MrHydes
06-08-2008, 09:34 AM
CPU's vs GPU's review
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5058/gpuvscpucq10284215rd7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The first comparison shows all the test results obtained during cross-testing.
Each graphics card completes the full suite of benchmark tests with six CPUs,
and each of the CPUs completes the full suite of benchmarks tests with six different graphics cards.
The percentage value calculated is made up of all of the achieved frame rates (graphics card x 6 CPU tests);
there is no weighting between the individual games. The results were then added together and converted to percentages.
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/7980/gpuvscpue110288913gt6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
With each generation of graphics chips, Nvidia has been able to double overall performance.
The Geforce 9800 GTX is an exception: its performance is closer to that of the Geforce 8 series with the G92 graphics chip.
The test contains the current models, which have a little more 3D performance. Another exception is the Geforce 9600,
which really deserves the title 9700. It cannot be compared to its slower predecessors, the 6600, 7600 or 8600—its 3D speed
is more like that of the Geforce 8800 GTS 320 or 640.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9481/gpuvscpusmc8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The speed benefits achieved by changing the CPU are clearly lower, but a basic minimum level is necessary.
Otherwise the new graphics card loses 3D performance; 2.6 to 3.0 GHz is sufficient as the basic level.
Our test included the current Intel models costing $77, $200 and $262 (50, 130 and 170 Euros),
while the X6800 Extreme Edition priced at $1236 (800 Euros) is an exception.
The test results for this item show that the CPU displays very little in the way of benefits
compared to the standard rate E6750 costing $204 (132 Euros). The influence of the clocking rate
can be seen by increasing the frequencies from 1800 to 2410 MHz. When this is done, even the E2160 with its small cache can catch up considerably.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/768/cpusvsgpuslk1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
We chose not to include single cores, as the Asus mainboard with X38 chip set refuses to work with them.
At current CPU pricing levels, it makes no sense to use anything smaller than an E2160—doing so
in combination with the currently available graphics cards would be wasting too much in the way of 3D speed.
Conclusions: Changing the Generation of Graphics Card has More Benefits
games are not 100% dependent on the graphics card; the Geforce 8 and 9 require a basic level of power, otherwise they are unable to exploit their 3D potential. The speed of the CPU should lie somewhere between 2600 and 3000 MHz; any lower, and the new graphics chips lose considerable performance.
There is no obvious advantage to quad cores over dual cores, at least according to the graphics-based benchmarks. In order for the Q6600 to compete with the dual core E6750, the same clocking rate is recommended. If you wish to combine an E2160 with a Geforce 8800 or Geforce 9, you will need to overclock. Without a clock rate of at least 2400 MHz, you will lose a considerable amount of graphics performance, because the card is not fully loaded.
The difference in performance among CPUs costing €50, €170, or even €800 is actually relatively low.
If you compare an E2160 at 1800 MHz to an E6750 or Q6600, you will find a 30% difference in the overall results. If the E2160 is overclocked to 2400
MHz, though, the difference in overall results is just 15%. The smaller cache
of the E2160 budget CPU can be overcome by a higher clocking rate of up to 3 GHz.
The change to a new generation of graphics card achieves more, but the
CPU should still have sufficient brawn to provide the basic level the card
requires. Changing from a Geforce 6800 GT to a current Geforce 8800 or
9800 can quintuple the overall results for 3D games. Changing from a Geforce
7950 GT to one of the new G92 graphic chips will at least double the overall
results.
If you convert the frame rate to percentages in order to filter out the
weighting caused by high fps figures, it is possible to obtain an increase of
over 1100% by changing from a Geforce 6800 GT to a current Geforce 8800
or 9800. If you change from a Geforce 7950 GT to one of the new G92
graphics chips, you can obtain a performance increase of up to 180%, with
improved DirectX 10 effects. The maximum possible values will depend on the
CPU’s performance level.
Source: Tom'sHardware (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/slideshow/aufmacher_crosstest,0101-102842-0-14-15-0-jpg-.html)
this story of quad cores fools a lot of people,
and the 1000$ processor even more...
