Conclusion
There is no clear-cut answer to the question about how much CPU is needed for gaming. It depends on the individual game and desired detail levels. Different games, and even levels of detail in a game, will stress difference components of the system, so it’s important to have a balanced system if you hope to enjoy a wide range of games. Buying too much GPU is a waste of money if the CPU is holding back your performance. Likewise, not enough GPU will limit the resolution, detail levels and eye candy you can enjoy.
We clearly see from Crysis, Call of Duty 4, and Oblivion, that single-core CPUs now struggle in games and will at least limit the detail levels you can play at. Enemy AI and impressive physics effects are often too much for a single-core CPU to handle on top of its other tasks. In some very CPU-demanding titles, you may not even be able to tweak acceptable performance with a single-core processor. Also keep in mind that the minimum FPS on a single-core CPU will often drop much lower, making for choppy game play. Socket 754 and 939 owners on single cores should see all this as a sign that their system has limited life for future games.
A dual-core CPU is pretty much the standard recommended CPU for current games. In the newest games we tested, we see that our X2 4200+ dual core is easily able to outperform a higher-clocked single-core chip. With higher average and more consistent minimum frame rates, they will provide the much better gaming experience. Socket AM2 owners wanting to play games should be on a dual-core CPU for sure.
What about clock speeds? Are they important? Well, we can easily see our X2 5600+ consistently pulling away from the other two CPUs with both the 8800 GS and the HD 4850. As long as we are not GPU-limited, CPU clock speeds were making a marked difference. The lower-clocked X2 4200+ even struggled in our testing, and was at times barely able to maintain a 30 FPS average even at low resolutions. If you are buying a mid- or high-end GPU and do not want your CPU to limit your playable settings in the latest games like Crysis or Call of Duty 4, or even Oblivion, Socket AM2 owners will need to run an Athlon 64 X2 at high clock speeds. A clock speed of 2.4 GHz and below isn’t always going to cut it and sometimes you’ll find the higher the clocks, the better off you are. Socket 939 owners should see this as a good reason not to buy an overpriced low-clocked dual-core for their machine.
Anyone seeking very high-end GPUs or multi-GPU solutions could also step up to an Intel Core 2 Duo or Quad with decent clock speeds, either out of the box or user overclocked. But that doesn’t mean you should blow all your money on a QX6850 or even E8600. They are excellent processors, but a gamer definitely should not skimp on the graphics card, as given enough CPU power, it will be the biggest limiting factor for the resolution, detail levels and amount of eye candy like FSAA/AF that remain playable.
If you are stuck on an Athlon 64 single-core CPU with no upgrade options and no budget for a new system, all hope is not lost. There are some newer games and also plenty of great titles in the bargain bin that run well on single-core CPUs. Spending up to $100 or so on a nice bargain card like the 8800 GS, 9600 GSO, HD 3850, HD 4670, 9600 GT, HD 3870, 8800 GT, or 9800 GT will allow you to max out many of these older or single-threaded games if your current GPU is too weak. In newer titles, the detail levels will need to be reduced to relieve the demand on the CPU, so some of your potential performance of a new GPU is being thrown away. To compensate, the added power of a better video card can allow for high resolutions and FSAA/AF levels making for a better gaming experience.
Athlon XP and sub-3.0 GHz Pentium 4 owners are going to be in worse shape than Athlon 64 owners and are even going to find themselves below minimum spec for some games. Just keep in mind that even the best single-core CPUs are below recommended specs for many if not most of the latest games, and will limit the playability of these titles. Adding even the beefiest new PCI Express gaming card will not mean you can play these games with all details turned up and checked. This trend will only continue to get worse, so if it hasn’t already happened, be prepared to find out that a system upgrade will be required for an upcoming game that’s high on your wish list.
Lastly, before buying any hardware for a game your system is struggling in, keep an eye on the game’s recommended system specs, and if a dual-core CPU is recommended, it’s likely multi-threaded and chances are good that single-core CPUs will limit the playable detail levels, regardless of the graphics card paired with it. A new graphics card may still be what is required to gain an acceptable balance of performance and detail levels in the game, but following the advice this article offers can help avoid the disappointment of spending big bucks on too good of a gaming card only to find out your processor is preventing it from offering the performance you expected.
