Is the CPU + Memory or GPU more important on a budget Gaming system?

Scrutinize · 10 May 2007 at 11:20

Is the CPU + Memory or GPU more important on a budget Gaming system?

Sorry if this has been done recently but I have been back a few pages and without the search function I can’t tell. I also thought I would post it here as its more GPU related. I haven’t built a system in 3 years or really looked at doing it again until a couple of weeks ago so I am really rusty.

Basically I posted in general hardware a few days ago about building a gaming office rig built around a very tight budget Intel C2D system, but it came to the conclusion it wasn’t doable and wouldn’t be that great at gaming because of the cost cutting on the GFX.

However, this week I noticed OCUK are doing the PowerColour ATI X1950XT for £117.49 or the 1950pro for £93.99 => ....http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-066-PC&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=404

Therefore with these prices, swapping from the C2D to a budget AMD X2 system would save enough off the CPU/MB to accommodate a better GFX in my budget (cheap as inhumanly possible £300 :eek:

, and I would re-use some of my old hardware HD/DVD/FD)

This would mean that I could build a PCIE system with a fairly decent GFX in for a low cost.

So would it be better to go for a lower AMD CPU spec and this XT/PRO? How CPU limited and memory limited will my gaming be these days with a card like that? I have been trawling the benchmarks over the last couple of weeks and still haven’t found my answer. I have also noticed on TomsH that they have been doing their 3day rig build with the 1st day as a budget system but for the money I think I can seriously better it.

I was thinking of the following spec and can I get away with it/would it be any good?

CASE/PSU

I was hoping to the following case for either spec. I noticed that OCUK use this in their Titan pre-built systems with the 1950pro/7950GT but would it run and or fit a 1950XT. This is kind of crucial as it’s the cheapest case with reasonable power supply I can find/afford

• Antec NSK4400 Mini Tower Case - 380W SmartPower PSU (£46.99)

GPU/CPU/Memory Spec 1)

• PowerColor ATI Radeon X1950 Pro Extreme SILENT Heatpipe 256MB GDDR3 HDTV/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) - (£93.99)

• AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ 2.00GHz (Socket AM2) - (£54.04)

• Crucial 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 PC2-5300C5 Dual Channel Kit - £58.74

• Asus M2V/Abit KN9 (Socket AM2) (£44.64)/ (£46.99)

• Total £300.75

So the key things here are the 3800X2 and the 2GB memory coupled with the cheap motherboard (I am undecided on which one either the NF4 Ultra or VIA chipset). I have put crucial memory in as I know it will work/be compatible, I can always chuck in some better stuff at a later date, but for now since I won’t be overclocking it would suffice.

GPU/CPU/Memory Spec 2)

• PowerColor ATI Radeon X1950 XT Extreme SILENT Heatpipe 256MB GDDR3 VIVO TV-Out/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) - (£117.49)

• Crucial 1GB (2x512MB) DDR2 PC2-5300C5 Dual Channel Kit - (£31.71)

• Total £297.17

Here I have swapped out the pro for the XT but had to reduce the memory from 2GB to 1GB to keep it in my budget.

So the question remains, for the sake of getting a good GFX is it worth stepping down from a C2D (4300/P5B set up) to the AMD 3800? With a C2D I would be looking at a 7600GT in my budget realistically compared to an XT in the AMD system.

Will 1GB and a XT be better than 2GB and a Pro? I could always go up to 2GB memory in a couple of months time as its cheaper to add more memory than change the GFX afaik?

Your thoughts and help will be much appreciated.

Cheers

Mark

FoxEye · 10 May 2007 at 12:19

Personally, if I was you, I'd get a nice C2D and 2gig RAM. I'd then buy a second hand gfx card just to tide me over until the DX10 mid-range cards get released. The 1950Pro will get a DX10 update in the R670, apparently. Hopefully it will be faster.

But if I was changing my mobo/CPU/RAM, I sure wouldn't opt for an AM2.

Thankfully I'm not in your shoes; I'm waiting to see what AMDs K10 family turns out like. At the mo, my Opty 146 and 7800GT are still serving well

FrannoBaz · 10 May 2007 at 12:25

i would say CPU, mobo and ram are more important... I have core 2 duo E6600 (3.2GHZ) on a P5N32-E mobo with 2GB Crucial Ballistix RAM (930mhz 4-4-4-12). Im using a Sparkle 7600GT at the mo and i can run Battlefield 2 with everything on maximum with no lag or stutters... FPS average = 50

Scrutinize · 10 May 2007 at 12:30

FoxEye said:
Personally, if I was you, I'd get a nice C2D and 2gig RAM. I'd then buy a second hand gfx card just to tide me over until the DX10 mid-range cards get released. The 1950Pro will get a DX10 update in the R670, apparently. Hopefully it will be faster.

But if I was changing my mobo/CPU/RAM, I sure wouldn't opt for an AM2.

