Originally Posted by kevineugenius
To you and the other guy who gave a couple links:
That's why I did add a little disclaimer about whether or not you do encoding or some such proc-intensive thing. I am a gamer, so I can't help but assume everyone else is, which is my bad. However, those links to reviews you gave? Those aren't 100% relevant. It doesn't show things like:
Uber-proc with 256mb mid-line graphics v. ghetto-proc with 512mb high-end graphics.
I've never done the test either, but processor upgrades have never left me shaking in my boots because of the raw power... Graphics card upgrades do.
I see your point, but you said the processor is moot, which was quite simply untrue. As far as it comparing a good processor with a lower end card vs a higher end card with a worse processor, that would not be comparing CPUs. To compare CPUs you would need to keep everything constant except the CPU, to determine which CPU is best. The tests are 100% relevant, there is no need to show good cpu with bad card vs bad cpu with good card.
I do agree 100% with you that a GPU upgrade for better FPS would certainly give you much more return than a CPU upgrade for better FPS. My only point was that with gaming, CPUs matter alot.
Now, had we been discussing a DX10 card, it would be a whole different story as many of the CPU operations are supposedly being moved to the GPU, requiring either less processor, or leaving more room for physics operations, which ever way you want to look at it.
Bottomline: The better your CPU, the more things/object can be calculated into the game "world", therefore CPUs matter (In gaming that is).