Will my CPU limit my GPU?

Hi people!

I'm not a PC gamer. I want to finally begin my grand entry on the master race (Master! Master!) but I just have a lot of doubts.

However, that won't stop me.

The thing is, I'm trying to make it simple for my parents: I will either get a PC with an i3 third gen, and a 660 TI (this card I'll buy somewhere else, the PC actually comes with a HD 5450) or a PC with a Bulldozer FX4100 and a Radeon 6850.

Now, I know that the first configuration is better, but because the processors are budget CPUs, I'm trying to make sure that an i3 won't REALLY slow down a 660 TI. Of course, it would be better with a better CPU, but is it still a whole lot better or is it such a little difference that it wont be worth the effort of going out there and finding that 660 TI for a good price? (the PC with the HD 6850 already comes with that card, so it's simple for my parents to just buy there)

I have already checked the other stuff and the PC has a good enough power source (500W) to handle a the card and the extra 4gb RAM that I will also have to buy (comes with only 4 gb, but nevermind, RAM is cheap :) )

I'm anxiously waiting for responses :) and happy to be joining PC gaming.

PS: PLEASE don't come in here sugesting that I get an i5, i7 or any other CPU that isn'ta budget one because I know those are good. I'm not trying to be rude, but I just don't have the money to afford it, which is why I'm only considering getting those machines with budget CPUs.

Also, I know I can probably get things at a cheaper cost if I build the whole thing myself. But well, I tried explaining but my mother doesn't like that idea, and honestly even I have my concerns. I think it's just best to start slowly :P

One more thing: I don't live in the US :( I'm a brazilian resident and things here are so overpriced. So yeah, those american sites with great prices that you were going to show me are probably not going to do me much good :/

Thank you, whoever you are!

Hi people!

I'm not a PC gamer. I want to finally begin my grand entry on the master race (Master! Master!) but I just have a lot of doubts.

However, that won't stop me.

The thing is, I'm trying to make it simple for my parents: I will either get a PC with an i3 third gen, and a 660 TI (this card I'll buy somewhere else, the PC actually comes with a HD 5450) or a PC with a Bulldozer FX4100 and a Radeon 6850.

Now, I know that the first configuration is better, but because the processors are budget CPUs, I'm trying to make sure that an i3 won't REALLY slow down a 660 TI. Of course, it would be better with a better CPU, but is it still a whole lot better or is it such a little difference that it wont be worth the effort of going out there and finding that 660 TI for a good price? (the PC with the HD 6850 already comes with that card, so it's simple for my parents to just buy there)

I have already checked the other stuff and the PC has a good enough power source (500W) to handle a the card and the extra 4gb RAM that I will also have to buy (comes with only 4 gb, but nevermind, RAM is cheap :) )

I'm anxiously waiting for responses :) and happy to be joining PC gaming.

PS: PLEASE don't come in here sugesting that I get an i5, i7 or any other CPU that isn'ta budget one because I know those are good. I'm not trying to be rude, but I just don't have the money to afford it, which is why I'm only considering getting those machines with budget CPUs.

Also, I know I can probably get things at a cheaper cost if I build the whole thing myself. But well, I tried explaining but my mother doesn't like that idea, and honestly even I have my concerns. I think it's just best to start slowly :P

One more thing: I don't live in the US :( I'm a brazilian resident and things here are so overpriced. So yeah, those american sites with great prices that you were going to show me are probably not going to do me much good :/

Thank you, whoever you are!

Leir_Bag

I would go with Intel, because a year down the line, you could pick up an i5 or an i7 and get a huge preformance increase, where your pretty limited with AMD. I would also look at reviews of the i3 your getting and the bulldozer your getting, then I'd look at reviews of the 8350 (because thats the next best thing you can get) and compare it to the i5s and i7s and just see which one preforms better with gaming and you decide yourself wether or not you want this to last or you plan on upgrading the processor in the future

Hi people!

I'm not a PC gamer. I want to finally begin my grand entry on the master race (Master! Master!) but I just have a lot of doubts.

However, that won't stop me.

The thing is, I'm trying to make it simple for my parents: I will either get a PC with an i3 third gen, and a 660 TI (this card I'll buy somewhere else, the PC actually comes with a HD 5450) or a PC with a Bulldozer FX4100 and a Radeon 6850.

Now, I know that the first configuration is better, but because the processors are budget CPUs, I'm trying to make sure that an i3 won't REALLY slow down a 660 TI. Of course, it would be better with a better CPU, but is it still a whole lot better or is it such a little difference that it wont be worth the effort of going out there and finding that 660 TI for a good price? (the PC with the HD 6850 already comes with that card, so it's simple for my parents to just buy there)

I have already checked the other stuff and the PC has a good enough power source (500W) to handle a the card and the extra 4gb RAM that I will also have to buy (comes with only 4 gb, but nevermind, RAM is cheap :) )

I'm anxiously waiting for responses :) and happy to be joining PC gaming.