Thankfully I'm not in your shoes; I'm waiting to see what AMDs K10 family turns out like. At the mo, my Opty 146 and 7800GT are still serving well

I have a Nvidia FX5900XT in my current 754 set up, so desperation is maxed out. I figured an AMD system will see me gaming for 12 months at least whilst everything changes properly to DX10 inc the games, then I can build a new rig next year.

It would be nice to be able to buy a PC game and run it from the last 2 years, I have missed out on all of the decent releases simply because my system /cried at the thought of any graphical processing required.

As long as I can play a back catalogue from the last 2 years and anything this year then I would be happy really at decent resolutions. LOTRO looks like a PS1 game atm

#edit...I had also thought of shoving a 1950pro AGP into my system but the mobo doesn't seem to like anything recent even with a bios update and the cpu would be too limiting.

skanky · 10 May 2007 at 13:01

depends on the game, depends on the res played at really.

FreeStream · 10 May 2007 at 13:08

Graphics > CPU + mem.

A cheap X2 overclocked to 2.6ghz is MORE than enough to keep a X1950XT fed, allows you to add AA and AF if there is a CPU bottleneck.

FoxEye · 10 May 2007 at 13:19

Concorde Rules said:
Graphics > CPU + mem.

I'd say that depends entirely on what your favourite genre of game is. FPS, sure. RTS? Not so much. Strategy/ RPG? Not at all

A cheap X2 overclocked to 2.6ghz is MORE than enough to keep a X1950XT fed, allows you to add AA and AF if there is a CPU bottleneck.

Squink · 10 May 2007 at 13:22

mrk1@1 said:
I figured an AMD system will see me gaming for 12 months at least whilst everything changes properly to DX10 inc the games, then I can build a new rig next year.

I agree with your comment on the AMD system being suitable for another 12 months. I've always figured on the GPU being the equivalent of the speakers in a hi-fi setup. From my old audiophile days it was generally accepted that the speakers had the biggest overall impact on the sound quality. I'd say that the GPU has the biggest overall impact on your gaming performance as well.

Check out this link to a review from Tomshardware. They were testing to see if older processors could power the more powerful of today's mid-range GPUs (which is the sort of level you've mentioned):

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/01/agp-platform-analysis/page11.html

The conclusion is that the AMD system is indeed good for these cards.

Of course if you're playing at low resolutions like 1024x768, you're likely to find the faster CPU is the better bet. The AMD platform will definitely be a dead end though, while a new Intel platform might be able to take some upgrading in 12 months when you do your big overhaul.

Scrutinize · 10 May 2007 at 13:51

mulpsmebeauty said:
Check out this link to a review from Tomshardware. They were testing to see if older processors could power the more powerful of today's mid-range GPUs (which is the sort of level you've mentioned):

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/01/agp-platform-analysis/page11.html

The conclusion is that the AMD system is indeed good for these cards.

Of course if you're playing at low resolutions like 1024x768, you're likely to find the faster CPU is the better bet. The AMD platform will definitely be a dead end though, while a new Intel platform might be able to take some upgrading in 12 months when you do your big overhaul.

Ok so I wasn't expecting those results

, they mean that aa AGP 1950 pro in my 3200 (@2200) 754 system would cut the mustard.

Maybe I should purchase an AGP card then for now and wait it out a bit longer before changing my system. :confused:

Squink · 10 May 2007 at 14:04

mrk1@1 said:
Maybe I should purchase an AGP card then for now and wait it out a bit longer before changing my system.

Well I'm in a similar boat to you in that I've not got a lot of free cash (curse you mortgage!) and have a 3400+ on a 754 platform. I'm looking to upgrade to C2D for as little as possible even though I can't really justify any expenditure at all. The difference is that I've got a 6800U, which can just about cope with modern games at reasonable resolution and at medium-ish settings. If I was in your position where I knew I could afford a big upgrade in a year, I'd shove in one of those GeCube X1950 256Mb cards (a possibility I've not yet entirely dismissed myself) and leave it another 12 months.

~>Dg<~ · 10 May 2007 at 14:14

well ive just had a look what you can build for 200 quid and its quite funny really. i managed a am2 3800x2,asus m2n-mx(onboard video and graphics 6100)
160gb sata 2 hard drive 1gb corsair ddr2,case and psu, dvdrwx18,so if you got a card already could build a cheap powerful systems for peanuts really.

Scrutinize · 12 May 2007 at 14:28

So I have gone ahead and put an AGP upgrade into my system to give it a go.

AMD XP3200+ @ 2200 stock
Freezer 64
K8V Pro
1 GB PC3200 (2x512)
160 GB SATA Maxtor
HIS X1950Pro IceQ3 AGP (590Mhz core 1.54Ghz mem) (running Cat 7.4)
Thermaltake Xaser Gaming Tower

Tried a bit of overclocking and the system will run happily at 2409 Mhz with a minor V core and V mem increase but all the tests were done at stock.

