Does the processor you choose still matter?

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:57 pm

Interesting article. They did a bunch of gaming benchmark testing with a Radeon HD 7950 on a variety of different CPUs, both Intel and AMD, and ranging from budget to extreme. Bottom line is that for gaming your CPU isn't really all that important for the most part.

http://techreport.com/review/23246/insi ... today-cpus

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:56 pm

It hasn't for a while. So long as it's not a super budget one.

eGoCeNTRoNiX · Post by **eGoCeNTRoNiX** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:16 pm

I suspected something along these lines to be true.. The CPU isn't the bottle neck anymore.. It's other things like the Hard Drive and Memory now..

NubyCanuby_OFC · Post by **NubyCanuby_OFC** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:53 am

Most games aren't but some like Skyrim are more dependent on the CPU.

GuardianAsher · Post by **GuardianAsher** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:02 pm

I love how my old Phenom IIX4 is technically faster than my roommate's FX-8150. However, my thoughts of upgrading to a Core i5 system are starting to look a bit less appealing.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:16 pm

Especially if you've overclocked your stuff, you are unlikely to need an upgrade. I played through Skyrim completely with my E8200 Core II Duo overclocked to 3.2ghz & a HD5870 and never experienced a single hick-up. This is with the graphics maxed.

b-man1 · Post by **b-man1** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:26 pm

i like to see this...no way would i want to go back to the days of constant upgrades ever 3-4 months just to get improvements. well, i guess that was "fun" back then though...hahaha

my E8500 rig is still going strong as a secondary, but used daily system (media server). the only benefit to better cpus is for encoding/decoding or photoshop type stuff...games need to catch up to the cores already in place.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:30 pm

Plenty of my friends from Red-Eye are playing Skyrim on 3 generation old Core 2 Quad Q6600 rigs but with modern video cards,.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:37 pm

the only benefit to better cpus is for encoding/decoding or photoshop type stuff...games need to catch up to the cores already in place.

Even then, many of the newer encoding programs are using the processor on the video card to do much of the work (Photoshop being one).

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:46 am

When it comes to gaming, it is more often about your video card than your CPU, no doubt in that. When you are thinking all around performance, a good CPU can make the difference.

When I upgraded my Core 2 Duo system from a 8800GTS to a Radeon HD 6870, I went from playing on Low settings to Max. Mind you the video card was quite ancient in terms of things these days. Performance depends on a case by case basis. My laptop is actually far more capable in terms of Raw processing power and gaming potential, so the desktop has been side lined for the most part.

One thing though, if you are looking at a basic laptop with a little simple gaming, one with an A8 or A10 AMD CPU will net better results than Intel's lackluster graphics.

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:20 am

How does an old Q6600 fair with today's cpu's? That is what I'm still using.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:36 am

E, it depends what you're using it for. Q6600 is 3 generations behind, but it was an awesome CPU. Lot's of my friends are gaming just fine on it.

When it comes to most games I doubt that CPU will hold you back at all (the exception would be a very CPU dependent single-player game, or flight sim that has to do a lot of number crunching).

I've got friends still running Q6600 rigs (back when those Dell Vostro 420s were selling for a good price) with a 5000 or 6000 series AMD video card, and they have no problem playing a modern FPS game at high res.

Now if you're more concerned about video transcoding or photoshop, then yeah you'd appreciate a more up to date Core i5 or i7 processor.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:21 pm

Those Q6600's overclocked like crazy. You can almost get double speed out of them if you're lucky.

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:03 pm

normalicy wrote:Those Q6600's overclocked like crazy. You can almost get double speed out of them if you're lucky.

Mine is still at stock. Never thought about over-clocking it since it was fast enough for me, but I'm sure my NVIDA GeForce 8800GTS is my current bottle neck, along with my old HD's which this December will mark them as 6 years old.

http://www.pcabusers.org/forums/showthread.php?t=44950

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:51 am

A simple upgrade of your video card will make all the difference as it did for me. Now granted your old motherboard can't take full advantage of it, but the performance boost will be great on gaming.

In addition, you can always use the new card in a new system if you eventually go that route, so the investment is worth it. Right now in regards to gaming, that is the biggest single upgrade for you.

Don't forget many video transcoding programs and photoshop can take advantage of the video card. In an ideal situation, you'd want to start from scratch, but when affordability is the case, one can do a lot with a small upgrade.

Here is a Passmark benchmark chart for it at stock:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup. ... +@+2.40GHz

It is near the bottom. You can clearly tell how much it shows its age. They were put out in early 2007 after all, but it is still quite impressive how well it does, five years later.

I've wanted to step up my desktop from a Core 2 Duo to a Quad, but the prices are quite ridiculous in comparison. When people want more money for one than a Core i5 which outperforms it in every way, I find it quite dumb. I would never be able to justify paying that much, I'd rather do a full overall first. I know supply and demand, but it is pointless if you end up sitting on it forever.