The CPU/Memory VERSUS GPU Debate! Is Money Being Wasted?

[LukePC1]

Thanks for making the trouble and posting it here.
I think it could be 'tranlated' for more modern systems, although many more cores don't bring a performance boost necessaryly...

Well additionally to the numbers you could say, that the FPS per eye are cut in halves, while the real FPS stays alike.

I asume, you used SGs for S3D, right? I noticed, that using anaglyph reduces the performance a little more, because you make 2 pictures like for pageflipping first. Then you add the conversion to anaglyph and this needs some power, too

[crim3]

Yes, shutterglasses.

Ok, I'll create a signature with my stuff.

[snarfbot]

in my experience it depends on what your working with really but a general rule of thumb is that the graphics card is most important, then cpu, then ram.

i built my computer about a year ago, for as cheaply as humanly possible.

a pentium dual core e2140, 1.6ghz stock. overclocked to 3ghz.
2gigs patriot ddr2
gigabyte ga-p35-ds3l
sapphire hd3850 256mb

then with a case and psu, hard disk etc it was about 650 bucks. i can still max out most games and get 30+ fps. except for crysis, which eats my rig alive.

anyway i always suggest getting the cheapest cpu you can live with, overclocking the crap out of it, and buying the best videocard you can afford.

i also had a celeron 300a back in the day, and a riva tnt i think, that was my first build.

anyhow with my current rig i got 27-29fps average in crysis cpu demo, all settings high 1280x800.

with my own custom cvars i can add about 10fps to that, and honestly you cant tell the difference.