Lesser CPU, Multiple Video Cards??

Eradan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
1,188
Just curious for gaming performance if one could obtain greater gaming performance by going with a lesser (and cheaper) CPU (Intel Pentium G3258, AMD FX6300 or 8320) and invest in an additional video card for SLI or XFire (970 or 290x). The alternative would be going single video card with an Intel 4690K or 4790K and a single video card (970/290x).

Thanks.
 
It is possible to have too much GPU and not enough CPU. For example:

My HTPC was originally built with a Pentium G860 and later added a 750 Ti discrete graphics card to it. After upgrading my TV to a 4K TV I realized I wanted more GPU so I upgraded it to a single 980. I suspected my CPU wasn't enough to keep up with the 980 so I got a used i5 2400 to replace the Pentium G860. I get higher FPS on games now at 4k.

However, I still seen a HUGE improvement going from a 750 Ti to a 980 and the improvement wasn't as much when I went from a G860 to an i5 2400.

Honestly it really depends on what you're doing specifically. In most cases it's better to go with a single, more powerful GPU than multiple GPUs unless you're gaming on extreme resolutions or multiple monitors.

To answer the question though you'll get better FPS/Gameplay out of more GPU than you would with more CPU.
 
The resolution and settings that you play at are a huge factor especially in terms of GPU usage. You can often squeak by with an inferior GPU simply by lowering your in-game settings, but there isn't usually much you can do when you are limited by your CPU. In that respect, I tend to lean more in the direction of focusing more on your CPU. It's always a balance though.

Knowing the games that you play really helps a lot here. Some games are very CPU intensive, while others more GPU intensive. Interestingly, it is often the games that make the least efficient use of the CPU that show the most gains from a faster CPU. It is very sad but many games still do most of their processing on a single core, only using additional cores for secondary tasks. Those games will often show the most benefit from a CPU upgrade. On the flip side, there are some games which actually do make good use of multiple cores, not loading down any individual core while the others sit idle. In many cases it is these games which will be more GPU intensive, as their efficiency in utilizing the CPU makes the CPU less of an issue.

Of course there are other factors, like making sure you use cards with enough VRam is you are going 4K, etc. Your best bet will always be to tailor your hardware to your individual situation.
 
I think what I'm really looking for is the cheapest CPU, whether its AMD or Intel to pair with a single EVGA 970 SSC without bottlenecking it for maximum settings at 1080p. After reading the responses above, if I'm going to have the money for another 970 for SLI, I'd probaby rather sell the one I have and buy a faster single card solution...like a Fury or 980ti. I'm going to have to stick to 1080p for my home PC mostly like until Spring 2016. 4K gaming is not in the cards for me at the moment. Might be able to get one of the better 1440 Korean monitors.
 
I think what I'm really looking for is the cheapest CPU, whether its AMD or Intel to pair with a single EVGA 970 SSC without bottlenecking it for maximum settings at 1080p.
Depends on the game. Some games would require a Core i5 4460 or as low as a Pentium G3258. Some may not work with the G3258 and will require the Core i3 4130 as a result. There may even be games that requires a Core i7 4790K.

But assuming that the rig in your sig is up-to-date, your Core i5 3570K is more than enough.
 
Depends on the game. Some games would require a Core i5 4460 or as low as a Pentium G3258. Some may not work with the G3258 and will require the Core i3 4130 as a result. There may even be games that requires a Core i7 4790K.

But assuming that the rig in your sig is up-to-date, your Core i5 3570K is more than enough.

That's all going away except for the video card.
 
Back
Top