Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - TechTV: Save us from the new Screen Savers

Lasereth · 09-19-2004, 11:49 AM

Again, I'm not arguing that the videocard won't be bottlenecked. I'm simply arguing that a videocard upgrade will benefit today's games way more than a processor upgrade. For the system you mentioned, the same would apply. A newer videocard would benefit way more than a new processor, even if the videocard was only $200.

To illustrate my point more clearly, I took some screenshots of the tests I keep referencing. We'll talk about an Athlon XP 2000+ system with a GeForce 6800 Ultra. What a killer system!! But only if it had a better processor to make the games run better...right? Wrong. The processor is fine. Look what happens when ya upgrade the processor to an Athlon XP 3200+:

<IMG SRC=http://www.appstate.edu/~bt52438/processortest.jpg>

The average FPS for Doom 3 at the highest settings was 46 with the 2000+. Upgrading from the old 2000+ to a 3200+ increases the frames per second from 46 to 67. Not a big increase, but worth mentioning. A 45% increase in frames per second. The game went from playable to playable. 15 FPS is barely noticeable when the game is already running fine with a 6800 Ultra.

Now, we'll take a look at a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 system. Think about how awesome this processor is! 3.2 GHz!! The system was tested first with a GeForce FX 5200 Ultra.

<IMG SRC=http://www.appstate.edu/~bt52438/videocardtest.jpg>

Doom 3 runs at a mere <B>11.3</B> frames per second. That's right, 11.3. Remember that this is the same resolution as the wimpy Athlon XP 2000+ system with the 6800 Ultra that ran it at 45 frames per second.

Now, the videocard in the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 system is replaced with a GeForce 6800 Ultra:

<IMG SRC=http://www.appstate.edu/~bt52438/videocardtest1.jpg>

The frames per second just jumped to...68.6. So a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with a low-to-midrange videocard (GeForce FX 5200 Ultra) at 11.3 frames per second jumped to 68.6 frames per second with a videocard upgrade. That's a <B>607%</B> increase in raw performance from using a better videocard.

Which would you rather upgrade...the videocard, which gives a 600% increase in power with games, or a processor, which gives a 45% increase in power when the game was already playable? Going with a low-end processor and a high-end videocard is obviously better than going with a low-end videocard and a high-end processor. This is laid out clearly.

This information doesn't apply to non-gamers. The videocard doesn't matter for non-gamers. This is simply for people wondering which aspect of your PC matters when upgrading. Using a top of the line 6800 Ultra with an old Athlon XP 2000+ proved to be nearly 500% better than using a blazing 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with a GeForce FX 5200 Ultra. I can't explain it any more clearly. The results are here: videocard matters more.

-Lasereth

09-19-2004, 11:49 AM	#46 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	Again, I'm not arguing that the videocard won't be bottlenecked. I'm simply arguing that a videocard upgrade will benefit today's games way more than a processor upgrade. For the system you mentioned, the same would apply. A newer videocard would benefit way more than a new processor, even if the videocard was only $200. To illustrate my point more clearly, I took some screenshots of the tests I keep referencing. We'll talk about an Athlon XP 2000+ system with a GeForce 6800 Ultra. What a killer system!! But only if it had a better processor to make the games run better...right? Wrong. The processor is fine. Look what happens when ya upgrade the processor to an Athlon XP 3200+: <IMG SRC=http://www.appstate.edu/~bt52438/processortest.jpg> The average FPS for Doom 3 at the highest settings was 46 with the 2000+. Upgrading from the old 2000+ to a 3200+ increases the frames per second from 46 to 67. Not a big increase, but worth mentioning. A 45% increase in frames per second. The game went from playable to playable. 15 FPS is barely noticeable when the game is already running fine with a 6800 Ultra. Now, we'll take a look at a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 system. Think about how awesome this processor is! 3.2 GHz!! The system was tested first with a GeForce FX 5200 Ultra. <IMG SRC=http://www.appstate.edu/~bt52438/videocardtest.jpg> Doom 3 runs at a mere <B>11.3</B> frames per second. That's right, 11.3. Remember that this is the same resolution as the wimpy Athlon XP 2000+ system with the 6800 Ultra that ran it at 45 frames per second. Now, the videocard in the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 system is replaced with a GeForce 6800 Ultra: <IMG SRC=http://www.appstate.edu/~bt52438/videocardtest1.jpg> The frames per second just jumped to...68.6. So a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with a low-to-midrange videocard (GeForce FX 5200 Ultra) at 11.3 frames per second jumped to 68.6 frames per second with a videocard upgrade. That's a <B>607%</B> increase in raw performance from using a better videocard. Which would you rather upgrade...the videocard, which gives a 600% increase in power with games, or a processor, which gives a 45% increase in power when the game was already playable? Going with a low-end processor and a high-end videocard is obviously better than going with a low-end videocard and a high-end processor. This is laid out clearly. This information doesn't apply to non-gamers. The videocard doesn't matter for non-gamers. This is simply for people wondering which aspect of your PC matters when upgrading. Using a top of the line 6800 Ultra with an old Athlon XP 2000+ proved to be nearly 500% better than using a blazing 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with a GeForce FX 5200 Ultra. I can't explain it any more clearly. The results are here: videocard matters more. -Lasereth __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert Last edited by Lasereth; 09-19-2004 at 11:52 AM..