🚀 go-pugleaf

Folk wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:36:24 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
> wrote:
> 
>> But regardless if you go ATI(AMD) or NVIDIA then gfx card is still more 
>> important than CPU when gaming.
> 
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Wrong answer.
>
Not so unless you play in low resolution with low graphics quality 
settings in the driver control panel.



> I've benchmarked both UT99 and UT2004 extensively.  I can say beyond a
> shadow of a doubt that the CPU is the bottleneck in virtually all
> cases.  The only time graphics would be a problem is if you were using
> integrated graphics.  The OP's 9600XT is *plenty* of vid card for
> UT99, but his Duron is certainly holding him back.  If he would shove
> in the fastest processor his current mobo would allow, he would see
> his framerates soar.
> 
As for UT2004 I can't say but the original poster focuses on UT so I did 
as well. Unless you go really slow in the CPU department or settle for a 
low resolutions the bottleneck is the GFX power of the PC.

Oh and the 9600 XT is not plenty unless we talk low resolutions, okay 
but NOT plenty!

It's very easy to see if the gfx card is the bottle neck or not. Just 
run a timedemo in 640*480 with low quality settings in the gfx driver 
and that score will tell you what the CPU + memory speed of the system 
allows for (unless you gfx card is very slow then it's all ready a 
bottleneck). Next increase resolution plus driver quality settings and 
run the timedemo again. If the frame rate scores are aprox. the same 
then it's not the gfx card which holds UT back if the scores are lower 
then the gfx card is next to upgrade.

Kind regards
Bruno