Gaming and CPUs

[Sweetloaf]

Ok, this may be a daft question (aren't they always when they start like this)

In the world of gaming, how much processing power do we really need? I was looking into an upgrade recently to something along the lines of an C2D 8500 until I realised that I am going to be GPU limited in pretty much all new games.

I have a 9600Gt and while it's not exactly cream of the crop it's still a pretty decent card and runs most games. I upgraded a good few months ago from an Opteron 148@ 2.7Ghz to an Opteron 165 dual core @2.8Ghz and to be quite frank, my graphics card seems like it will be a stumbling block long before my CPU.

If games are properly coded for dual core then surely my 165 will give vastly improved performance over my 148? However, I just haven't really seen that as being the case.

In reality, my 148 seemed to be coping admirably with all games. Are games coded for dual core still not the norm? I just can't see that games have really changed much over the last 5-6 years to do anything more CPU intensive than say Far Cry or HL2. Games like Oblivion for example was always GPU limited, so do games really need dual cores at the moment and if so, why?

What advancements have been made in gaming that suddenly needs double the power or even quadruple? Let's take an example of say Everquest years ago or the original Command and Conquer series, what are games like Warhammer and The more recent C+C games doing so differently on a CPU level?

There is a question in there somewhere and I hope it's clear where my confusion lies, I realise that not all CPUs are used simply used to run games and that there is a need for more processing power for other apps and pastimes. But again, let's say Far Cry ran well on a single core Socket A Barton 2800+(which it did) Why does Crysis need so much raw power?

Is the complexity of games seriously lagging behind CPU tech?

Thanks for reading, hope someone can clear things up for me

Just another quick question, If I had an Nvidia 280 Sli setup with say an AMD 3500 (single core) and reduced the graphics settings and resolution to an absolute minimum, how well would it run?

 

[linktoinsanity]

Gaming is generally more reliant on the GPU then the CPU these days, although more games are starting to utilise multiple cores, Left 4 Dead being a good example. If you were to now upgrade your video card to a 9800GTX+ for example you'd probably see more difference then swapping over the cpu. I hope this starts to answer your question and I also hope someone else will give a more detailed and precise answer...

 

[Sweetloaf]

If you were to now upgrade your video card to a 9800GTX+ for example you'd probably see more difference then swapping over the cpu.

True, to be honest, it wasn't really an upgrade I thought I needed, I was just looking into my options..as you do

I was tempted by a new mobo, CPU and RAM then thought, what the hell for? I'm also running on XP@ 1280x1024 so my current card is fine for now.

I've pretty much decided against an upgrade, it just got me pondering.

I'm guessing that the more work a graphics card has to do, the more info a CPU has to feed it.

 

[drunkenmaster]

You really don't need much cpu power. Some games are still fine on single cores, half of my games will just spread their load across all cores, even non multithreaded games will still spread the load and the cores don't add threads, but they shift the workload as a power saving tool, keep cores cooler = uses less power which makes it hard to see just how many games are using more than one core in reality.

For instance super pi is a single thread, if you specifically dedicate it to one physical core it will use 100% load, but if you don't I'll see a load ranging from 5-40% on the various cores, still only adding up to 100% of one core but it spreads the load and usually loses a touch of performance for it.

Realistically theres very few games that need dual cores still and theres an very low percentage that care about quad cores even if they "CAN" use them it doesn't mean they need them.

Crysis, many other games are touted with quad core support and far to many people instantly assume this means "need" or "optimised for" quad core. In reality like anything else, if other games can use quad cores, and your's can, not advertising the fact seems like a missing feature. Like Nvidia will go on and on about shader 3 and how ATi could only do the lower one, or more recently ATI harp on about dx10.1 and nvidia trys to say how pointless it is. A feature is a feature is a feature, worthless or not if they can use it they'll say so.

I would say its , not silly, but not great thinking to go for a dual core when quad cores can be had so cheap. £130ish for a Q6600 is a steal, with a £70 mobo and £40 for 4gb mem you have a rig that will last a long long time for gaming, overclock far and probably keep up with any new cpu for at least a couple years in gaming. AMD wise, in £130 buys you a 2.6Ghz quad that is very very good, cheap mem, cheap very low power efficient boards, also will last you for years.

When looking to upgrade for gaming first and foremost is the gfx card, once thats sorted, make sure you have enough memory(4gigs these days is cheap and plenty for anything out there), lastly I'd change the cpu as it will yield the smallest performance boost of the 3 parts. No need for uber fast mem, enough is enough is enough.

The gfx card really you need to consider gaming resolution, 1280x1024, a 4850 is probably plenty(not actually used one or played that res in a LONG time though but sounds about right), moving up to 1680x1050 i'd be looking at a 4870/260gtx. 1920x1200, 4870/280gtx/4870x2. frankly sli 280/260 is overkill in price and performance for that res, I'd only go for more cards at a higher resolution. Though to be fair the 4870x2 due to exchange rate has priced itself out as being a sli killer. I got mine a few months ago at £320, which is a great deal, £400 its getting a tad steep frankly.


Also, your last sentence, the more work the graphics card has to do, the more info the CPU feeds it is incorrect. If a CPU can provide 250fps at 800x600, it can do the same at 1920x1200, and 2560x1600. It passes identical info at any resolution, its only after that the gfx card works differently at different resolutions. if you go low enough res in any game you'll be cpu limited, but as long as you buy an appropriate gfx card for the resolution you game at you'll never face that situation. Yes triple sli 280gtx's are somewhat cpu limited at a low resolution, if you buy £1k of graphics cards to play at 1680x1050, you deserve to be castrated though.

 

[Gilbretto]

Sorry for butting in, didn't want to start a new thread.

Will quad-cores be necessary for future games? I'm talking within the next year or 2.

 

[domthecondom]

if the guy above is right, as i don't know much about stuff like that. It was a pretty good read but. Some games do apprently work better with quad cores 2 of them are Suppreme Commander and Farcry2. I don't know this myself MIND. Only stuff i have read.

apprently FC2 works 40% better on a Quad core.

Please correct me if i am wrong

 

[Vern1961]

Here we all were merrily trundling along thinking our Core 2 Duo's would be more than adequate especially as most games don't even take advantage of two cores let alone four.

Then along comes GTA IV... Most of us are probably already contributing to/reading the existing thread in the PC Game section but for those who are not, this game appears to have been optimised for quad core processing power. Even a high end Dual Core doesn't reach the "recommended" specs.

Who would have thought...

 

[Gilbretto]

but will these games be a 'one off' or does it suggest that the gaming industry will follow their lead and start designing all games for full quad core use?

 

[lunarwolf]

this game appears to have been optimised for quad core processing power. Even a high end Dual Core doesn't reach the "recommended" specs.

? if you check out game section, everyone is having issues with this game even people with i7 quad and 260sli. just seems like rockstar created a hog, which doesn't even look that great visually - better than GT3 but not in same league as Crysis, Far Cry2, Stalker etc..

 

[Mav]

i always used this as a rule of thumb for upgrades ...

Games like Supreme Commander "RTS" based Games need better CPU for all the units an data about movement an weapons arc`s / ranges an stuff ..

Games that a "FS" Flight Sim can be a mix of both CPU an GPU based

Games like Cryiss/Far Cry "FPS" based Games need better GPU for graphics as there are more about that , than 100`s off little tanks/Ships/planes moving around