how much do CPUs really matter..?

[Gashman]

just wanted to get some peoples opinions on this, was just wondering how much people think the CPU matters in a modern system.

this is all down to my personal experiences with various processors over the years, ranging from K7/K8 processors and their Intel rivals to newer second generation Core processors, starting to wonder how much of a part a CPU plays in current systems. small example, friend from work has an modern Intel processor in his system, but it doesn't feel notably faster than another friends 'slow' X4, in-fact if I didn't know which was which I would be unable to tell the difference, except the Intel system was much more expensive.

most benchmarking tools I have used give false 'ideas' of how fast or slow a processor is, for example Super-PI seems to have almost no valid substance in the real-world of computing, my Q6600 obliterates my mates X4 but the difference in the real-world isn't even worth noting (except encoding), so curious why so much emphasis is placed in processors around, when they seem to be one of the less important components to the system. also some benchmarking tools seem intentionally geared toward Intel architectures or such, giving overestimated performance figures when the two are (K10.5 and Core) aren't really that far apart in real-world, day to day computing.

a slower processor with a fast solid-state drive will likely feel notably faster than a faster processor with a slower hard disk which suggests to me that we have reached a point in time where processors are being 'under-worked' in the real-world making ever faster processors somewhat, pointless.

so yeah please share your own experiences and opinions on this topic, can't remember a thread dedicated to just the discussion of processors as an 'overall' sort of thing, is RAM more important than processing power..? is the graphics processor the most important part of the modern system..? what is Bulldozer going to bring to the table, more cores = more speed or more unused potential..?

 

[joeyjojo]

You've correctly identified the hard disk being the limiting factor in modern (last 5 years) machines for general OS use. For these light users, the CPU matters very little. Dual core and even atom processors are just fine for them. A SSD and a low power 1 or 2 core CPU is ideal.

Also I agree that Super Pi has been useless for many years. Same for Prime 95 as a stability tool.

Gamers have a different set of requirements, namely they need a CPU which can feed their GPU (at modern resolutions anyway), so the power they need is pretty much down to which GPU they can afford.

For me, I run DC projects with Boinc, so have another set of needs. As the CPU is fully loaded 24/7 I want the most computing power/watt. The advantage of multiple cores is clear here as more cores means more concurrent projects crunching.

It's a similar situation for those doing video encoding as the job is highly parallelised, so the encoding time drops almost linearly with cores at a given clock.

 

[Cycrow]

it really depends on your usage.

some tasks u'll notice big differences, but then most ppl dont really do those kinds of things anyway

there are a few games where you can really notice a difference in CPU performance, but these are very few.

for example, a cpu intensive game like X3 Terran Conflict, there is noticable differences between an X4 and i7.

generally thou, unless your one of the few ppl who actually need extra speed, then a lot of the time it isn't really needed, any modern CPU will do most jobs without a problem.

the most important part of the system would be based on how you use it, for gamers its almost always the graphics card, for someone who does a lot of virtualisation it'll be ram and for someone who does a lot of encoding, it'll be the cpu.

for me personally, its the monitor/mouse/keyboard

 

[Gashman]

only had the thought after using my laptop more in recent times, this has a dual-core processor, but it feels equal to, even faster sometimes than my desktop with quad-core even though it has less cores, lower clock speed. another person I know has quad-core with hyper-threading but still feels no 'snappier' than my other mates X4-BE, even though its about three times the cost, and me brother in law has an X4-BE with solid state and his feels faster than all of the above systems. interesting times to be honest, those Accelerated Processing Units seem interesting concept, curious how much of a boost that hybrid Crossfire gives when paired with something like a 6850 or the likes, does it justify the extra cost over something like an X4. there is only so fast one can do things before any extra just becomes impossible to notice.

 

[ATIorNvidia]

SuperPI is a very poor benchmark, and is ONLY useful if you're comparing two exact same processors... i.e if you want to compare your Q6600 at stock and overclocked. For comparing different processors and especially AMD's, it's bad.

