Gaming Performance Analysis

For those who prefer a single table to multiple graphs showing resolution scaling, we wanted to take a moment to summarize the results from the previous page in a different format. The two major questions we wanted to answer are: first, how much of a difference does a 1.33 GHz Core 2 Quad overclock make; second, how much of a difference does adding a second 2900 XT make? We averaged the scores across all four tested resolutions to come up with an estimate of how much the CPU and GPU impact performance. Naturally, a faster CPU will make a larger performance difference at lower resolutions while a faster graphics card will affect higher resolutions more. We'll start with a look at the impact the CPU has.


The 57% CPU overclock ends up improving overall gaming performance by an average of 6% with a single 2900 XT or 16% with a CrossFire configuration. Of course, that's not the whole story, with some games showing substantial gains and others showing basically no gain at all. If we omit results without antialiasing (where applicable - Bioshock and S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and to a lesser extent Oblivion don't support antialiasing) the performance gains are even smaller. The single GPU configuration improves by a mere 2% on average in that case, while the CrossFire setup improves by 14%. Battlefield 2 shows the largest gains, improving by 28% with antialiasing and 36% without across the tested resolutions. Far Cry, the Half-Life 2 games, and Oblivion also show substantial performance increases, particularly with a CrossFire configuration.

Bottom line: even with the massive 57% CPU overclock, gaming performance isn't improved substantially. True, part of the reason for that is the fact that even a dual-core E6600 is no performance slouch when it comes to gaming. The bigger factor, however, is that graphics are simply far more of a limiting factor in games. Even Supreme Commander, a game reputed to really hammer your CPU, chalks up less than a 5% performance increase on average. Now let's take a look at the impact adding a second graphics card has.


For the most part, we see much larger gains by upgrading the graphics subsystem. Our entry level quad-core CPU still improves by 28% overall with the addition of a second graphics card, while the overclocked CPU improves by 40%. Not surprisingly, the games that see the biggest boost from the added graphics power tend to be those that are least CPU limited, so Battlefield 2 0xAA as an example actually gets slightly slower with a 2.33 GHz processor running in CrossFire mode. Limiting the analysis to higher-quality graphics modes (4xAA enabled, along with Bioshock, Oblivion, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) results in an even larger performance boost from doubling the graphics power: 40% for the 2.33 GHz processor and an impressive 55% for the overclocked CPU.

Hopefully none of this comes as a surprise to any of you, as we've been making this point for years. Basically, if your primary concern is gaming performance, the graphics card is going to be the major determinant in how fast your computer runs games. There are certainly titles out there that require more CPU power (flight simulators for example), but especially with some of the latest eye-candy-enabled titles the CPU only play a minor role. If you're looking at buying an expensive gaming computer and you plan on pairing it up with a large display, you would be far better off cutting corners on the memory and processor and focusing on the GPU(s) than the reverse.

However, that's not to say that processors aren't important. Flip back a couple pages and look at the performance gains several number crunching applications achieved. If you do any video encoding or 3D rendering work, very likely you can make use of all the CPU power you can lay your hands on. Or for the best of both worlds - and as a convenient space heater to boot - you can just pick up something like the HP Blackbird 002.

Gaming Performance Power Requirements
Comments Locked

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • Sabresiberian - Monday, October 8, 2007 - link

    Hewlett-Packard used to be synonymous with high quality small computing and scientific gear, but have become something less than that. It is nice to see them produce something that is once again aimed at the high-end market.

    I can understand why they didn't go with 64-bit, it's still early for that, but I agree it should have had 4GB ram. Easy to fix, but why should you have to fix anything in a $5500 system?

    I'd buy one just to support HP's efforts if I could afford one :)
  • strikeback03 - Monday, September 17, 2007 - link

    No idea how great this encoder is (video isn't my thing) but http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html">Super claims to convert to H.264
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - link

    Seems to work fine, except it definitely doesn't support quad-core and possibly not even fully dual-core. :(
  • Zak - Saturday, September 15, 2007 - link

    Since when Radeon HD X2900 XT 1GB is the fastest card on the market? I'm confused. All reviews I read say that it's about as fast as 8800GTS 640MB. Because all that super fast memory doesn't give it any benefit since the GPU is lagging behind. It was beaten by 8800GTX and Ultra in all reviews, except for one game, I forgot which one. Can someone elaborate? I'm going to buy a new video card soon and I was intrigued by this card: 1GB of GDDR4 sounds impressive and the price is right. But then I started reading reviews and they cooled me off, this card is competing against 8800GTS, it's not even close to GTX or Ultra speed.

    Z.
  • wolfman3k5 - Saturday, September 15, 2007 - link

    Regardless of what reviews say, because many reviewers are biased, I can tell you that I've tested a Sapphire HD2900XT 1GB GDDR4 and it's performance lies between a 8800 GTS 640MB and a 8800 GTX 768MB. Never mind touching the Ultra. Best bang for the buck is the MSI 8800 GTX, Anand will agree with me. Take care and good luck.
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, September 15, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Since when Radeon HD X2900 XT 1GB is the fastest card on the market?


    I'm not sure that I ever intended to give the impression that the HD 2900 XT 1GB is the fastest card on the market - in fact, at several points I specifically say the opposite. However, I'm sure that AMD CrossFire is merely an option and is not required. Obviously, the Dell 720 H2C comes out ahead in quite a few of the gaming tests, even with older drivers.

    Also, a https://h20435.www2.hp.com/Default.aspx">"special edition" Blackbird went on sale today for $5500, and only 518 (don't ask me why 518!) will be made. That version includes dual 8800 Ultra cards and the Half-Life 2 "Orange Box" bundle, plus pretty much everything seen here. Not a bad price for the components, really, but still more than most people are willing to spend.
  • Zak - Sunday, September 16, 2007 - link

    Thanks. I was just confused. I thought I missed something. Also, thanks to the other poster who replied. I will most likely get the 8800GTX then. 8800Ultra seems like a waste of money at $100 more. But I just got a 24" monitor, I may need all the graphics power I can get. SLI is out of question though, too expensive.

    Z.
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, September 15, 2007 - link

    Apparently I messed up the link. Let's try that again:

    https://h20435.www2.hp.com/Default.aspx">HP Blackbird 002 Dedication Edition
  • Zak - Saturday, September 15, 2007 - link

    I have to say I'm shocked to see this come out of HP, the most boring computer maker on the planet. The price is prohibitively high, but if I was on the market for computer of this grade I would very seriously consider this vs Dell or Alienware.

    Z.
  • Toronto699 - Thursday, September 13, 2007 - link

    Blackbird Tech Support will be handled by Voodoo PC in Calgary Alberta Canada, Canadas Oil Capitol

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now