http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] 6&Itemid=1

I must fully agree with nvidia on this one!

I wonder why they would say that.....
No component is ever going to be more important than another, it's a balance between all of them.
my old Skt754 3700+ would utterly destroy the performance of my GTX's, likewise before I bought my first GTX my 6000+ was doing nothing when running with my 6800GS.
In gaming a GPU is certainly important, but you need a decent CPU paired with it, otherwise you're just creating a big bottleneck!

This topic should be polled , and i agree fully.


Right now current games need more GPU power than CPU power.

I agree to a point. You can't have a bottom of the barrel CPU and highend GPU without having some performance issues. You have to have at least a decent CPU to open up the full potential of a good graphics card. But by no means do you need a quad core CPU to game on the high end. I have an older e6400 Core2 (OCed of course) and it still screams along with the new 8800GTS. I don't think a quad would give me as much of a gain.

but it is only an issue for gamers.
non gamers is isn't true.
I think Nvidia statment is way to general.

Not to be rude, but that is really a dumb statement. Not every comment has truth in it. Some statements are just false, dumb and uninformed... Like most of mine. You must be the product of public education. This I'm ok you're ok we all have differences... Celebrate diversity. Its garbage. Some lines of thought are superior to others. Its ok.

Does anyone know if MTW2 is CPU bound or GPU ? Just wondering out of curiosity, I mean, my system chugs along when I have 10K + units on the field, also my CPU usage is only at about 60-70 %. Since we are on the topic....

I have a feeling nvidia's statement was targeted toward gamers specifically. Who is going to get a highend GPU that really just wants to crunch numbers or encode video? I agree every situation is difference and you have to be smart with your component selection.

Meh? I agree that you want to have a balance. I also think you need to offload the CPU as much as possible.

I do not think a low end processor will be faster or better than an high end processor. When was the last time you saw a Athlon 3200+ beat out a Q9650?

I think their argument is you will see better gaming performance from a video card upgrade than going to a highend CPU.

From the link of the OP:

That's a perfectly fine statement, even in its rather general perspective. "Cheap graphics" means "onboard" or "average laptop" graphics to me, maybe even with no dedicated video RAM. Even the fastest CPU cannot achieve good framerates in the target market of nVidia (> 1280x1024, full screen, high poly, high shader usage), with such cheap graphic hardware, if it has to do most things (even RAM transfers) itself.

On the other hand, a slow(ish) CPU can still get quite good frame rates if the polygon count is not too high, and if thus most of actual processing is happening on a fast, modern GPU.

These days, game companies invest a huge amount of effort in graphics (which means lots of polygons, shaders etc.). The other parts of a game, where a CPU may be heavily used (AI etc.) do seem to be unproportionally lower developed. So, of course, hardware support for the fastest growing part of games means more than CPU.

Plus, some things (AA, interpolation, resolution) do not affect the CPU at all (the CPU doesn't care a bit if the resolution is 800x600 or 1920x1600, or at least so it doesn't matter much).

There simply are not many options in the average game where you can tune for a slow/fast CPU, but any game is stuffed to the brim with options to adjust for a weak/strong GPU.

Duh. Target age of this statement? Maybe 13-16 years?

This title is of course grossly misleading, no meaning whatsoever can be interpreted into it.

By far!

Good point. I agree to that!

Of course a GPU would make a system fun. Then again, only gamers will spend money on a nice GPU.