More likely bottle-neck - CPU or Graphics?

Forums › Desktop computing › More likely bottle-neck - CPU or Graphics?

ipsi

55 posts

Master Geek

#22814 9-Jun-2008 15:59

I'll be acquiring a computer (second hand) at some point. It currently doesn't have a graphics card, and I'm wondering what the ideal one would be. Budget limit is about $350, which means I could be looking at a 9600GT? The MB does support PCI-E (checked it).

Anyway, I'm more concerned that I don't buy a card that will provide more power than the computer can use by virtue of the CPU not being good enough.

The CPU is a dual-core AMD chip. It'll be used for some semi-serious gaming (mostly slightly older games that my Laptop can't handle. Not Bioshock/Crysis-type stuff). I can't remember what it was rate at, but it was relatively cheap, maybe 4800+? I can post that when I get home.

So yeah: Main point - not spending money on a graphics card I can't fully utilize. Second point, it should work with both XP and Linux (Not worried about DX10 games. I'll get a new PC when they start becomming common). Having said that, the Linux drivers for NVidia seem decent, so I think I'll be ok there (yes yes, proprietary and all. I'd just like something that works for now).

Thanks all,

- ipsi

Vorbis

176 posts

Master Geek

#136755 9-Jun-2008 19:05

Nvidia tend to have better Linux support. Go for the 9600 card, at lower resolutions your cpu bares most of the brunt, as the resolutions/details get higher, the gfx card kicks in. This is why in some games, you'll get better frame rates with higher resolutions than lower. You can always upgrade the cpu later if you feel the need, but graphics card speed over cpu speed is the rule of thumb for gaming.

ipsi

55 posts

Master Geek

#136757 9-Jun-2008 19:10

Good, glad to hear it. :)

I won't be playing at insane resolutions anyway. Probably max out at 1280x1024 (highest the monitor supports). I'll probably take the 9600 card, assuming all goes well.