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Latest Tweaking & Tuning News
- 10/02 – CPU Performance Boosted 20% When CPU, GPU Collaborate
- 19/01 – Intel's Creates New Protection Plan Just for Overclockers
- 04/01 – Tom's Hardware Benchmark Charts and Database Updated
- 04/01 – AMD Radeon HD 7970 Quad CrossFireX Stomps 3DMark Records
- 29/12 – Gigabyte's X79-UD3 With New F7 BIOS Sets X79 Records
Latest Tweaking & Tuning reviews
- 27/12 – Four High-End Quad-Channel DDR3 Memory Kits For X79, Reviewed
- 23/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: System Value Compared
- 21/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $600 Gaming PC
- 20/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $1200 Enthusiast PC
- 19/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $2400 Performance PC
CoD4 ran surprisingly well on my aging system. I've got an S939 Athlon 64 3800+ X2 (512MB cache per core) overclocked from 2GHz to 2.6GHz. At the time I had a HD2900 1GB card in it and I would often see frame rates of 90fps or so. The FPS didn't tank as often as the graphs here suggest. Other modern games can run quite well, too.
I've now got a HD4870 512MB card in it and it does improve fps substantially at high resolutions - 2048x1536 is awesome! HL2 EP2 is substantially improved, for example.
Qubit
£120 pounds second hand what!!! i paid less for my new Athlon 6400+ X2 (2x3.2ghz)black edition athlon 4 mths ago. Who would pay that for the 4800+ second hand when u can get it cheaper on ebuyer for new (no i don't work for them) In fact u cant buy that old processor but for £53.36 you get the "AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.9GHz Socket AM2 512KBx2 L2 Cache OEM Processor"
@ Can\'t Take Fools Lightly
jonnyhuk2 has a socket 939 mboard, whereas the processors you are talking about are AM2 socket, the reason for the high price of the 4800 proc is availability for that cocket type.
I would be surprised to see many higher spec 939 processors around for less
alternative bet for s939 dual-core is usually to look for an opty 185 or similar - had less grief finding them as opposed to the equivalent x2 model. This only assumes your mb supports them(not alwaays listed as such mind).
"Next, we chose the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 + dual-core, which has a 2.2 GHz Manchester architecture with 512 MB L2 cache per core. " HA HA HA. I would like one this '512 MB' L2 cache CPU.
What are these guys on,put together a amd64 3200,with a gig of ram,hd3850 and can have it playing cod4 quite happy at 1920x1050 no problems,these sites make out you need to spend money when you DONT,most upgrades we do involve a bit more ram and gfx card,these old systems still cut it.Just for fun,customer bought 2 pc`s ,a game rig for himself,a little gamer for his son,short story is he was amazed that the `budget` pc looked and played near on the same as his top gamer system,except when fps counter was on,1 reads 90fps,the other 160fps,real world use=no difference
There isn't much difference between S939 and AM2, just the cost of dual-core processors for the former socket solution being over-priced. Even the old DDR memory can give DDR a run for its money especially when clocked. I have used such a system for gaming and it is fine, very fast and very affordable but only because I got the dual-core CPU at the right price. Everything including games, as Domestic says, is possible..and people are routinely suprised at just how much these older systems can do.
I meant DDR vs. DDR2, sorry.
£120 pounds second hand what!!! i paid less for my new Athlon 6400+ X2 (2x3.2ghz)black edition athlon 4 mths ago. Who would pay that for the 4800+ second hand when u can get it cheaper on ebuyer for new (no i don't work for them) In fact u cant buy that old processor but for £53.36 you get the "AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.9GHz Socket AM2 512KBx2 L2 Cache OEM Processor"
I know exactly what you mean..eBay is a treasure chest for anyone who has say, a x2 3800+. You know what it reminds me off? The days of the AMD K6-III+ and the AMD 'Thunderbird' Athlon's. The price factor is the only thing stopping me upgrading these older systems, not so much performance cos a x2 3800+, 2GB of DDR-4xx memory and a 9600 or even 9800GT still kicks butt.
I have a single core S939 A64 3500+, overclocked to 2.51GHz which is slightly faster than the 3800+. I recently replaced my 6600GT for a 2nd hand 8600GTS OC for only £30 and I got 3 times the frame rate in pretty much everything (hence can turn up the detail where I have more than enough fps).I can play Crysis, COD4 and Grid no problem, sure it's not with the highest of settings but certainly not the lowest either. The biggest bottleneck now is my hard drive, load times are quite slow.It's not financial sense to upgrade my CPU to a dual core S939 version as the 4800+ (2.4GHz so similar core speed) sells 2nd hand for around £120 !!!
Yeah, can't emphasise enough the limitations the hard drive can place on the system. I also had a S939 'Venice' 3200+ that would do 2.50GHz on all stock settings, without even getting hot. I saw the same chip the other day for 8 pounds..if you know what you are doing you can save a lot of money. One friend insisted on an Intel Q6600 base unit with a Geforce 9600GT, to play Crysis. He assumed you need to spend £650 to do it..with these older parts you certainly don't need to spend that much as your experience shows..