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5058/gpuvscpucq10284215rd7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The first comparison shows all the test results obtained during cross-testing.
Each graphics card completes the full suite of benchmark tests with six CPUs,
and each of the CPUs completes the full suite of benchmarks tests with six different graphics cards.
The percentage value calculated is made up of all of the achieved frame rates (graphics card x 6 CPU tests);
there is no weighting between the individual games. The results were then added together and converted to percentages.
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/7980/gpuvscpue110288913gt6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
With each generation of graphics chips, Nvidia has been able to double overall performance.
The Geforce 9800 GTX is an exception: its performance is closer to that of the Geforce 8 series with the G92 graphics chip.
The test contains the current models, which have a little more 3D performance. Another exception is the Geforce 9600,
which really deserves the title 9700. It cannot be compared to its slower predecessors, the 6600, 7600 or 8600—its 3D speed
is more like that of the Geforce 8800 GTS 320 or 640.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9481/gpuvscpusmc8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The speed benefits achieved by changing the CPU are clearly lower, but a basic minimum level is necessary.
Otherwise the new graphics card loses 3D performance; 2.6 to 3.0 GHz is sufficient as the basic level.
Our test included the current Intel models costing $77, $200 and $262 (50, 130 and 170 Euros),
while the X6800 Extreme Edition priced at $1236 (800 Euros) is an exception.
The test results for this item show that the CPU displays very little in the way of benefits
compared to the standard rate E6750 costing $204 (132 Euros). The influence of the clocking rate
can be seen by increasing the frequencies from 1800 to 2410 MHz. When this is done, even the E2160 with its small cache can catch up considerably.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/768/cpusvsgpuslk1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
We chose not to include single cores, as the Asus mainboard with X38 chip set refuses to work with them.
At current CPU pricing levels, it makes no sense to use anything smaller than an E2160—doing so
in combination with the currently available graphics cards would be wasting too much in the way of 3D speed.
Conclusions: Changing the Generation of Graphics Card has More Benefits
games are not 100% dependent on the graphics card; the Geforce 8 and 9 require a basic level of power, otherwise they are unable to exploit their 3D potential. The speed of the CPU should lie somewhere between 2600 and 3000 MHz; any lower, and the new graphics chips lose considerable performance.
There is no obvious advantage to quad cores over dual cores, at least according to the graphics-based benchmarks. In order for the Q6600 to compete with the dual core E6750, the same clocking rate is recommended. If you wish to combine an E2160 with a Geforce 8800 or Geforce 9, you will need to overclock. Without a clock rate of at least 2400 MHz, you will lose a considerable amount of graphics performance, because the card is not fully loaded.
The difference in performance among CPUs costing €50, €170, or even €800 is actually relatively low.
If you compare an E2160 at 1800 MHz to an E6750 or Q6600, you will find a 30% difference in the overall results. If the E2160 is overclocked to 2400
MHz, though, the difference in overall results is just 15%. The smaller cache
of the E2160 budget CPU can be overcome by a higher clocking rate of up to 3 GHz.
The change to a new generation of graphics card achieves more, but the
CPU should still have sufficient brawn to provide the basic level the card
requires. Changing from a Geforce 6800 GT to a current Geforce 8800 or
9800 can quintuple the overall results for 3D games. Changing from a Geforce
7950 GT to one of the new G92 graphic chips will at least double the overall
results.
If you convert the frame rate to percentages in order to filter out the
weighting caused by high fps figures, it is possible to obtain an increase of
over 1100% by changing from a Geforce 6800 GT to a current Geforce 8800
or 9800. If you change from a Geforce 7950 GT to one of the new G92
graphics chips, you can obtain a performance increase of up to 180%, with
improved DirectX 10 effects. The maximum possible values will depend on the
CPU’s performance level.
Source: Tom'sHardware (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/slideshow/aufmacher_crosstest,0101-102842-0-14-15-0-jpg-.html)
this story of quad cores fools a lot of people,
and the 1000$ processor even more...