Bada-Bing!
n00b
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 61
The [H] goes into great detail about video cards, but I would like to see a section in the video card reviews about getting the right speed of CPU to go along with the GPU. Most test setups use a rather high-end CPU to attempt to eliminate any CPU bottlenecking. But users who are upgrading their entire system may not need that expensive a CPU.
The Nvidia 8800 GTS 320 and the ATI 1950 Pro are arguably the two best performance per dollar cards currently on the market. I would say most people use their computers at 1024x768, 1280x1024, or 1600x1200 resolution. Personally I do everything at 1280x1024 because that it is the native resolution of my monitor.
Given those three resolutions, it would be great to see a graph of frames per second of various games played at a fixed resolution and graphic detail level and at varying clock speeds. It would also be interesting to see the effects of monocore, dual-core, and quad-core CPUs, as well as Intel vs. AMD.
If frames per second is flat, then the game is GPU limited and the user can purchase a cheaper CPU or motherboard or not have to overclock as much, or even underclock/undervolt the CPU to save power.
If frames per second linearly increases with clock speed, the game is CPU limited and the user should spend more money to get a faster CPU, or else try to get a motherboard and RAM that supports a better overclock.
If the graph of FPS versus CPU clock levels off, then the leveling off point is the sweet spot that you want to hit, either by buying the appropriate CPU or by overclocking to the right level.
Maybe this sort of graph would be more suitable for a "CPU Sizing" article rather than a section of each video card review.
Regards,
Bada-Bing!
The Nvidia 8800 GTS 320 and the ATI 1950 Pro are arguably the two best performance per dollar cards currently on the market. I would say most people use their computers at 1024x768, 1280x1024, or 1600x1200 resolution. Personally I do everything at 1280x1024 because that it is the native resolution of my monitor.
Given those three resolutions, it would be great to see a graph of frames per second of various games played at a fixed resolution and graphic detail level and at varying clock speeds. It would also be interesting to see the effects of monocore, dual-core, and quad-core CPUs, as well as Intel vs. AMD.
If frames per second is flat, then the game is GPU limited and the user can purchase a cheaper CPU or motherboard or not have to overclock as much, or even underclock/undervolt the CPU to save power.
If frames per second linearly increases with clock speed, the game is CPU limited and the user should spend more money to get a faster CPU, or else try to get a motherboard and RAM that supports a better overclock.
If the graph of FPS versus CPU clock levels off, then the leveling off point is the sweet spot that you want to hit, either by buying the appropriate CPU or by overclocking to the right level.
Maybe this sort of graph would be more suitable for a "CPU Sizing" article rather than a section of each video card review.
Regards,
Bada-Bing!