GTX 1060 and RX480 with older CPUs

[Uriel]

Stumbled across the following article that I thought might be of interest:

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers/

They run a few games with RX480 and GTX 1060 and older CPUs. Specifically they compare an i7 6700k, an i5 750 and a Phenom II x4 955.

interesting for me - anyway as my Phenom FX5200 and 970 probably isn't that far off the PII 955 / GTX 1060 system. I'd heard nVIDIA GPUs pair better with older CPUs because of the driver overhead and that bears out - kinda.

Of course the days of being able to use a Phenom II for newer games are numbered but they are still just about sufficient to provide a playable framerate in many newer titles (but yes - effectively they are quite a bottleneck these days).

 

[Uriel]

The more interesting conclusions I think are these.

1. If you just want playable (30 FPS) then even a 7 year old CPU at stock clocks will do in most games. Only Ashes contradicts this.

2. In 8/9 of those tests, the FPS with a 7 year old CPU and a brand new one sit in the 30-60 FPS range. Only in one case (Arma 3) does the CPU get over the 60 FPS mark where an i5-750 can't.



Even so the gap is surprisingly small IMO.

I think that's what I took from it. Yes it's obvious that a faster CPU will improve things. This kind of comparison allows us to quantify how much.

In most hardware reviews you don't get to see old hardware paired with newer stuff. As someone that might be considering a platform upgrade at some point to get past my CPU bottleneck this is exactly the information that I need and that most review sites don't provide.

 

[Uriel]

That may be the case with the i5 750.

Architectural limits with the Phenom II limit the improvements that can be had with overclocking in some games. Also - as it happens - I've got an ultra low end CPU, unlocked to quad and overclocked but unfortunately platform limited to something performing around a stock 955 to 965 (ish). I suppose that's an unusual situation but it means I'm very well matched with the test system.

The article also perhaps casts some light on tomshardware's CPU hierarchy chart (which unfortunately they seem to have got very slack with updating) http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu-hierarchy,review-33355.html . TH claim that the top five tiers of their chart remain viable for gaming and those looking for an upgrade should aim to go at least 2 tiers up (recent Pentiums are a bit of a discrepancy - I gather they were all removed from the top 5 tiers because of the issues a handful of games have when running on CPUs with less than 4 threads). Discrepancies aside I'd say the top five tier mark has been set about right.

 

[Uriel]

People are missing the point of the video. Its not to show that a newer cpu beats an older one - that's a given.

Its to show that a 480 struggles more than a 1060 when paired with a weaker cpu. Very reason why I cancelled my 480 pre order and got a 1060 as AMD architecture needs a powerful CPU to get the most from it.

Excactly why I also went with nVIDIA for my current GPU. However, the decision had been based somewhat on hearsay. It's interesting to see some evidence to back it up. However - nVIDIA GPUs are still held back by an outdated CPU, just not as much as AMD.

 

[Uriel]

Obviously with higher end GPU's (1070's, 1080's etc) the gap would further increase. Those 7 year old CPU's would be completely annihilated.

I would have thought that in some games those GPUs might enable a user with an old CPU to enable more eye candy or run a a higher resolution.

It's just that in situations that are CPU limited having a higher grade GPU isn't going to improve the framerate much, if at all.