Smasharoo wrote:
A low end CPU is generally a bottlekneck to a high end video card
Yeah, almost never in real world situations. It's a simple architecture issue. It's the reason discrete video processing even exists. On a per dollar basis, it's silly. CPUs are just ahead of where they need to be to do what they do for games. GPUs aren't. It's far more likely that GPU manufacturers will just start delivering integrated on board CPUs for gaming than it is CPU manufacturers will do the reverse. Different markets, different priorities, different design architecture. That could obviously change someday, but right now spending $200 on a CPU *to play games* is a waste of money. If you're in a situation where a $200 CPU is required to drive your video solution, you're spending $5,000 on a machine. Which, hey, if that's your thing, great. When it's 1/4 of the cost of the system, it's just not a great idea. The idea is the value proposition, right? What's the least you can spend for an acceptable gaming experience, not what's the ideal experience?
A $75 cpu is withe a single core Core 2 solo2.5 Ghz, or a 1.8 GHz dual core core 2. That would be a huge bottleneck in a system with a 285 GTX. and with windows 7 ability to offload non game processes to secondary cores, that would be an even bigger problem. It is a simple Archatexture issue. You toss a Core 2 3.0 GHz $150 Wolfdale CPU in there instead of that Core 2 solo, your FPS is going to easily double. Certanly there are diminishing returns, but a $75 cpu in a gaming machine is just a bad idea. When you get into the Core i7 family, the entire paradigm shifts because nwo your memory controller is onboard your CPU, and your ram restrictions go from being your chipset, to being whatever the fastest ram you can cram into your machine is. You put that same 285 GTX in a system with a core I7 processor and the same DDR3 ram you had with the Core 2 3.0 GHz Wolfsdale processor, and you are going to see another 15-20 FPS on average asuming no settings change. If you just want to laod the game and run around at minimum settings without doing anything, then sure, a $75 CPU might load the game. But it "is" your limiting system resource at that point. Buying an underpowered CPU is the waste of money. If you stick a $75 CPU in your computer, don't call it a gaming rig, because it isn't.
The effect of CPU on a gaming system largely depends on the game you are playing. FPS with a limited number of entities and a preloaded map? Almost all video. Strategy sim with multiple units? Alot mroe CPU than other games. A MMO? Depends but in raiding situations with lots of entities and respawns, CPU is huge. There is also the sound Codec drivin off the CPU (usually soundmax, small hit I know, but on a lower end CPU noticable), any Antivirus or other background firewall tasks that might happen to kick off in the middle of the game on accident, DirectX itself,not to mention the various browser windows people tend to have open when gaming. Need some extra overhead room for things like that.
heck, you can see exactly what dependancies and system resources are being used by a various game using Sysinternals or Dependancy Walker http://www.dependencywalker.com/ While I am 100% certain we both could find exception cases either way, for the most part, I think you will find that when you start upping the resolutions and throwing those extra crossfire / sli cards in play, you end up utilizing a much bigger chunk of CPU than you might think.
I don't think we disagree on the overall scope, I think the disagreement comes in level. We both think video cards are important. I just think that an adequate CPU to drive that video card and the non video card OS processes is also quite important.
Some further reading on the subject: (pre Win 7, so doesn't give as much weight to the multi core argument as you would see now) http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/1
Raw proces power vs price
http://backoffice.ajb.com.au//images/DynamicImages/Product/buyers-guide-cpu-table.jpg
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/GroupTests/148016,buyers-guide-40-cpus-tested-for-budget-mid-range-and-gaming-pcs.aspx
I suppose it comes down to your definition of acceptable gaming experiance. I'd say the minimum acceptable perfomance for me would be medium settings, no lag, at least 30 FPS on any game out there in any situation in that game (raiding, melee fight, etc). That would be bare minimum though. I'm used to 90-120 FPS on maxed settings with no lag, but I realize i'm a graphics snob. I suspect CPU prices must have risen considerably since you last bought one.