Conclusion
Conclusion
Nothing can be said in this conclusion that is more valuable than the actual data itself. If for some reason you skipped the individual charts, jumping right to the conclusion, you’ll likely not grasp what this story is all about: balance.
For each chart, we recommended a minimum level of CPU and GPU needed to play the game at that particular resolution. By tallying results of all 28 tests (seven games x four resolutions), we’ll summarize how often each solution was able to reach our targeted level of performance.
A word of warning here: while valuable in many ways, this chart has the potential to be misused. Our minimum recommendations are just that--minimums--and only a guideline for offering a blend of image quality and playable performance as affordably as possible.
Often this cheapest acceptable solution was still way out of balance and clearly would benefit from adding more CPU to the mix. The most accurate picture of the level of hardware necessary to truly be balanced can not be portrayed by generalization or summaries, but only by looking at the individual charts for each game and resolution. Also consider that these test systems were clean and only running the essentials. Additional background applications and multi-tasking would give us all the more reason to step up to a higher-end CPU with more muscle.
The dual-core Pentium E6300 managed to deliver playable performance in each game except for Crysis and Grand Theft Auto IV. However, this 2.8 GHz CPU was rarely in balance with the graphics cards, even at playable settings. Adding 200 MHz, a faster FSB, and three times the L2 cache, the Core 2 Duo E8400 faired far better in these games, only failing in Crysis when a 1920x1200 resolution required a match-up with the GeForce GTX 295. That being said, the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and all three Nvidia GeForce cards still often required a quad-core processor, such as the Core 2 Quad Q9550, to be balanced in these games. The Core i7-920 didn’t necessarily beat out the Q9550 in minimum targets reached, but the individual charts still depict many performance advantages garnered by stepping up to this architecture.
The 512MB Radeon HD 4850 offered playable performance all the way up to 1920x1200 in Fallout 3 and Race Driver: GRID, but fell shy in each of the other games, even at the lowest tested resolution. If we later make a switch in these genres to Need for Speed: Shift and Risen, would this once-mighty card then fall completely below “max” settings, even at the lowest resolution? The step up to a GeForce GTX 260 is big, and it brought five of the games to playable levels at 1920x1200. Fallout 3 was even playable at 2560x1600. But the card was reduced to the lowest resolution in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and still fell below our target completely in Crysis.
The Radeon HD 4890 added playability in Crysis at the lowest resolution, plus 2560x1600 in GTA IV and GRID. However, the most notable improvement for the Radeon HD 4890 was its relatively high level of performance and balance when paired with the dual-core CPUs. When matched up to a quad-core processor, the GeForce GTX 285 was often able to flex its muscles and pass by the Radeon HD 4890, while also adding 1680x1050 S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and 2560x1600 Far Cry 2 playability to the mix.
There is a common misconception that multi-GPU solutions are unable to scale well at low resolutions. This can be cleared up by looking at how the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and GeForce GTX 295 often walk away from the single-GPU cards, even at 1280x1024. While SLI/CrossFire driver support and scaling do vary by individual game, you’ll notice in today’s results that if the single-GPU cards are keeping up, it is typically tied into the sharp-sloped lines depicting CPU limitations.
But let’s be realistic, very few people spend $350 or more on a graphics card to game on a 19” LCD or a lower non-native resolution. Where these cards currently best prove their worth is at higher resolutions. The Radeon HD 4870 X2 handles all but two of the games at 2560x1600, but is reduced to 1920x1200 in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and 1650x1050 in Crysis. This dual-GPU card offers high performance and is often well-balanced with the E8400 and Q9550, but at times still trailed behind the Radeon HD 4890 when paired with too weak a CPU.
However, this is nothing compared to the GeForce GTX 295, which, when paired with too weak a CPU brings unbalance to a whole new level. The mighty GeForce GTX 295 reaches the highest overall frames per second in the vast majority of the charts, proving it is the most powerful graphics card we tested today. When it is paired with a quad-core CPU, it delivers playable performance in every situation except at 2560x1600 in Crysis and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. But it certainly is not the graphics card to pair with a budget dual-core processor, being outright crippled by the Pentium E6300, it dropped from first place down into last.
Later on, we’ll see how overclocking these platforms changes the story, but first we’ll return in Part 2 of the series to see how these graphics cards perform when paired with dual-, triple-, and quad-core AMD Phenom II processors.
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Latest Build Your Own News
Latest Build Your Own reviews
- 30/03 – System Builder Marathon Bonus: Newegg Customer Choice PC
- 29/03 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: System Value Compared
- 28/03 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $2600 Performance PC
- 27/03 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $1250 Enthusiast PC
- 26/03 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $650 Gaming PC
Time to post our balanced PCs?
Q6600 @3.2GHz
4GB ram @approx 920MHz
4870 @790MHz 1GHz
I reckon this is relatively balanced. Only thing stopping me from hitting full detail on games at 1680 is the graphics card. High details with AA will do for now. 5870 next?
The settings here are too ambitious - I imagine it's perfectley possible to build a balanced gaming PC around an e6300.
E6850 @ 3.5Ghz
2GB OCZ SLI @ 1066Mhz
BFG 680i SLI (hot NB!!)
