Questioning Tomshardware

[tomster2300]

I'm thinking about upgrading my computer for my birthday, and am curious by something I found on tomshardware. The article is an investigation into the benefits of upgrading your processor over your video card, and vice versa.

Here's the link, followed by this paragraph in question:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...e,1928-20.html

"However, games are not 100% dependent on the graphics card; the Geforce 8 and 9 require a basic level of power, otherwise they are unable to exploit their 3D potential. The speed of the CPU should lie somewhere between 2600 and 3000 MHz; any lower, and the new graphics chips lose considerable performance."

I currently have an E4400 dual core, which clocks in at 2.0 Ghz. Despite the lacklusterness of my 8600 GT video card, am I not achieving its full potential while my processor is under 3.0 Ghz? Should I not worry about the cpu and upgrade the video card instead? I originally intended to use eVGA's step-up program to get a new card when building my computer, but accidentally waited too long to make use of it.

"The difference in performance among CPUs costing $77, $268 or even $1,237 (50, 170, 800 Euros) is actually relatively low. If you compare an E2160 at 1800 MHz to an E6750 or Q6600, you will find a 30% difference in the overall results. If the E2160 is overclocked to 2400 MHz, though, the difference in overall results is just 15%. The smaller cache of the E2160 budget CPU can be overcome by a higher clocking rate of up to 3 GHz."

While researching for my current desktop I found a website partially supporting the bolded text within the paragraph. They found that at 1280x1024 resolution, a test rig with a low end, small cache processor and high end graphics card, achieved nearly identical gaming results to a computer with all high end components. This is what I based my purchase on when choosing the E4400 and 8600 GT (the graphics card was a mistake I'll admit).

So, what do you guys think of this, and what do you believe I should do?

[Force Flow]

The clock rate on CPUs doesn't mean all that much as it once did many moons ago. There are a lot of different factors that go into how many calculations per second it can do. It all depends on the specs of the core (or cores)

The article is half right about the price differences. Yes, the top-of-the-line CPU will cost you double or triple what a mid-range model would, and the mid-range to high-range model should be sufficient. Yes, there isn't a huge benfit to the most expensive CPU in the line other than bragging rights unless there's something significantly different about it.

Usually you'll see a small increase in cache and/or and increase in the clock rate.


As for increasing the clock rate to compinsate for the lower cache...if older CPUs are any indication of the trend, no, you won't see a huge difference, not to mention you probably wouldn't be able to increase the clock that high without some high-end cooling solution. It's still like trying to flush a toilet down a pipe the size of a straw. Sure, faster will help a little, but it's still limited by capacity (ie, memory).


Overall, if you're satisfied with the performance of your hardware, that's all that really matters.

[Masaki 7-11]

I did some benchmarks on my Celeron Dual Core computer before and after it was overclocked. I got a roughly 70% improvement in gaming performance when using the processor overclocked to 3.2GHz vs. the standard of 1.6GHz (I used Counter Strike Source, Crysis, Company of Heroes and 3DMark06 for the benchmarks). The Core 2 Series, especially the low end ones overclock very well even with stock cooling (a good cooler like the AC 7 Pro will be a great upgrade over the stock cooler though). I can't compare to processors with more cache than mine as I only have the Celeron Dual Core for socket 775, but a higher clock on the processor definitely increases gaming performance.

[ski]

Rather than trying to decide if you should upgrade either your CPU or video card by referencing the general comments in that article, it may be better if you deal with specifics.
First, determine your gaming parameters, i.e., which games you will play, the maximum resolution you will use, and if you plan to use AA and/or AF.
Then, knowing that your E4400 CPU is slightly faster than a non-O/C'd E2160 and your 8600 GT is approx. half as fast as a 7950 GT, focus on the different graphics cards that are combined with the E2160 in the article's test results.
For example, approx. 50% of the games in that article can be played at decent frame rates with the E2160/7950 GT at 1280x1024 and no AA or AF. So if you want to play those games(or similar) with those parameters, then upgrading to at least a 7950 GT should suffice. You may also be able to get decent frame rates if you use a lower resolution and lower quality game graphics with your existing CPU/vid card.
But if you want to play those games(or similar) at a resolution that's higher than 1280x1024 and/or use AA/AF, and the E2160/7950 GT combo does not render decent frame rates with these new parameters, then look for decent frame rates with the E2160 and a faster video card. If the E2160 cannot render decent frame rates even with the fastest vid cards that it was tested with, then you will have to upgrade both your CPU and vid card.
Also, if you plan to play any of the games in the article(or similar) that render slow frame rates at 1280x1024 and no AA/AF with the fastest E2160/vid card combo, then you will have to either use a lower resolution and/or quality, or upgrade your CPU and vid card.

[tomster2300]

The more I consider it, I think I may just upgrade both parts and then use my current ones in my brother's computer. It currently won't turn on and I've been meaning to replace it with new parts. I would just have to pick up a mobo for it as well and it should be good to go.