More CPU or GPU reliant games

[MetaDrow]

I was curious how many cores how many cores Grid 2 uses when I was getting around 60 fps average and min 50 fps on max or second highest settings. I found out that it uses 3 cores, not that big of deal but it does some of the calculations for the shadows and reflections which is handy on a FX8350; instead of the GPU doing everything. Same with Crysis 3 when I was using a Phenom II 965, the game's physics was done with the CPU instead of GPU which allowed me to play it fine and it used more than 3 cores. Far Cry 3 on the other hand uses more GPU than CPU, that game scaled me to down 720p at medium setting to be playable for me (using GTS450, old card). I don't want to spend $300+ for a card to run games at a nice playable setting instead of $200 on a multi-core CPU, that is just my thought.

 

My question is which do you want from a PC game, use more CPU or GPU?

 

[Guest]

I think in general games are more reliant on GPU power than CPU power however both are currently important and will always be equally as important, things like draw distance for example rely mostly on CPU power and thats just the way it is, I would rather games loaded evenly on CPU and GPU depending on which can best do what the game requires.

[Godlygamer23]

Below a certain point with your CPU, and you will require a more powerful one. Most games require more GPU power than CPU power.

[AroundWayOtherThe]

It's gotten to the point IMO where it'd be nice to have more of the CPU leveraged because it's underutilized.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Below a certain point with your CPU, and you will require a more powerful one. Most games require more GPU power than CPU power.

 

He's not asking for what is more common, he's asking what people prefer.

 

IMO I like games that use the CPU more, like Natural Selection 2. An overclock on my 3570K by a Ghz raised my framerates by about 45 in that game, and it's nice to play a game where the fan on my GPU doesn't sound like a jet engine. (I have a GTX 470)