2 x BFG 8800GTX OC2 in SLI
850w Enermax Galaxy psu
well this dashes my hopes of getting a 4850. Have to move a few steps higher
Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz
8gb Geil DDR800
150gb WD Raptor
2x 1TB Samsung
2x Radeon 5850 crossfire
850W Enermax
Athlon II X4 620 (stock)
2gb DDR2 800MHZ Hynix
160GB Samsung SATA2
PowerColor HD4890 (stock)
Coolermaster 500W Extreme Power
Works brilliantly, taking into account though that my monitor is a 17" LCD @1280x1024
On the whole, very nice article. It's something that I haven't come across before and it should help people to save a few bob (the whole point of a balanced system) and get the best bang for buck when upgrading (everyone that reads these reviews main concern
.
well this dashes my hopes of getting a 4850. Have to move a few steps higher
Keep in mind that these tests were done at 4X AA, (pretty much) max settings through out. The HD 4850 is still a good card with good price/ performance. Perhaps it's just a case of AA killing this card?
I appreciated this article, because it's a first step towards presenting data that gives expected performance in games. Virtually all performance reviews of hardware is done on a comparison basis, to tell people which of the cards tested performs the best at a given set of tests.
I don't think this point is stressed enough in the online hardware review community. It's very easy to look at a bar graph and see 35 fps and think to one's self "POS card", without stopping to check what the whole test setup was, or what the review is actually looking to highlight.
Aha, nice article, though the highlight has to be the picture on the first page. Not only would I love all those graphics cards, imagine having all those games AND LEGALLY!
Very pertinent article! It's quite helpful in getting a general overview for today's gaming requirements. Thanks for gathering all this data.
I'm looking forward to the next installment, regarding AMD systems and the new 5000 series GPUs.
I have an E6850 @ 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 1x DVD Rom, 1x HDD..
I'm looking at getting either the HD4890 or the new 5850, BUT I only have a 400w power supply. I see the E8400+HD4890 combination draws a max consumption of about 250w. Will my 400w be ok? Really dont want to fork out for a new power supply...
Wow, I'm really astonished by this article. I have an E8200 and a 1680*1050 panel, there are some surprising results for me. First off, the 4850 I was thinking of upgrading to would still leave my system entirely GPU limited. Thanks for the warning! Secondly a 4890 would actually perform significantly better in my system than a GTX 295 that costs over twice as much!
Why is it that the GTX 295 responds so badly to a lack of CPU?
@slurpppy:
a dual GPU card requires alot more work from the processor jsut to get it rendering, so in a CPU limited rig they are often a bad choice.
and @blitonguy: i would not recomend running a 4890 with a 400w PSU. when i have a 650w to power my 4890, and would say a 550 should really be the lowest you should go.
Good article. I can't believe how many times I have warned my friend about balance with his 3x Geforce 280 SLi. That being said, I am significantly GPU limited (Intel 920 O/C and Geforce 260). Although my computer is not solely a gaming rig.
5850 people..THAT'S the GC to have
E6750 2,66Ghz @ 3,5Ghz aircooled on stockvoltage
P5N-E SLI motherboard
GTX 260 V.2 (stock speed)
8Gb HyperX DDR2 PC8500 @ 4,4,4,12 timings, 1:1 with cpu
Patriot Warp2 32Gb SSD system drive + Western Digital Caviar SE 500Gb
Creative Xtreme Gaming Soundcard
Samsung S.M. 23" 16:9 monitor running 1920x1080
Chill Innovation 540W PSU
Runs everything great atm. I'm a sucker for AA, AF and vertical sync. so I'll upgrade when I can't play new games with at least 4xAA and 8xAF.
Next thing on my wishlist is a Q9550 and probably a XFX-motherboard.
I have a C2D E6300 (stock 1.86 Ghz) - OC'd to 3.2 Ghz
Sapphire Radeon HD4850 512 Mb OC'd approx 10 % GPU and memory
2 Gb DDR2 800 OCZ Gold
I run a 19 inch LG LCD Monitor, native res is 1280 x 1024. This setup provides me a really nice balance. I only use AA in older titles, but I run almost everything on at least High detail levels, and I can run everything I've ever asked my system to run, and do not have frame rate issues. I have no issues with Far Cry 2, GRID, Oblivion, Frontlines, HL2, Doom 3, COD 4 etc... Crysis is the one title I need to turn down.
The issue here is of course balance. I'm not sure why Toms is using Ultra Quality settings on a review about balance. Surely quality settings have to come into the balance equation too. If you are on a budget, and can't afford the best of everything, then a slightly lower image quality would be a price you would be willing to pay.
btw, I'm sure the Pentium E6300 is not the same as a C2D E6300, as the Pentium badged chip runs at 2.8, and mine at 1.86 stock ?? Is that right ?
Here's my balanced rig
Core i7 920 3.35GHz
6gb DDR3 1600MHz
2x500GB RAID 0
GTX260 216sp
All on Foxconn Renessaince board
I think balance will depend on budget
Ok some comments about PSU, if your going to buy expensive mobo, cpu, gfx cards and run it on anything around 400-500w make sure its very good quality one like Tagan, Thermaltake, OCZ, and others in above rigs, do not use a cheapo PSU no matter how much the wattage is, it will work but I guarantee it will go bang and take one of those expensive parts with it, thats if it dont catch fire....like the Qtec PSU do.
I run this rig with a Tagan 480w 5-6 years old
AMD x2 5600 @2.9GHz energy efficient
HIS ATi 3870HD @800MHz
4GB OCZ Reaper PC8500
2x 750GB Samsung HD's
Samsung 22in monitor
It will play anything I throw at it with ease, you dont have to spend a fortune just to play a game, keep your buget reasonable and youll enjoy it so much more.
This is why I love Toms Hardware. You guys review the obvious things such as the new HD5870 like every other site. But the thing that makes you stand out is that you guys also make articles such as this one.
I'm still having a dual core (E8400 @ 3.6GHz) with quite the demanding SLI setup (2x 8800GT) and have been wondering what the best upgrade will be for my computer. This gives me a lot of insight and I'm eagerly awaiting the follow up overclocking article.
where are the amd provessers