 

[spirits247]

I think ideally you need two computers these days, perhaps three if you include a laptop/portable. If you have a family or partner, this goes without saying. CPU power depends on tasks, but it is much less important hence the rise of ARM CPU's in portable devices. Not as powerful as desktop CPU's, but they are efficient and powerful enough for all modern day to day common tasks. The last great step forward was single to dual core bringing smoother multitasking. After that, there aren't big gains for most people.

I run a low power [email protected] 1.07v using integrated graphics and a X-Fi Elite for work, web surfing, music, HTPC, occasional server and storage/backup duties. A Llano would also be good for this.

Have an Atom netbook for surfing around the house and those overnight/long uploads and downloads - has an UPS of course (battery) and is very low power, so ideal for saving energy for such common tasks.

Use a powerful Quad core CPU and GPU for a gaming PC and if I need to do anything CPU intensive, I use the gaming rig and it never ties up my other machines. This thing sucks a lot more power and I felt guilty surfing the web on it! Suffice to say, I hardly ever use the gaming rig for anything other than gaming. The occasional archiving and encoding where it saves serious time, but the Core2 with 4GB continues to provide ample power for nearly all my computing tasks. Less dust build up on the expensive components too!

So to answer your question, a more powerful CPU for most people isn't that important as long as it can play flash vids smoothly! As mentioned above, SSD drives offer the biggest perceivable performance jump for common tasks at the moment.

 

[Lunawolfy]

With gaming these days the bottleneck is no longer in the CPU.

If your running a single card setup then a clock >2.8GHz will more than suffice, However when SLI is involved the CPU has to work harder and FPS gains can be seen right upto 4GHz+

Source

Everyone here seems under no illusion that in modern day-to-day tasks, it is in fact the SSD which provides the 'wow' factor to your system.

 

[Gashman]

replacing my system in the very near future for something substantially smaller but still potent, though I am starting to realise that worrying less about the processor and more about things like the hard drive and memory system are probably more important, reckon good RAM and good hard drive (are those hybrid drives worth it?) will see a better improvement than a faster processor.

 

[mejobloggs]

SuperPI is a very poor benchmark, and is ONLY useful if you're comparing two exact same processors... i.e if you want to compare your Q6600 at stock and overclocked. For comparing different processors and especially AMD's, it's bad.

I thought the point of SuperPI was that it's a single threaded benchmark. Used to see how a single core of one cpu compares to another, regardless of what type of cpu

Possible example:

you could get an amd cpu + an intel cpu, set them at the same speed e.g 3ghz, then bench them both

If the Intel scores 10% higher that means at the same clock speed, a single core is 10% faster

Whereas if you had a multithreaded benchmark and benched a 4core vs a 6core it wouldnt tell you the efficiency/speed the cpu architecture

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I thought the point of SuperPI was that it's a single threaded benchmark. Used to see how a single core of one cpu compares to another, regardless of what type of cpu

Possible example:

you could get an amd cpu + an intel cpu, set them at the same speed e.g 3ghz, then bench them both

If the Intel scores 10% higher that means at the same clock speed, a single core is 10% faster

Whereas if you had a multithreaded benchmark and benched a 4core vs a 6core it wouldnt tell you the efficiency/speed the cpu architecture

SuperPi is an outdated benchmark and does not even support a lot of modern extensions. If anything it has no real bearing on everyday performance unless the primary use of your PC is to calculate Pi. The Pentium 4 used to score higher than even the Athlon 64 IIRC which was not the case in most applications at the time.

 

[bainbridge]

Well I've just downgraded from:

Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz with 4gb ddr2 800mhz

To:

E6300 @ 2.8Ghz & 1gb ddr2 667mhz

No longer gaming but everything else I do seems only a little slower, perfectly acceptable.

 

[panyan]

well, i would say the CPU matters a lot, ive tried to build budget systems without it - but i didnt get very far...

 

[opethdisciple]

The cpu is the component that pushes all the instructions around the computer.

All the gpu does is takes what it is given and renders it.

The cpu also handles physics calculation in some games.

