Does this guy make sense or not?

[Nothing Here]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23YR9miIg08

[neufuse Veteran]

can't watch the video where I am, but there is no "best for gaming" really, it comes down to preference anyway you look at it... most tasks now in high end games depend on the GPU more then the CPU, most CPU's can easily handle the logic now days, it's usually the GPU that is taxed

[Draconian Guppy]

can't watch the video where I am, but there is no "best for gaming" really, it comes down to preference anyway you look at it... most tasks now in high end games depend on the GPU more then the CPU, most CPU's can easily handle the logic now days, it's usually the GPU that is taxed

+1 what he said!

[Nothing Here]

can't watch the video where I am, but there is no "best for gaming" really, it comes down to preference anyway you look at it... most tasks now in high end games depend on the GPU more then the CPU, most CPU's can easily handle the logic now days, it's usually the GPU that is taxed

Then basically he does make sense. But he also states that for gaming you don't need a CPU that is rated the best in hyper threading. Also states that 2 out of 10 most resource taxing games an AMD will do better then an Intel. As long as you have a decent GPU. So I am a little confused. Benchmarks say otherwise when you do a search.

[neufuse Veteran]

Then basically he does make sense. But he also states that for gaming you don't need a CPU that is rated the best in hyper threading. Also states that 2 out of 10 most resource taxing games an AMD will do better then an Intel. As long as you have a decent GPU. So I am a little confused. Benchmarks say otherwise when you do a search.

benchmarks usually throw in CPU performance as part of their equation, I know 3DMark use to do CPU computation's as part of it, doesn't mean a game will be slower or faster, you could have an ultrafast CPU but a slow GPU or a ultrafast GPU and a slow CPU and get similar benchmark scores if their algorithm doesn't put the GPU as the majority of the scores weighting...

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

the dude could have summed up that video in about 2 mins. i had to stop watching it. anyway, there's a lot of variables that go into what's "best for gaming" so the CPU is only part of it.

[Nothing Here]

I agree that he could have summed it up into a 2min vid. I got bored listening to him. Anways, I was thinking of upgrading my CPU before seeing this. Wanted to get the FX-6200, my current CPU is a Phenom II 970 BE, but after listening to that guy, I think I will be upgrading my nVidia GTX 550 TI.

[threetonesun]

Then basically he does make sense. But he also states that for gaming you don't need a CPU that is rated the best in hyper threading. Also states that 2 out of 10 most resource taxing games an AMD will do better then an Intel. As long as you have a decent GPU. So I am a little confused. Benchmarks say otherwise when you do a search.

It's hard to find sites that test all given CPUs at a price point with all GPUs at a price point. They usually just pick one (usually a high end one) and go from there.

The long and short of it is that for the right price, yes, AMD makes decent processors. But, given their current architecture, the X4s and X6s are basically dead in the water. The X8 competes fine with some i5s, but doesn't really match the i7.

Hyperthreading is basically non-issue here, except for i3. Everything above that is already at 4 physical cores.

[Luc2k]

The guy rambles too much, and even though his heart is in the right place he doesn't express his points properly and lacks knowledge about certain aspects. Also, he's referring to youtube videos mostly. If you want to make an informed decision about something look for written reviews on reputable websites.

As somebody who aims for price/performance, I tend to buy/recommend CPUs that are between half and two thirds of the GPU price.

[threetonesun]

As somebody who aims for price/performance, I tend to buy/recommend CPUs that are between half and two thirds of the GPU price.

Once upon a time. I think the street value of my CPU and GPU are the same now, although what I paid was around the 2/3rds ratio. A generation ago it was easy to get a CPU at 50% the cost of the GPU that was in the same class.

[HawkMan]

point is a X6 is fast enough for all game now and for the next several years, the GPU is what decides the performance there.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

point is a X6 is fast enough for all game now and for the next several years, the GPU is what decides the performance there.

That's true. A lot of modern game engines are GPU-limited. That means your performance is limited by the power of your GPU. It doesn't make sense to buy an expensive CPU and an inexpensive GPU (assuming you have a limited budget).

[Luc2k]

Once upon a time. I think the street value of my CPU and GPU are the same now, although what I paid was around the 2/3rds ratio. A generation ago it was easy to get a CPU at 50% the cost of the GPU that was in the same class.

Not if your focus is gaming they're not. You get more gaming performance out of a 150$ CPU and a 250$ GPU than from a 200$ CPU + 200$ GPU.

[MillionVoltss]

Unless, your after playing Minecraft and i suspect SIm City 2013 which are more cpu based.

[HawkMan]

not by far enough to tax an x6

[MillionVoltss]

No of course, But i had a AMD x2 3800+ and 7800gt before, which did tax even on Minecraft, but the same system ran CS Source on highest and most games up to then amicable ( Gta Iv played ok for me ), . It depends on what you want from a system and some points he says are right, If your dream is to run BF3 at 1080p on three monitors on Ultra, then your going to be spending the pennies. If your happy at 720 High Detail with the odd fps drop below 30 then you can get a reasonably priced system.