• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

GPU to Pair with Q9550

S

Suds

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
352
In an attempt to prolong the life of my LGA775 system, and a lack of funds to do a complete Sandy Bridge rebuild, I recently purchased a Q9550 to replace my outdated e6600. With a new CPU though, I'll also need a new GPU to replace my also outdated 8800GTS 512. I'll be overclocking the new CPU to at least 3.6Ghz as well.

With that said, what would be a good GPU pairing to go with the CPU? I'd like to keep it as cheap as possible and also not bottleneck my CPU with an overly powerful GPU. I game at 1680 x 1050, but would like to eventually upgrade to a 32" or 37" which I presume would run at 1900 x 1080, but that won't be for awhile. My PSU is also plenty powerful, it's a Corsair AX750.

Any opinions and recommendations for a new GPU are appreciated, thanks.
 
depends on your budget. on the low end I would say a 460 or 6870. on the higher end I would say 560, 570 or 6950.

edit

also guess it depends on how soon you plan to go 1080p. if not til later this year maybe just get a 460 and wait til the new stuff comes out later this year.
 
It will definitely depend on what games you plan on playing. Are you looking for a DX11 card from a retailer or would you go used? if so DX10? Also a more specific price range would be helpful, cheap video card can be interpreted as $100 or $250.

Im still using a gtx260 core 216 at 1920x1200. Black ops runs pretty smooth, I dont have the eye candy maxed but its still great. I know the gtx460's have been available dirt cheap new and im sure it runs quite a bit better than my 260, although they are usually the 768mb versions not the 1gb.

example:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...ffiliateID=lw9MynSeamY-BAXEAcJ1NebUZGUu13iOIg
 
Ideally, I don't wanna spend more than $200, but the cheaper the better. I initially was either thinking about a 460/465 or a HD6850. I'm leaning towards the 6850 because of the lower power consumption/less heat produced. And as for games, I'm not quite sure what I'll be playing. I simply want the best GPU for my budget without bottlenecking my CPU a huge amount.

Edit: And I'm always willing to go used depending on how much I save, preferably if it's an XFX with a Double Lifetime Warranty.
 
I would say a GTX 460 1GB. If you O/C the cpu, it should be a great match. Should be able to find them for around 150$
 
I would look at a used 5870. Performance is pretty close to the 6950 in most games and not far behind in others. It's a little overkill for your resolution but you'll be getting more for less with cards going for $175-200 used.
 
HD6870. They're $200 or sometimes less after rebates, and they dominate any competition in that price range.
 
I have a C2D 775 socket E8400@3Ghz. I just upgraded the GPU from a 3870 to the 6850 and it doubled my average FPS depending on the game. The 6850 is a good choice, runs very cool and quiet. Something to be aware of with Nvidia 460GTX it doesn't always compare well with certain chipsets like the Intel P35 chipset. If you can afford the 6870, go for it, however getting a 6850 you are just missing out on 10-15% of performance from the 6870 for which you can get back by overclocking the 6850. I was trying to decide on this too a few days ago about which video card. I went with the 6850 because it gave me the best price/performance including it can overclock, runs cool (63C load), and lower power usage. I can't even hear the fans going, have to raise it to 65% fan speed until I hear it and even then it's still quiet.
 
Get a deal on 5870 (sometimes they do come close to $200) or a 460 1 GB, would be my advice. But look into what games you like the most, read some real tests and decide from there, personally I have realized that nvidia favours the game I happen to like the most at the moment. hmmm and I was unimpressed with HD6870, but I got a bad card, which is why I was really unimpressed...

Anyway, I think you are doing the right thing limiting your budget to $200, as 28nm will arrive this year, should make for an interesting improvement for both teams.
 
Thanks for all the responses. Currently, I'm leaning towards this XFX HD6850. The price is good and it is supposed to stay cool and quiet, on top of XFX's great Double Lifetime Warranty. I might be able to spring for this XFX HD6870 or this XFX HD5870 if either gets recommended enough.

If I overclock the 6850, would I be able to reach close to 6870 levels, or will something else hold me back?
 
The dual-fan XFX cards are excellent, very quiet, pretty solid, and reasonably priced. The HD6850 may overclock to HD6870 spec, but no guarantees, that's a considerable overclock that not every card will pull off, especially not long-term. The HD5870s don't seem especially noisy either, but they may not be as quiet as the HD6850/6870 as they're less efficient (190W vs 130/150). Still, that is a good price for an HD5870. Arguably the stock cooler on the HD6870 is sufficient to run reasonably cool and quiet anyway, and the stock 6870s are noticeably cheaper than the $240 example you've posted there, so whether the 5870 is worth the extra is open to discussion.
 
Definetly GTX 460. Great bang for the buck, dirt cheap with a little look around. I actually recently did same thing as you. I dont see the point of upgrading as no game really makes a use of the power i7 has, so I replaced my trusty E8200 with Q9550 and added in GTX460. No problems with 1920x1080 resolution and 4xAA. If your mobo can do SLI, then all the better. Might aswell as get two GTX460s. :D
 
Since the 6870 has come down so much in price, I'd go for that. If you can get one for $190 or less it's a heck of a deal and perfect for 1680x1050. If you want to go cheaper, a 6850 or GTX 460 would be a good grab as well (whichever is cheaper). If you want to go a higher, a 6950 2GB would be the way to go, but it's really overkill for 1680x1050, so I'd save the cash.
 
I have a Q9550 and I'm running a 5850. I would have liked a 5870/6870 but a 5850 still does very well.

They're also pretty cheap right now, if you look in the for sale forum you can find them for about $140, I'm sure you can haggle it down for a little less.
 
At 1680x1050 the 5870 is the way to go, I tested out gtx570, 6950, 5970, gtx470 and gtx460 in SLI... the 5870 out performed all of them in BC2 and BlackOps.

Your Q9550 @ 3.6 is going to bottleneck your performance big time, the best bang for the buck is 5870.

If your going to run at 1920^ I'd look into a 6950.
 
running an overclocked C2D on a P35 chipset, bought a 460gtx - had to game with low gpu usage, minor stuttering, sound stuttering from high DPC - sent it back.

Bought a practically new used 5850 for a great price - works flawlessly.


The issues with the 4xx gtx series and some 775 chipsets are pretty damn annoying, I'd steer clear.
If you like overclocking I'd go for a 6850 or a good priced 5850 new or used - if you don't want the hassle the 6870 or 5870 are worth the extra price. All of them are great at 1680x1050 and more than adequate at 1080p
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036830023 said:
Your Q9550 @ 3.6 is going to bottleneck your performance big time, the best bang for the buck is 5870.
.
Click to expand...


Are you sure? I havent personally seen a test where processor made a huge difference in a videogame between overclocked Q9xxx serie vs. i7, both with good graphics cards. Here is a good comparison between i7 860 and Q9550, both at 4ghz.
http://imagehosting.gr/show.php/1339975_ati-5850-crossfire-part1-crop.jpg.html

Difference is as small as a rats arse with single GPUs, sometimes OC'd Q9550 even takes a lead. Crossfire brings mobo differences in the equation from what I know, so they arent directly comparable. Point is that modern games are not very CPU dependant, to the point that the capabilities of fast and overclocked modern rigs go waste. :/
 
Last edited:
Mokkat said:
running an overclocked C2D on a P35 chipset, bought a 460gtx - had to game with low gpu usage, minor stuttering, sound stuttering from high DPC - sent it back.

Bought a practically new used 5850 for a great price - works flawlessly.


The issues with the 4xx gtx series and some 775 chipsets are pretty damn annoying, I'd steer clear.
Click to expand...

The 4 series has incompatibilities with all sorts of chipsets, nobody seems to know why. I see all sorts of random cases. Driver issues are one thing as you can just change drivers, but hardware issues are a pretty big PITA, and are the more prevailing trend with geforces than software issues, I know which I'd sooner have.
 
MaZa said:
Are you sure? I havent personally seen a test where processor made a huge difference in a videogame between overclocked Q9xxx serie vs. i7, both with good graphics cards. Here is a good comparison between i7 860 and Q9550, both at 4ghz.
http://imagehosting.gr/show.php/1339975_ati-5850-crossfire-part1-crop.jpg.html

Difference is as small as a rats arse with single GPUs, sometimes OC'd Q9550 even takes a lead. Crossfire brings mobo differences in the equation from what I know, so they arent directly comparable. Point is that modern games are not very CPU dependant, to the point that the capabilities of fast and overclocked modern rigs go waste. :/
Click to expand...
Ya I'm very sure, I've done tests 1st hand...

In BC2 and BlackOps there is a huge difference especially BC2... I see a 25fps difference in my minimum fps from running at the stock 3.0ghz speed to my OC of 4.27ghz.

The more CPU power you have the more FPS you will get in BC2... even at 4.27ghz 1600x1200 highest settings 4xAA 16xAF in BC2 I can't get my GPU to hit 100% usage, it stays around 75-85%.
 
Yeah a fair few games see a lot better minimums with i5s and i7s versus core 2s. However, if you're not a member of the 60fps all the time club, you'll still be fine with an overclocked core 2. There's nothing they can't play reasonably well yet, just plenty of things they don't play perfectly.
 
My system "Vader in sig below" is comparable to the OPs system and when my 8800GTS died, I bought a GTX460 and it is playing very nice with my Q6600.
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1036830623 said:
Ya I'm very sure, I've done tests 1st hand...

In BC2 and BlackOps there is a huge difference especially BC2... I see a 25fps difference in my minimum fps from running at the stock 3.0ghz speed to my OC of 4.27ghz.

The more CPU power you have the more FPS you will get in BC2... even at 4.27ghz 1600x1200 highest settings 4xAA 16xAF in BC2 I can't get my GPU to hit 100% usage, it stays around 75-85%.
Click to expand...

You missed his point entirely obviously

yes 4.27 vs 3.0 is KILLER, your talking about a different of 1.27 ghz per core

Core Quad vs Core i7 matched speed, not so much.

My Q9550 @ 4.0 can run with any i7 @ 4.0 anyday, with minimal difference. Just like the benchmark he pointed out to you.

A q9550 @ 3.6 wouldn't be that much worse off, your only talking 400mhz.

I think people blame CPU for their "bottleneck" entirely too easily.
 
I just purchased an XFX HD6870. It ended up being $30 cheaper than a 5870 and should perform similarly once I overclock it a bit. Thanks for the advice everyone, it's greatly appreciated.
 
samuelmorris said:
An HD6870 fits in the budget and would eat a 460 alive.
Click to expand...
either one is a good choice. at stock speeds a 6870 is about 15-20% faster than a 460. if you oc both of them though its almost even overall because the 460 has way more overclocking headroom and tends to scale slightly better. it really depends on what game you look at too because Nvidia will kill AMD in some and vice versa.
 
Suds said:
I just purchased an XFX HD6870. It ended up being $30 cheaper than a 5870 and should perform similarly once I overclock it a bit. Thanks for the advice everyone, it's greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
an oced q9550 and oced 6870 at 1680 will make a very nice combo.
 
cannondale06 said:
either one is a good choice. at stock speeds a 6870 is about 15-20% faster than a 460. if you oc both of them though its almost even overall because the 460 has way more overclocking headroom and tends to scale slightly better. it really depends on what game you look at too because Nvidia will kill AMD in some and vice versa.
Click to expand...

In Lost Planet 2, maybe so. In more like the majority of games though the difference is at least 25-30% that I've seen, and that makes an appreciable difference. The 6870 is considerably more powerful than the 460 1GB. Take crysis as an example (44%):
crysis_1920_1200.gif


crawlgsx: 4.27Ghz is a lot on a Core 2 Quad, but remember a 4.27Ghz quad is only approximate to a 3.55Ghz i5/i7, or a 3.2Ghz Sandy Bridge (less than the stock of either the 2500 or 2600).
 
samuelmorris said:
In Lost Planet 2, maybe so. In more like the majority of games though the difference is at least 25-30% that I've seen, and that makes an appreciable difference. The 6870 is considerably more powerful than the 460 1GB. Take crysis as an example (44%):
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_560_Ti_Sonic/images/crysis_1920_1200.gif

crawlgsx: 4.27Ghz is a lot on a Core 2 Quad, but remember a 4.27Ghz quad is only approximate to a 3.55Ghz i5/i7, or a 3.2Ghz Sandy Bridge (less than the stock of either the 2500 or 2600).
Click to expand...
perhaps but if you looked at the 6870 review from the site you got those numbers from you would see that on average a stock 6870 a was 16% faster than a stock gtx460 at the ops res. and again if you were to oc both its basically a wash overall. http://techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6870/29.html
 
On average. That includes 3dmark, UT3 [200fps eveywhere you look], and other such useless titles.
The techpowerup average chart is completely meaningless.
 
samuelmorris said:
On average. That includes 3dmark, UT3 [200fps eveywhere you look], and other such useless titles.
The techpowerup average chart is completely meaningless.
Click to expand...
of course since it does not back up what you are claiming. look at the anandtech review and add up the averages for the stock 6870 compared to the stock gtx460 and you will see the 6870 is on average just 12% faster at 1680x1050. heck its slower than what I even gave it credit for.
 
f1-1920.gif

F1 2010 - Known AMD-bias, 28-33% advantage to HD6870.

civv-lgv.gif

Civ 5- known nvidia-bias, 6% advantage to HD6870.

civv-leader.gif

Civ 5 synthetic bench (I do not like synthetic benches, but this is here for comparison's sake) - known AMD-bias, 46% advantage to HD6870

sc2.gif

Starcraft 2 - 44-48% advantage to HD6870.

bc2.gif

Bad company 2 - known nvidia-bias as of November 2010 - 20-26% advantage to HD6870.
bfbc2_1920_1200.gif

Verified by Techpowerup, 25%

m2033-veryhigh.gif

Metro 2033 - 20% advantage to HD6870 (14% on average between detail levels)
metro_2033_1920_1200.gif

Verified by 12% at TPU

avp-1920.gif

AVP - 19% advantage to HD6870
avp_1920_1200.gif

Verified by Techpowerup, 24%

Crysis I already posted at 44% [TPU]

dow2_1920_1200.gif

Dawn of War 2 - 47% advantage to HD6870

dirt2_1920_1200.gif

DiRT 2 - known nvidia-bias, 36% advantage to HD6870

farcry2_1920_1200.gif

Far Cry 2 - known nvidia-bias, 6% advantage to GTX460

clearsky_1920_1200.gif

STALKER Clear Sky - 26% advantage to HD6870


Games that have:
HD6870 40%+ lead: 3
HD6870 30-40% lead: 2
HD6870 20-30% lead: 3
HD6870 10-20% lead: 1
HD6870 0-10% lead: 1
GTX460 0-10% lead: 1
(I have not included civ5's synthetic bench in this test)

Take a categorical average:
[30.5+6+46+24+13+21.5+44+47+36-6+26]/11 = 26.18% advantage to HD6870 at 1920x1200

I'm done now.

Interestingly, my performance metric for the HD6870, mostly derived from HardOCP's data, places the HD6870 at 26.66% above the GTX460 1GB. I love it when statistics agree, don't you?
 
Cherry pick? I have used EVERY test at techreport, and EVERY RELEVANT test at techpowerup. If you want to include games where the CPU defines the frame rate then be my guest, but don't go spreading crap like that to other people

Techreport, Techpowerup, HardOCP, and doubtless plenty other sites all agree, yet xbit labs disagree with them in every game. So yes, I imagine where I get my numbers is better than where you get your numbers. When you can find three review sites that agree with each other, and disprove the three I've used, then we'll talk. Until then, this just gives me another reason to ignore xbit.


edit: Just noticed xbit use catalyst 10.10a. Well, there's your problem! Wasn't it you that criticised me for citing bit-tech because they were using old drivers? TPU are using 10.10 as well and get completely different results.
 
samuelmorris said:
Cherry pick? I have used EVERY test at techreport, and EVERY RELEVANT test at techpowerup. If you want to include games where the CPU defines the frame rate then be my guest, but don't go spreading crap like that to other people

Techreport, Techpowerup, HardOCP, and doubtless plenty other sites all agree, yet xbit labs disagree with them in every game. So yes, I imagine where I get my numbers is better than where you get your numbers. When you can find three review sites that agree with each other, and disprove the three I've used, then we'll talk. Until then, this just gives me another reason to ignore xbit.
Click to expand...
gee why dont you find some 2560x1600 numbers too. :rolleyes:

when I said the 6870 was 15-20% faster than a gtx460 and I was talking about the OPs res of 1680x1050. I even clearly said 1680x1050 in an earlier reply to you. and looking at some reviews I was actually being generous. in the end what I said was correct but feel free the find benchmarks for whatever other res you want...
 
but would like to eventually upgrade to a 32" or 37" which I presume would run at 1900 x 1080, but that won't be for awhile.
Click to expand...
I did read the thread, you know.
 
samuelmorris said:
I did read the thread, you know.
Click to expand...
he clearly has no concrete plans of upgrading the monitor anytime soon. heck by the time he gets around to that we could have gone through 2 more generations of cards.

again you just put these one liners in every thread as if they are fact. the 6870 is about 15% faster on average at 1680 just like I said from the beginning and reviews back that up. of course you have excuses for every review. anyway he has the 6870 so its done for.
 
I'd throw up some benches at 1680x1050 (and get fairly similar results) but most sites test everything at 1080p these days. Using 1680x1050 means excluding several titles. Besides, what if he buys a 1080p display next month? I really don't see why people defend the GTX460 to the ends of the earth. We don't even know if his motherboard is compatible with a GTX460, whereas that's not going to be an issue with the 6870.
 
samuelmorris said:
I'd throw up some benches at 1680x1050 (and get fairly similar results) but most sites test everything at 1080p these days. Using 1680x1050 means excluding several titles. Besides, what if he buys a 1080p display next month? I really don't see why people defend the GTX460 to the ends of the earth. We don't even know if his motherboard is compatible with a GTX460, whereas that's not going to be an issue with the 6870.
Click to expand...
I am not defending the 460. you said the 6870 would eat the 460 alive so I am simply comparing the numbers at the res he is playing at. I already said either card is fine and both are nearly dead even if both are overclocked especially at 1680x1050.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top