3D Mark 2006 gives 4594 points - noted that the cpu test in there was a slide show @ 0 FPS.

I can run Lord of the Rings Online (seems to be a modern oblivion in terms of graphic requirments) almost maxed out and it looks awsome and the only thing causing lag is lack of system memory and cpu by the looks of it. Knocking the detail settings down a little bit lets it all run fine.

Will be running a 3D Mark 05 once it it downloaded.

3D Mark 05 Added - 8567 points

So there is still some life in the old AGP systems. I will be building a new rig over the next few months but with this result, I can afford to pick a better system.

On a side note, I love the quality and look of the card, the whole system seems to run a bit cooler as it vents outside + it is very quiet.

Zefan · 12 May 2007 at 14:32

Get 2gb (it's really needed for newest games), the lowest core 2 duo and spend the rest on gpu.

:edit: Should I have read the whole thread

fornowagain · 12 May 2007 at 14:38

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/05/11/system_builder_marathon_uk/page10.html

Budget X2 3800/N4 vs Mid E6600/P965

Scrutinize · 12 May 2007 at 15:00

fornowagain said:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/05/11/system_builder_marathon_uk/page10.html

Budget X2 3800/N4 vs Mid E6600/P965

Again interesting results. A more than playable 8800GTX machine for £700

:eek:

Uriel · 12 May 2007 at 15:04

The 3DMark06 CPU tests are a slideshow on pretty much anything. Saw a Core2Quad getting 0-3FPS. Don't worry about it.

Keeping a budget rig acceptable for gaming is all about bottleneck removal. You can go a long way just upgrading bits and pieces. Every so often though you just have to bite the bullet and give up on several components. At that point I just go for the most upgradeable motherboard and case I can afford (assuming budget doesn't allow for a whole new well-balanced rig). Pretty much everything else can be replaced without too much hassle.

Remember though - you'll get to the point where an new graphics card in an old system is about as much use as putting lipstick on a pig. A long time ago I kept trying to get by upgrading the graphics card on a Socket 7 system with no AGP slot. Utter waste of time. Remember what you can't migrate to a new motherboard. You probably won't be taking your RAM or graphics card with you and certainly not your CPU so don't spend too much on upgrading them.

FatRakoon · 15 May 2007 at 01:17

As you mention low-end, I will tell you my little story...

Some time ago, I forget the CPU, probably a Barton 2500 @ 3200 as I did have this darling for a while ,and the graphics were ATI Saphire 9500np runing at 9700 using the DNA Drivers ... Possibly v4.11 as I still got them, and I had 512MB RAM.

Anyway, that was the system, and UnReal Tournament 2004 played near-perfect, however, it did occasionally flicker or jerk now and then... Not enough to ruin the game, but certainly enough to notice and annoy you.

Idecided to up the GFX and at the Time, the 9700Pro was in OCUK and so I went for one of those.

Guess what?

The game played no different... No different at all.... Coupel of extra FPS but the jerkyness was still there!

I then decided to rob a Pair of 256MB Sticks from one of my other systems, and coupled with this single 512MB I gave the PC 1GB...

Cured the jerkyness.

I put the 9500 back in and even ran it as 9500 instead of as a 9700 and the jerkyness had totally gone.

So, on the tests I did there, I found out that a 1GB Machine running a 9500NON-PRO was ale to run games a lot better than a 512MB Machine running a 9700PRO!

You get better frame rates with the better card sure you do, but the overall gameplay is crippled because of the swapping.

I will also add however, that going from 512MB to 1GB is a good sized jump, and its a vital one too... So much so, that I have had to up all my LAN PCs to 1GB as soon as I saw the difference... ( Only just taken them to 2GB actually only in the last 2 weeks in fact )

Going from 1GB to 2GB however, is less important... With Dual core CPUs its a good idea to do though.

And going from 2GB to 4GB is a total waste of time and money, but at current prices you just gotta do it.

SkeeterUK · 15 May 2007 at 01:27

CPU over a gfx card any day since cpu is much better to have for non gfx card calculations etc like ai etc.

dbmzk1 · 15 May 2007 at 02:52

I think the CPU and memory are more important as they do things like improve load times, reduce stutter and slowdowns and of course speed up the non-gaming side of the PC too. Any graphics card will do really, you can always turn the graphics down. Doesn't stop you playing the game and having fun. A bunch of stutter and slowdown might.

Saying that, you should try and get the fastest you can, as obviously its nice to have the eye candy too

Cyber-Mav · 15 May 2007 at 03:33

gpu is most important, i got pelnty of games running on a barton 3200 with 1.5gig of ram and 7600gs, games like call of duty 2 run great at a rez of 1360x768, but if i had a faster gfx card then i could used high levels of AA.
iv been through a lot of setups and a lot of graphics cards and if anyone says cpu is most important for games then they are just gonna be reffered to as Jacob Billings.

only games cpu dependant are rts games like supreme commander and not even quad core is good enough on that. :rolleyes: