Cheap gaming gpu for 1440p monitor

P

Polar_Fox

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2015
Messages
226
I've got an old asus p5e3, q6600, 4gb 1330hz, 600wt psu PC and I've just ordered a Dell U2715H 2560x1440 monitor.

The question is, what gpu won't be a complete waste of money for this system? Something that would still be powerful enough to run a lot of new games at 25-30fps@1440p with reasonable settings while not being bottlenecked by the q6600, it also needs to have a display port.
 
you may be fastly bottlenecked by those 4GB of RAM and still need to overclock the hell out of that Q6600 to keep feed a newer card... anyway I would not go with anything lower than a R9 290, it will be your best bet hoping to always be GPU limited with that processor. however as said 4GB or RAM will be a issue in most games.
 
The problem with a lot of these memory (system or vram, or just drive storage) tests that are done (both websites or just user) is they relate findings after mostly <5minute "test runs" off essentially clean (or near clean) loads. The issue here is this does not actually replicate real usage and catch the actual edge cases where there might be issues. The other related issue is due to measurements, a small increase in the amount of frametime spikes (for instance due to memory swapping) can have a very minimal impact on avg fps numbers but would be much more noticeably jarring in actual play as an example.

Note I'm not saying either way what the actual requirements are but the a lot of testing used as evidence is rather flawed once you look deeper into the methodology.
 
Polar_Fox said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/new-testing-shows-that-4gb-of-ram-is-still-plenty-for-gaming/

Is this article completely wrong?
Click to expand...

Its worth noting those were done with DDR4 on a modern system. No minimum framerate numbers either. You might be chugging along just fine with only 4 gigs but as soon as it starts spilling over into page file you will notice some hitching. On the flip side, game engines are getting better at streaming content from slow storage media, so it might be better in some games. The general consensus right now is 8 gigs and 16+ to be comfortable.

In my experience with a Q9400 and 7xxx series hardware, I wouldn't recommend anything more than a 7970 in that system. And even that 7970 will perform noticeably better with a recent i5. You might consider a nVidia gpu, as their DX11 driver is more efficient and will be less restricted by your older cpu. Maybe a GTX750? In any case, you will see a great benefit from a cpu and platform upgrade.
 
I've found a used XFX 7970 3GB for less than half the price of a r9 380.

Should I get it?
 
If you think you can get some more life out of that system, go for it. Otherwise its not a bad idea to save up the cash for a full upgrade in the future. A used Sandy/Ivy platform would be a nice bump up. If you plan to do that upgrade in the near future anyways, then it might not be a bad idea to get a stronger GPU to carry-over to the new build. Really just depends on what kind of performance you want and how flexible your budget is.
 
Polar_Fox said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/new-testing-shows-that-4gb-of-ram-is-still-plenty-for-gaming/

Is this article completely wrong?
Click to expand...
It was a half ass review from Techspot that proclaimed 4 GB was fine based on the games they tested. Even if you shut down everything else there will still be parts of some games that will be hitting the hard drive with 4 GB as opposed to 8 GB. And leave a browser with many tabs open and you will certainly see some hitching in some games. 6 GB is the min requirement in some games for a reason.
 
If you're not running 64-bit Windows then you're not going to see much benefit in going above 4 GB. The top system in my sig replaces an aging single core CPU with 2 GB of system RAM and that was painful. 4 GB should be good enough if you don't leave too many things open at once.
 
Polar_Fox said:
I've found a used XFX 7970 3GB for less than half the price of a r9 380.

Should I get it?
Click to expand...

Your CPU isn't going to be able to keep up, period. You're going to have trouble keeping 30fps on a lot of games with Q6600. I have a Q9650 overclocked to 3.6ghz and I dip into the 20's on Far Cry 4. With Battlefield 4, I dip into the 30's during heavy scenes, and that's with Mantle enabled, it would be worse in DX11.

So if I were you, I would be saving up to just build a new system. A new i3 would run circles around your Q6600.
 
Just bought a used 7970 windforce 3gb 1ghz for around 60% the price of a 380 with warranty.

Played war thunder a bit, completely maxed with 6x aa on a 1080p tv. No problems with performance at all it rarely drops below 60fps and sometimes even reaches 120. I think at 1440p cpu would be even less important. 4gb of ram seems enough, no stuttering or anything.

Currently waiting for u2715h to be delivered and will test it at 1440p with other games.
 
with that kind of old and not demanding game nobody can be surprised, the surprised may be you at the moment of test any recent game with that card even at 1080P... I have one at 1200mhz with memory at 1700mhz. and this card struggle with any modern game at 1080P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top