PS: PLEASE don't come in here sugesting that I get an i5, i7 or any other CPU that isn'ta budget one because I know those are good. I'm not trying to be rude, but I just don't have the money to afford it, which is why I'm only considering getting those machines with budget CPUs.

Also, I know I can probably get things at a cheaper cost if I build the whole thing myself. But well, I tried explaining but my mother doesn't like that idea, and honestly even I have my concerns. I think it's just best to start slowly :P

One more thing: I don't live in the US :( I'm a brazilian resident and things here are so overpriced. So yeah, those american sites with great prices that you were going to show me are probably not going to do me much good :/

Thank you, whoever you are!

Leir_Bag

Where abouts in Brazil are you? If you want someone to build i dont mind doing one for you if you are near SP/ABC? Usually use: https://www.balaodainformatica.com.br/site/index.asp?pagina=principal who seem to be the best for price more or less which have shop warrenties and better imo than buying from down in the city centre. If not what budget are you looking at and as far as pre builds have you checked X5?

[QUOTE="Leir_Bag"]

Hi people!

I'm not a PC gamer. I want to finally begin my grand entry on the master race (Master! Master!) but I just have a lot of doubts.

However, that won't stop me.

The thing is, I'm trying to make it simple for my parents: I will either get a PC with an i3 third gen, and a 660 TI (this card I'll buy somewhere else, the PC actually comes with a HD 5450) or a PC with a Bulldozer FX4100 and a Radeon 6850.

Now, I know that the first configuration is better, but because the processors are budget CPUs, I'm trying to make sure that an i3 won't REALLY slow down a 660 TI. Of course, it would be better with a better CPU, but is it still a whole lot better or is it such a little difference that it wont be worth the effort of going out there and finding that 660 TI for a good price? (the PC with the HD 6850 already comes with that card, so it's simple for my parents to just buy there)

I have already checked the other stuff and the PC has a good enough power source (500W) to handle a the card and the extra 4gb RAM that I will also have to buy (comes with only 4 gb, but nevermind, RAM is cheap :) )

I'm anxiously waiting for responses :) and happy to be joining PC gaming.

PS: PLEASE don't come in here sugesting that I get an i5, i7 or any other CPU that isn'ta budget one because I know those are good. I'm not trying to be rude, but I just don't have the money to afford it, which is why I'm only considering getting those machines with budget CPUs.

Also, I know I can probably get things at a cheaper cost if I build the whole thing myself. But well, I tried explaining but my mother doesn't like that idea, and honestly even I have my concerns. I think it's just best to start slowly :P

One more thing: I don't live in the US :( I'm a brazilian resident and things here are so overpriced. So yeah, those american sites with great prices that you were going to show me are probably not going to do me much good :/

Thank you, whoever you are!

5SI-GonePostal

Where abouts in Brazil are you? If you want someone to build i dont mind doing one for you if you are near SP/ABC? Usually use: https://www.balaodainformatica.com.br/site/index.asp?pagina=principal who seem to be the best for price more or less which have shop warrenties and better imo than buying from down in the city centre. If not what budget are you looking at and as far as pre builds have you checked X5?

Ohh yes and I live in São Paulo, Cotia, forgto to say that :) And I'm looking for a R$2500 machine.

Although I would say get the intel i3, it is really recommended to get a quad core in this day and age.

But yes, there is the possibility to upgarde the CPU in the future, so it is alright.

get a 7950 over the 660ti, its faster and a better card overall. Plus you will get 3 free games with it, farcry 3, hitman absolution, sleeping dogs and 20% off medal of honour. The i3 is better than the fx-4100, but I have a celeron g520 in my backup computer and I can tell you that its amazing. So maybe you can get that instead and a 7950, and upgrade to a i5 in a few years.

Well just found this that makes interesting reading and with your new i5 should make it very playable:

"Borderlands 2, asNvidia will tell you, is best enjoyed with PhysX enabled. Having seen the difference between both configurations, we agree with that sentiment as PhysX adds some eye candy. Fortunately, this visual upgrade isn't necessarily limited to GeForce owners.

We were able to enable PhysX on all graphics cards by editing the WillowEngine.ini and setting the PhysX level to 2. As far as we could tell the Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680 look the same with PhysX set to high but admittedly we have not played a great deal of the game and ave only use a few guns. However the cloth effects and rock debris effects from shooting stuff with the Gearbox Rifle look the same.

Furthermore all PhysX effects are offloaded to the CPU when using an AMD graphics card so depending on your processor the performance will vary quite a lot. As we were using the Core i7-3960X the hit wasnt nearly as significant as you will experience with a lesser processor."