"Next, we chose the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 + dual-core, which has a 2.2 GHz Manchester architecture with 512 MB L2 cache per core. " HA HA HA. I would like one this '512 MB' L2 cache CPU.
Lol I wonder in which region of the North Pole they cool it. Last I heard a chunk of the heatsink fell off, and was heading towards Norway
I bought an Opteron 170 (Skt 939) years ago (stock 2.0ghz) running at 2.65Ghz stable, same amount of cache as the FX60 and same speed with more bandwidth. Coupled with synchoronous Ballistix RAM (3-3-3-8-1T @ 265Mhz DDR) it flies with Vista Ultimate.
I have the same old 7800GT running in my machine and everything short of Crysis runs pretty sweet! I'm waiting for the Core i7 before upgrading but this article has made me think I could just plumb for a 4870 and be done with it!
Yep..if it isn't broke, why fix it so to speak. Nice overclock on that Opteron - and some nice memory speed. Only thing I would say is that the 4870 might necessitate the purchase of a bigger PSU and additional case cooling. I use the old Abit NF-95 (S939), and despite being a budget board with integrated Geforce 6100, it is still capable of taking dual-core CPU's, and DDR-533 memory. When I saw just how close the battle was between S93/AM2 I decided to hold off upgrading, instead opting for bigger, faster hard drive. There is practically nothing I cannot do on the older systems - sure, Core2 is faster on a core level, but it's like comparing a Porsche and Ferrari. Just because one is faster than the other doesn't mean the slower one isn't up to the task. I get more problems with software (ie Windows itself), and ISP issues than I do using such gear.
Whats all this nonsense about playing games at hi res. I play fps games to wipe out the opposition not admire the scenery.
Even an old socket 747 with a midrange modern card can run all the popular competitive games on a small monitor and such a purchase puts off a complete system replacment for another year at least in which time some vital component may very well fail.
Squeaky, I don't wish to play games at that res, either. I think a lot of people are using these resolutions due to using large LCD monitors demanding higher native resolutions in order to look their best. I use an old CRT monitor with aperture grill technology and at 1024 x 768 it looks awesome. It also scales video and pictures much better than the LCD monitor's I've seen.
If 'retro' folks want a 'flat' monitor they can always cut a hole in the wall lol
I built a new Q6600 rig abotu 6 months ago and was left with what was left of my old one which was about 3 years old. Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe, 2gb PC6400 and a 7900GTO 512mb... I couldn't really be bothered doing anything with it until a couple of months ago so I made it into a gaming/media centre PC for my lounge, i got an X2 5600+ OEM for £50, £45 case, and a scythe mini ninja and it's pretty damn quick, I get 100FPS+ in cod4 at 1280x1024, plan is to get another 2gb ram and put a blu ray drive in! It's nice to know i've got a capable back up if i ever blow this one up!! whoop whoop
I got myself last year a A64 3800+ clocked at 2.4GHz. I started making some OC and reached 2.8GHz, stable and cool. Doesn't seem that much but with my ASUS 8800GS selfOC 700/1000 I get everything over 40fps, Crysis included (Models/Text Med; All other graphics High). 1440x900 on all games. COD4 is a breeze for my rig.
I'm amazed!!!
My RIG: A64 3800+ (5EUR Air Cooler) / 1GB Corsair ValueRam 2.5-3-3-8@236 / ASUS 8800GS@700/1000
My computer is:
AMD64 3000+
1Gb DDR400
80GB
MB Pci-e 8X
haha beat this.
Then recently, ive installed a 8800gtx in it, so i tested CODairborne runs fine. But i get this studen lag on more complex graphic environment may be not enough ram memory.
Athalon X2 3800+
2GB Kingston DDR400
XFX 7600GT xXx
CoH, CoD4, both 1024x768 with decent settings (can't remember off the top of my head), but no issues with framerate. Crysis at 1024x768 and low settings, little bit of slow-down in some spots. Far Cry 2, 800x600 with medium settings and some slow-down.
Yes, I need to upgrade =p, but things are still running at a playable level
Hi,
AMD athlon 64 3500+ @2.3Ghz (stock:2.2Ghz)
2x 512mb(dual channel) twinmos DDR400 pc-3200
ATI radeon sapphire HD 3850 AGP 8x (720/950)
ASUS A8V-deluxe - VIA K8T800Pro + VT8237
3d mark 05 : 10739 marks
3d mark 06 : 6143 marks
how can i get a 3dmark06 score of 10000 marks like all the others with a HD3850?
Thanks very much if someone reply's
grtz JONOO