CPU, how important is it to overall system speed? - Page 2 - Overclock.net

ltulod · 01-27-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuniDude

So Itulod have you played crysis? Do you notice a big difference when using two GTX280's as opposed to one? I'm debating whether to pick up a second.

Yes, I finish both games on easy mode

first I played it on 8800 gt on my secondary rig @ 1680 X 1050 2xx boy did that crawl lol,. I love the game so I decided to build a more powerfull rig and went with another 280. I love high settings but the game still not fluid for me on 1680 x 1050 8xx gamer mode, so I added another one to sli then boom I love it.

ltulod · 01-27-09

There's a toolbenchmark inside crysis folder.

raydotulung · 01-27-09

Hmmm... this is an interesting discussion.. upgrading CPU vs Display Card which one will give the best result for gaming..

If budget is not a problem, take i7.. or upgrade the CPU with higher FSB (Q9xxx series)

MuniDude · 01-27-09

I played it yesterday with everything on high at 1920x1200 with no AA and it seemed to run at least 35 for me. I'll benchmark to find out for sure. Only the end boss chugged a little. I found a good article on this topic check it out.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...e-processors/1

ltulod · 01-27-09

if money is not the problem, then go I7 but I bet the difference is not that great by buying another gpu, which you can use in the future for upgrade to go I7.

Emmanuel · 01-27-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuniDude

Does anyone know how I would see what my FPS are in crysis while I'm playing. Can you make a custom video test in that game?

Open up the console (~) and type in "r_displayinfo 1" without quotes, that will show your FPS. Or many will recommend using Fraps, I don't use it myself though.

losttsol · 01-27-09

FarCry 2 and Unreal Tournament have shown to be more CPU dependent as well. Most games however lean towards the GPU. Core i7 has shown little improvement in gaming over the Q9650 though.

MuniDude · 01-27-09

From reading the article I posted it seems like as long as the CPU is at a certain level it then becomes totally dependent on the Graphics card. From the 2.6Ghz range and up it doesn't matter if you have a core 2 quad extreme or Q6600. I haven't seen any test on the core i7 so I can't comment on that.

nytevizion · 01-27-09

I really would like to see some proof that we are even maxxing out our Core 2's dual/quads at over 3.2 ghz. I say you might benefit from the new bus architecture of the I7 and DDR3 in tri channel rather than the actual speed of the processor.

I aint buying new junk until the prices come down to reasonable levels... Core 2's are still amazing to me.

ltulod · 01-27-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nytevizion

I really would like to see some proof that we are even maxxing out our Core 2's dual/quads at over 3.2 ghz. I say you might benefit from the new bus architecture of the I7 and DDR3 in tri channel rather than the actual speed of the processor.

I aint buying new junk until the prices come down to reasonable levels... Core 2's are still amazing to me.

same here.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Intel > Intel - General
CPU, how important is it to overall system speed?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)