Other games which are heavy on calculations the cpu is bottleneck.

So its pretty important.

 

[Gashman]

problem is, the CPU isn't the limiting factor to gaming the majority of the time, processor can be fast as it wants to be but at the end of the day speed is pointless if it is being held back by other parts of the system, which I must admit seems to be the trend, rather than the CPU holding the system back.

 

[Marine-RX179]

My Q6600 at 3.6GHz would bottleneck my 5850 in games that use less than 4 cores with GPU usage together with frame rate dropping hugely during intensive moment, where as in games that are use the 4 cores fully, my 5850 GPU usage always touching 99% and don't drop below 95%.

To me honest, I really hate how even many modern games (year 2009~2011) are not fully using all four cores...otherwise I wouldn't even keep getting tempted to consider upgrading my Q6600 to a faster platform like SandyBridge.

 

[mejobloggs]

CPU only matters on certain games or certain programs that do a lot of work

I think for most people low end CPU's are fine. These days the most common cpu intensive thing would be videos. Youtube, flash videos, dvds, high def vid files etc

I've been using an AMD Fusion C-50 recently.
It does ok if everything is right, e.g nothing running in background, run video in fullscreen so it has higher priority

But if I don't run fullscreen, or if something even fairly small is going on in the background it tends to lag out

So I'd say for general use, any low end Intel Core 2 duo or AMD equivilant is perfectly fine. I believe even the lowest Core 2 is like... 3x faster than Fusion/Atom? (correct me if wrong)

Gaming is the only reason I personally would go for high performance cpu's (I don't do any other cpu intensive stuff)

It's a bit hard to generalize with games, some games are GPU limited, some CPU limited. If you got lucky you could play all your desired games on a low end cpu.

Other games seem to choke with low end cpu. E.g my brother has low end Core 2 and plays bfbc2. Lags like crazy even at min graphics

In short:
Imo Atom/Fusion are just a wee bit too slow
Lowest Intel Core 2 / Whatever AMD's equiv is good enough for general use + light gaming (old games, flash games, simple games etc

 

[Phil2008]

problem is, the CPU isn't the limiting factor to gaming the majority of the time, processor can be fast as it wants to be but at the end of the day speed is pointless if it is being held back by other parts of the system, which I must admit seems to be the trend, rather than the CPU holding the system back.

True, Its like my [email protected] is prob holding back my ATi 6950 gpu by about 15-20% or so, but that 15-20% isnt a big deal yet as all games still run nice and smoothly so far

 

[SlugForAButt]

My e7500 @ 4Ghz achieved the same FPS in most games that my Q9650 @ 4Ghz manages - both paired with a 6950. Go figure.
Mind you, 4 cores makes L4D2 a thing of beauty.

EDIT: I have started running my Q9650 UNDERclocked to 1.2Ghz @ 0.8V for day to day desktop usage and it's fine. 3.8Ghz @ 1.18V is good enough for any game I thow at it, so I really don't see CPU as the limiting factor atm tbh.
I love the low Vcore 'cos leccy bills are going up 20% and I'm a tight Yorkshireman.

 

[Phil2008]

EDIT: I have started running my Q9650 UNDERclocked to 1.2Ghz @ 0.8V for day to day desktop usage and it's fine. 3.8Ghz @ 1.18V is good enough for any game I thow at it, so I really don't see CPU as the limiting factor atm tbh.
I love the low Vcore 'cos leccy bills are going up 20% and I'm a tight Yorkshireman.

I use speedstepping so my cpu is underclocked and undervolted when not needed, Then it gets banged up to 3.8 and 1.32v when needed.

But Ive worked out that my pc stuff pulls in 183watts while messing in windows, so if my pc was on 24/7, it will cost about £120 - £130 a yr when the bills go up. But I very rarely leave pc turned on over night, So Im guessing the bill would be about £60 - £70 per year for the pc equipment

 

[Phil2008]

Ah yeah If your wondering what I use to figure out how much power I use, its a "Plug-in power monitor"