. It does remarkably well, but could be better.

I've toyed with the idea of upgrades. I really don't want to spend much if anything. So getting all current-generation stuff is out. I don't really know where I'm limited, but I do think my video is already way ahead of my CPU. I was hoping this article would help, but it doesn't cover my situation.

I've made attempts at overclocking, but haven't been able to get much more than stock. I don't understand the memory timings very well, I think that's my trouble.

 

[Guest]

This conclution is not a surprise to me. I had a 6600GT with an AMD 3000XP processor. I was unable to play Crysis at all. I upgraded to an AMD 64 X2 4800 and could barely play Crysis on low. I upgraded the card to a 8800GT OC and then I could play Crysis on ULTRA HIGH. It is not hard to see what made the greatest difference.

 

[slowstuff]

I think they should do something more realistic that will help us with older systems. Like ones that were built when 6800 / X800 were the top cards.

Why not start with a single core Athlon 64, and Pentium 4. Test using 3 different speeds, just below mid-range, mid-range, and high end. Do the same for dual core processors from the same generation. For video cards you could use what was near top of the line when the systems would have been built, such as the 6800 or x800 cards, then step up to the 7800 / x1900, then up to 8800 cards.... Using 1 brand of card would be fine, but I would keep with using the 2 different processor brands.

Currently I have 2 systems that I would love to see something I can compare with.

3.2Ghz Dual Core Pentium 4, 2GB RAM, Nvidia 7600GT.
2.6Ghz Single Core Athlon64, 2GB RAM, ATI x1950 Pro.

I think the Athlon system has come as far as it can with the x1950 Pro, but the Pentium system I think could push an 8800. It would be nice to see real upgrade paths, becuase lets be honest a 4 year old video car in a band new system IS NOT an upgrade.

 

[royalcrown]

I don't know of 4 yo mb that had pcie 16x slots, so the revers is true too.

 

[TraPofMinD]

No one would run an E2160 at the speeds listed. I would be very interested to see it at a modest 3Ghz or 333Mhz x 9.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-dual-core,1683.html

 

[Guest]

Here is the beauty of Toms article for all of you complaining about Toms not including AMD/ATI:
THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEIR TEST SETUP IS SO YOU CAN ADD YOR OWN DATA FROM YOUR OWN TESTS.
I can only imagine the time it takes to complete a battery of tests like this. Toms chose the most popular hardware to give their audience the most applicable tests. Whether you like it or not(and I don't) Intel and nVidia are kings of the current market.

 

[cliffro]

good review.

 

[parkardbell486dx2]

I get about 19-29 fps average (aa @ 4x) on WIC with P4EE 3.4ghz 478, 2 gig dual OCZ 2-3-2-5, and X1950 pro agp 512mb 590/1.54ghz, XP SP3. I know my stuff is kind of old and X1950pro agp is rare, but i wish tom would start including older setups in their tests. I am sure many people have simalar setups like me and would like to know how their stuff stacks up to the rest.

 

[joseph85]

[citation][nom]scy[/nom]This article is biased from the beginning by using a reference graphics card from 2004 (6800GT) to a reference CPU from 2007 (E2140).Go back and use a Pentium 4 Prescott (2004) and then the basis of these percentage values on page 3 will actually mean something.[/citation]I don't see how those are at all relevant this day in age.

 

[levicki]

I think that the authors forgot one simple fact -- you can't just upgrade 6800 to 9800.

If you own an old system with 6800 you will also have to upgrade mainboard, RAM, CPU and perhaps even HDD to match the 9800 strength.

 

[crowheart27us]

Very interesting results. Just shows you can still take advantage of using some older hardware with a newer gpu (in my case an x2 5600+ oced to 3Ghz). Even just replacing my 2900pro with the 4870 or nvidias next gen gpus(when released)my gaming experience will definatley improve. Now I'm just a casual gamer, not looking for the highest 3dmarks(10210xp,9991vista 3dmark06)or the highest fps, but i still enjoy knowing that just with a gpu upgade you still can have a good gaming computer. Also not a fanboy of either intel, nvidia, or amd/ati. i just go for whats good at the time.(as i hear people gasping sacrilege!)