Which if you dont mind spending a little extra cash does make the 7950 the better card, but the 660ti or 660 are both good cards

Well just found this that makes interesting reading and with your new i5 should make it very playable:

"Borderlands 2, asNvidia will tell you, is best enjoyed with PhysX enabled. Having seen the difference between both configurations, we agree with that sentiment as PhysX adds some eye candy. Fortunately, this visual upgrade isn't necessarily limited to GeForce owners.

We were able to enable PhysX on all graphics cards by editing the WillowEngine.ini and setting the PhysX level to 2. As far as we could tell the Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680 look the same with PhysX set to high but admittedly we have not played a great deal of the game and ave only use a few guns. However the cloth effects and rock debris effects from shooting stuff with the Gearbox Rifle look the same.

Furthermore all PhysX effects are offloaded to the CPU when using an AMD graphics card so depending on your processor the performance will vary quite a lot. As we were using the Core i7-3960X the hit wasnt nearly as significant as you will experience with a lesser processor."

Which if you dont mind spending a little extra cash does make the 7950 the better card, but the 660ti or 660 are both good cards

5SI-GonePostal

An i5 and an I7-3960x is day and nights apart. You get 2 extra cores, hyperthreading, and tons of more cache, which consequently, is all very beneficial to physics related computations

You are missing the point which is basically if you have a good CPU then playing Borderlands 2 with an AMD card is fine, the piece also had some fps with different CPUs and the i5 quads were all hitting a good solid 50-60fps. I was trying to show the OP he doesnt need to have a nvidia card for the sake of one game if he is happy to buy the overal better card.

You are missing the point which is basically if you have a good CPU then playing Borderlands 2 with an AMD card is fine, the piece also had some fps with different CPUs and the i5 quads were all hitting a good solid 50-60fps. I was trying to show the OP he doesnt need to have a nvidia card for the sake of one game if he is happy to buy the overal better card.

5SI-GonePostal

Right, with Physx off or low, with a 670 you can play borderlands 2, physx done by the gpu, on high, silky smooth.

I personally would not go with an i3.. a 2x processor now a days?... Gaming is all about the clock speed so a high clock speed and you'll be okay.. but id at least go with a quad core cpu, if you cant afford the i5 or i7's get an AMD quad core, they perform very well in games. AMD's downfall are the slow speeds on single threaded programs.. Games are not single threaded any more..

I'd go AMD for your cpu and still get a 660.

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

You are missing the point which is basically if you have a good CPU then playing Borderlands 2 with an AMD card is fine, the piece also had some fps with different CPUs and the i5 quads were all hitting a good solid 50-60fps. I was trying to show the OP he doesnt need to have a nvidia card for the sake of one game if he is happy to buy the overal better card.

way2funny

Right, with Physx off or low, with a 670 you can play borderlands 2, physx done by the gpu, on high, silky smooth.

the funny thing is that AMD cpu's performed better than intel cpus for physx. I mean the hex core and octa core AMD cpu's were able to run physx reasonably well. Im guessing the extra cores really help.

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

You are missing the point which is basically if you have a good CPU then playing Borderlands 2 with an AMD card is fine, the piece also had some fps with different CPUs and the i5 quads were all hitting a good solid 50-60fps. I was trying to show the OP he doesnt need to have a nvidia card for the sake of one game if he is happy to buy the overal better card.

way2funny

Right, with Physx off or low, with a 670 you can play borderlands 2, physx done by the gpu, on high, silky smooth.

"With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards."

Sounds pretty silky smooth to me........................

I personally would not go with an i3.. a 2x processor now a days?... Gaming is all about the clock speed so a high clock speed and you'll be okay.. but id at least go with a quad core cpu, if you cant afford the i5 or i7's get an AMD quad core, they perform very well in games. AMD's downfall are the slow speeds on single threaded programs.. Games are not single threaded any more..

I'd go AMD for your cpu and still get a 660.

Bishop1310

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

You are missing the point which is basically if you have a good CPU then playing Borderlands 2 with an AMD card is fine, the piece also had some fps with different CPUs and the i5 quads were all hitting a good solid 50-60fps. I was trying to show the OP he doesnt need to have a nvidia card for the sake of one game if he is happy to buy the overal better card.

5SI-GonePostal

Right, with Physx off or low, with a 670 you can play borderlands 2, physx done by the gpu, on high, silky smooth.

"With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards."

Sounds pretty silky smooth to me........................

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

You are missing the point which is basically if you have a good CPU then playing Borderlands 2 with an AMD card is fine, the piece also had some fps with different CPUs and the i5 quads were all hitting a good solid 50-60fps. I was trying to show the OP he doesnt need to have a nvidia card for the sake of one game if he is happy to buy the overal better card.

