There's probably not a good answer to that question. In general graphics processing power has been more important, as most games tend to be GPU-bound rather than CPU-bound. But at the same time, a GPU is completely worthless for even the most menial of tasks generally handled by a CPU.
Both, pretty equally. They both rely on each other having enough power to properly keep up pace. If I have a modern, dual core, high powered CPU but with a GeForce 6200 slapped in as the GPU, obviously games are still going to run terrible. If I could pop a 8800gts in to a 900mhz celeron machine, I'd be able to play some old games in nice high res with AA and AF settings but newer games would choke on the slow processor.
It is like saying what is more important? The car or the driver. Both are important. In the end it depends on the skills of the programmers. E.g. The Cell is great for matrix transformations, so in theory if a game is GPU bound, you could get the cell to do all the vectors, and the transformations and rotations of all the vertices, whilst the GPU only handle the textures and shaders and effects etc. In the end it depends on the scene being rendered. Of course things like AI and general game loops are better done on the CPU.
Both is the correct answer. I know that this is a thread is competing 360 (GPU) vs PS3 (CPU). All I have to say is that thanks to the PS3's CPU, Lair is using progressive meshing... a good step foreward for games. In very simple terms, a good CPU can make heavy calculations while the GPU displays them; therefore, you need both for a game. Â
You will want a better GPU if graphics matter to you, but with the Wii's current success, it makes me question whether graphics are that important in a game to people. With the PS3's cell and the Wii's GPU, you could have killer AI, but not great graphics.  It really depends on the person I guess, whether or not they like graphics better or gameplay better.  I like a good mixture of both, so CPU and GPU are equally important to me.
CPU. Within a year all consoles are completely outclassed graphically by PCs. The only thing that can be done at that point is advancement in things that use the CPU. The Cell has capabilities to assist in graphics and has much potential power. A stripped down 3 core CPU has provides little capability beyond what current PC games are already doing.
CPU. Within a year all consoles are completely outclassed graphically by PCs. The only thing that can be done at that point is advancement in things that use the CPU. The Cell has capabilities to assist in graphics and has much potential power. A stripped down 3 core CPU has provides little capability beyond what current PC games are already doing.
Lazy_Boy88
That's somewhat true. On the PC, CPU's have to use out-of-order execution to support the massive amounts of unoptimized code and legacy apps. On a console, you can use a CPU like the Cell since you can exect most code to be at least somewhat optimized for that specific platform.
CPU. Within a year all consoles are completely outclassed graphically by PCs. The only thing that can be done at that point is advancement in things that use the CPU. The Cell has capabilities to assist in graphics and has much potential power. A stripped down 3 core CPU has provides little capability beyond what current PC games are already doing.
Teufelhuhn
That's somewhat true. On the PC, CPU's have to use in-order execution to support the massive amounts of unoptimized code and legacy apps. On a console, you can use a CPU like the Cell since you can exect most code to be at least somewhat optimized for that specific platform.
Both the CBE and Xenon are in-order-execution this era. gnutux
CPU. Within a year all consoles are completely outclassed graphically by PCs. The only thing that can be done at that point is advancement in things that use the CPU. The Cell has capabilities to assist in graphics and has much potential power. A stripped down 3 core CPU has provides little capability beyond what current PC games are already doing.
gnutux
That's somewhat true. On the PC, CPU's have to use in-order execution to support the massive amounts of unoptimized code and legacy apps. On a console, you can use a CPU like the Cell since you can exect most code to be at least somewhat optimized for that specific platform.
Both the CBE and Xenon are in-order-execution this era. gnutux
Generally speaking, the GPU is the most important componet when it comes to video games. However, some games are very CPU intensive (Half Life 2 for example).
here is your answer http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/01/agp-platform-analysis/page1.html
in new games a ancent athlon xp2500+ is still good enough for new games up to 30fps but a gf7600gt isn't and a amd 64 3400+ is good enough for 39fps on high in oblivion with a x1950 pro vs 30fps for the 2500+ so a cpu 1-2 years newer gives 10fps while a gpu while the gpu upgrade makes a big difference.
[QUOTE="gnutux"]both. Without one or the other, game WILL NOT run. gnutux Games where around a LONG time before the GPU. It was all about the software render untill the Vodoo (and other early 3d Accelerators) came out.
Both, pretty equally. They both rely on each other having enough power to properly keep up pace. If I have a modern, dual core, high powered CPU but with a GeForce 6200 slapped in as the GPU, obviously games are still going to run terrible. If I could pop a 8800gts in to a 900mhz celeron machine, I'd be able to play some old games in nice high res with AA and AF settings but newer games would choke on the slow processor.Corvin
why take a cpu from late 90s and a gpu from 2005?Â
CPU. Within a year all consoles are completely outclassed graphically by PCs. The only thing that can be done at that point is advancement in things that use the CPU. The Cell has capabilities to assist in graphics and has much potential power. A stripped down 3 core CPU has provides little capability beyond what current PC games are already doing.
Â
Lazy_Boy88
it provides capability over what pc game are doing now but pc cpus outclassed x360's cpu the day it came out. you could get a pc with 8-16 cores if you want. its called dual and quad socket boards, but even a 2.66pd or amd x2 3600 owns the x360's cpu hands down.
Generally speaking, the GPU is the most important componet when it comes to video games. However, some games are very CPU intensive (Half Life 2 for example).TyrantDragon55
hl2 doesn't take much of a cpu these days. a 2003 p4 3.06ghz is more than enough to run it maxed
when the world gave birth to computers they didnt have gpu's.
Answer: cpu
thread
takisse
quoted for truthÂ
I can see you guys are behind in the times.
CPU's of the time only needed to display 2D text. As GUI's (OS's)Â were being made fancier, there became a need for a 2D GPU. As time went on, people were moving into the 3D space. That's the time 3D GPU's came about. They also added 3D instruction sets to CPU's (MMX and 3D Now).
Try to run a modern day game on just a CPU and see what happens.
I have an old system with a 3000+ inside its a 64 bit processor, it also has a 6800GT inside.
Â
If I was aiming to play newer games and have them run smooth and at higher settings, I would buy a GPU. I f i wantedshorter load times and to be able to alt-tab without a problem then I would go with a CPU.
Â
They are used for other things, but when it comes to consoles hands own the GPU should be the improvement.Â
Log in to comment