 

[wild9]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]That would simply consume more time without really proving much. I think sticking with a single manufacturer is fine, because you see the generation differences of cards and the performance gains compared to geting a new processor. You will see the same thing with ATI cards. Pop in an X800 and watch it crumble in the wake of a HD3870. There is no need to inlude ATI cards for the sake of this article.[/citation]

I disagree. Not everyone uses Intel, and a lot of people can't afford a fast Intel processor. There is competition and the results will show any gains or weaknesses associated with using AMD/ATI hardware. It's unfair to assume Intel/nVidia are the only runners especially considering the new Hybrid technology now available. Such an article would also hopefully show which AMD CPU's overclock the best for games.

 

[wild9]

This test has surprised me in so far as how much game code is still[citation][nom]Fortunate Son[/nom]Here is the beauty of Toms article for all of you complaining about Toms not including AMD/ATI:THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEIR TEST SETUP IS SO YOU CAN ADD YOR OWN DATA FROM YOUR OWN TESTS.I can only imagine the time it takes to complete a battery of tests like this. Toms chose the most popular hardware to give their audience the most applicable tests. Whether you like it or not(and I don't) Intel and nVidia are kings of the current market.[/citation]

Just because something is the fastest doesn't mean you should exclude everything else. If that were the case people wouldn't have bothered benching Athlon 64's against Prescott P4's People do buy AMD and they will want to know how well their system scales, either from a CPU or GPU perspective. Beyond a certain point both AMD and Intel can play games at acceptable frames..AMD fans merely wish to establish where that point is and how they can improve on it. Without AMD there would be no Intel

 

[wild9]

Including AMD-based rigs would result in a killer article..to simplify matters one could select:

. Slot: AGP/PCI-E/PCI-E 2.0
. CPU
. CPU overclock speed (in 100MHz incremements as high as CPU will go)
. GPU
. Game
. DX version

You could select say, 4 CPU's to test the difference between dual and quad-core operation

That would take some time, but it would be the mother of all reviews as far as gamers are concerned, IMO.

 

[anonymous x]

what a great article

 

[spearhead]

great article. i always wanted to know what is a more suitable upgrade either cpu or graphics when your looking for better preformance for gaming for the lowest cost. and it seems the cpu isn't that mucht of a bottle neck afther all. means i could get a dirt cheap cpu and still have a great gaming experience. yet i would still buy a quite powerfull cpu something like the q6600 or amd relevant should do fine price preformance wise.

 

[jv_acabal]

It's very interesting that Toms hardware weighed the performance impact of either upgrading the CPU or the Video card. I agree with scy. It could have been better if a Pentium 4 was included. I have a P4-640 now and I bought it a PNY 8600GT OC just last year. I can play Crysis at medium settings.. sometimes I get low frame rates though.

 

[WiredEvolution]

Where are the 7800 GTX and 6800 GTX??

 

[mrcairo]

I personally think there needs to be a AMD comparison(CPU)from the 64/64 X2 and up.

I think that would be very helpful and "interesting" as well

 

[Christopher1]

Sounds like, by this article, it's time for me to upgrade my graphics card! I'm still on a X300 and some of these (judging by the frame rates I get on my PC) would really boost the power of my computer.

 

[korsen]

The OBVIOUS reason why a better GPU increases performance more than a CPU does is because all games are graphics intensive, not cpu intensive (for the most part). On top of that, you have new architacture at least once a year as opposed to every two years for CPU's.

The only time GPU's cannot increase performance as much as they do, is when the CPU and FSB become saturated with data and cannot transfer any more data. AMD's HTT will not experience this problem anytime soon. Go back to the Athlon vs P4 days and you'll see just how crippling the FSB becomes. I still have an Athlon +3000(2.1GHz) with a 400FSB on a 7800GT card and it does nothing but choke.

Plays warcraft 3 without a bother, but get anything that requires alot of data and it's screwed. Especially with RTS games. Note that all of the titles benchmarked were FPS games with the exceptions of Flight sim and WiC. HOWABOUT SOME THOROUGH JOURNALISM? Age of empires with 8PC's on insane? Likewise Empire Earth? Supreme commander? This article covers a very acute point of view. FPS games, Core2 CPU's, and Nvidia GPUs. Seems like there's a problem here to me. >:O

 

[nowwhatnapster]

Absolutely astonishing article. Really 3 thumbs up for this one. First article that truly shows how power, price, energy, performance, heat, and sound all play important rolls in your next PC upgrade.

Now lets see Tom produce a chart with minimum CPU requirements for every graphics set out there! via overclock or stock!

That would truly save people from creating bottlnecked systems, & overpaying for one part and underpaying another part.