5SI-GonePostal

Right, with Physx off or low, with a 670 you can play borderlands 2, physx done by the gpu, on high, silky smooth.

"With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards."

Sounds pretty silky smooth to me........................

Thats because the 680 was doing the physics, and with the HD 7970 the CPU was doing the physics, a 1000 dollar CPU for that matter. If the CPU was doing the physx in BOTH cases, youd see some different results. And yes I'm playing borderlands 2 on max with physics on high with very smooth framerates.

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

Right, with Physx off or low, with a 670 you can play borderlands 2, physx done by the gpu, on high, silky smooth.

way2funny

"With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards."

Sounds pretty silky smooth to me........................

Thats because the 680 was doing the physics, and with the HD 7970 the CPU was doing the physics, a 1000 dollar CPU for that matter. If the CPU was doing the physx in BOTH cases, youd see some different results. And yes I'm playing borderlands 2 on max with physics on high with very smooth framerates.

What hes saying is that nowadays a graphics card is not required to run physx, it can be done on a CPU. Although you're right these hex core cpus start at $600 and go up to $1000, but it shows the possibility in the not so distant future of physx being done easily through affordable cpu's. I mean AMD's flagship cpu is an octa core and can be purchased for $200. Its possible that some people with AMD fx-8350 octa core cpu's are running borderlands 2 physx on the cpu alone and at decent frames even now. If we give them some time to improve single core performance then its pretty much guaranteed that physx can be run well on their cpu's extra cores.

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

"With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards."

Sounds pretty silky smooth to me........................

blaznwiipspman1

Thats because the 680 was doing the physics, and with the HD 7970 the CPU was doing the physics, a 1000 dollar CPU for that matter. If the CPU was doing the physx in BOTH cases, youd see some different results. And yes I'm playing borderlands 2 on max with physics on high with very smooth framerates.

What hes saying is that nowadays a graphics card is not required to run physx, it can be done on a CPU. Although you're right these hex core cpus start at $600 and go up to $1000, but it shows the possibility in the not so distant future of physx being done easily through affordable cpu's. I mean AMD's flagship cpu is an octa core and can be purchased for $200. Its possible that some people with AMD fx-8350 octa core cpu's are running borderlands 2 physx on the cpu alone and at decent frames even now. If we give them some time to improve single core performance then its pretty much guaranteed that physx can be run well on their cpu's extra cores.

I understand that CPUs are becoming more capable. However, AMDs octocores are NOT good for physics. They are 4 module, 8 integer core CPUs. Meaning, only 4 floating point operations can happen at the same time since it requires 2 integer cores to preform 1 floating point operation. Now, given that physics has TONS of floating point operations, AMDs octocore has essentially become a quad core, just like intel's i5s, and then factor in each cores preformance is way behind intels, its easy to see why an AMD octocore won't run as well as Intel's quad cores in physx.

I'd really like to see benchmarks of physx running on the 8350 against its' competition.

EDIT: this is the closest comparison i've found with the fx-8350 doing physics relation computationshttp://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-i5-3470-CPU-Review/1657/16

also thishttp://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_launch_review/index.php?p=19

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

Thats because the 680 was doing the physics, and with the HD 7970 the CPU was doing the physics, a 1000 dollar CPU for that matter. If the CPU was doing the physx in BOTH cases, youd see some different results. And yes I'm playing borderlands 2 on max with physics on high with very smooth framerates.

way2funny

What hes saying is that nowadays a graphics card is not required to run physx, it can be done on a CPU. Although you're right these hex core cpus start at $600 and go up to $1000, but it shows the possibility in the not so distant future of physx being done easily through affordable cpu's. I mean AMD's flagship cpu is an octa core and can be purchased for $200. Its possible that some people with AMD fx-8350 octa core cpu's are running borderlands 2 physx on the cpu alone and at decent frames even now. If we give them some time to improve single core performance then its pretty much guaranteed that physx can be run well on their cpu's extra cores.

I understand that CPUs are becoming more capable. However, AMDs octocores are NOT good for physics. They are 4 module, 8 integer core CPUs. Meaning, only 4 floating point operations can happen at the same time since it requires 2 integer cores to preform 1 floating point operation. Now, given that physics has TONS of floating point operations, AMDs octocore has essentially become a quad core, just like intel's i5s, and then factor in each cores preformance is way behind intels, its easy to see why an AMD octocore won't run as well as Intel's quad cores in physx.

I'd really like to see benchmarks of physx running on the 8350 against its' competition.

EDIT: this is the closest comparison i've found with the fx-8350 doing physics relation computationshttp://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-i5-3470-CPU-Review/1657/16

also thishttp://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_launch_review/index.php?p=19

youve also left out AMD's older cpus, the hex core 1100T