Looking into a video card upgrade

[erehwon6811]

I have a Geforce 8600 GTS at the moment and I'm looking for an upgrade. I'm looking to play some games like Skyrim and Batman Arkham City. I'm also looking for one to have a HDMI output. I want to hook it up directly to the TV for XBMC.



What would be a card to look at? Are there any good cards that fall under $100? I was wanting to go with another nvidia card. Does nvidia still have a little better Linux support? I mess around with that on occasion as well.

 

[cannondale06]

please list ALL of your specs in DETAIL when asking about a gpu upgrade.

 

[erehwon6811]

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.10 GHz
6 GB of ram
geforce 8600 GTS
Windows 7 Professional 64 bit

 

[cannondale06]

that cpu is pretty slow and barely meets minimum requirements for most newer games. luckily you only want a $100 card as anything more would be a waste with cpu. even with a $100 card dont expect to get the performance you would see in reviews.

 

[erehwon6811]

Yea, I've been needing to upgrade that too, but I've put it off. Ignoring the CPU, what would be a good step up from my current card?

 

[Indolentron]

Guess I'll post here rather than making my own thread. I currently have:

Q6600 2.4ghz
4gb DDR2
8800GTS 640mb

I game at 1920x1200 and would like to play Skyrim and the new Deus Ex over winter break. For a while, I was thinking about upgrading (maybe 6950) for this occasion. But I've since heard that, on account of being simultaneously developed for consoles, neither of those games are actually such big graphical hogs. Would I really notice a big difference, or is my 8800gts actually sufficient for ~high settings?

 

[cannondale06]

Guess I'll post here rather than making my own thread. I currently have:

Q6600 2.4ghz
4gb DDR2
8800GTS 640mb

I game at 1920x1200 and would like to play Skyrim and the new Deus Ex over winter break. For a while, I was thinking about upgrading (maybe 6950) for this occasion. But I've since heard that, on account of being simultaneously developed for consoles, neither of those games are actually such big graphical hogs. Would I really notice a big difference, or is my 8800gts actually sufficient for ~high settings?

I cant imagine being able to play hardly any newer games on high settings at 1920x1200 with just an 8800gts 640mb. so yes your gpu is pretty slow for modern games and a gpu upgrade will help tremendously. you badly need to oc that cpu though as it will really hurt you especially at settings a higher end card could otherwise handle. Skyrim for example only effectively uses 2 cores so at just 2.4 your cpu would not do all that well for that game on higher settings.

 

[MrWizard6600]

I disagree with Canondale, even though it will be the general piece of advice.

One more question on the specs of your computer: whats the power supply make and model?

Also worth noting: I've never set up an XBMC machine before, so I have no idea what kind of restrictions that places on you.

I ran my HD6950 off an E6300 for a while. I was primarily playing Bad Company 2 when I made this upgrade, and there was a considerable performance bump in going from a 9800GTX+ to an HD6950, even on my old Conroe E6300.

When I got my 2 extra monitors (which was the primary purpose of such an upgrade), playing BF:BC2 at 5040x1050 on my E6300 + HD6950 really was alot like playing at 1680X1050 on my E6300 + 9800GTX+ from a framerate and imaqe quality standpoint (granted, I have a whole lot more image now).

That said, you're not on Conroe, you're on Toledo, and if memory serves at this point that chip is over 6 years old. Further the G84 (8600 line) was not a particularly nice chip, it only had 32 SP's, but it was able to get away with it since they were clocked relatively high.

I think you'd be best served by an HD 6850 or a 560TI. Beyond a Barts or a G114 (the chips in the 6800's and ~560 respectively), you'd be hitting the wall of diminishing returns really hard, and those chips represent a really good value right now.

And one final thing worth noting: there are rumblings of new chips from both Nvidia and AMD, which are probably Q2 or Q3 2012, in addition to Ivy Bridge which will be Q2 or Q3 2012. As, with rare exception, the longer you wait the better and hobbling a brand new GPU with an old CPU is never a good idea.

 

[cannondale06]

and what are you disagreeing with? its a fact that with good gpu, a great deal of the performance would be wasted with a slower cpu. its a fact that the OP's cpu will barely meet minimum requirements to play most newer games and it will not be a very nice experience in many of them.

and if you are talking about the old E6300 Core 2 duo then you are full of poop. I doubt you saw any difference between 9800gtx and a 6950 with a stock 1.86 E6300 unless you were trying to run insane settings that the 9800gtx was struggling with just as much as your cpu. an old 1.86 E6300 cannot even maintain more than 30-35 fps in single player BC 2 so I cant imagine it in multi player. I did plenty of testing with my E8500 lowered to 1.8, which is still 15-20% faster than the 1.86 E6300, and it was not very playable in many spots even in single player.

 

[Indolentron]

I cant imagine being able to play hardly any newer games on high settings at 1920x1200 with just an 8800gts 640mb. so yes your gpu is pretty slow for modern games and a gpu upgrade will help tremendously. you badly need to oc that cpu though as it will really hurt you especially at settings a higher end card could otherwise handle. Skyrim for example only effectively uses 2 cores so at just 2.4 your cpu would not do all that well for that game on higher settings.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure just how OC-able my CPU is though. It has a Thermaltake XP-120 on it but even at stock, if I run BOINC full blast it gets well into the upper 60s celsius. Maybe I'll just hold off on any sort of upgrade til I'm ready to do it right.

 

[NoOther]

and what are you disagreeing with? its a fact that with good gpu, a great deal of the performance would be wasted with a slower cpu. its a fact that the OP's cpu will barely meet minimum requirements to play most newer games and it will not be a very nice experience in many of them.

It all depends on the games being played and how much CPU the games actually use. Some games don't use that much CPU, other games use a lot of CPU. Some games are dependent only on 1 core, some use multi-core. However, pretty much all games use GPUs intensely. So to say you will get no benefit going from a 9800GTX to a 6950 is a little bit ridiculous.

And as far as the Q6600, I have seen plenty of people still using that processor and still get much better benefits from newer cards than OCing or getting a new CPU. But being that it is a pretty good chip for OCing, there is no reason not to OC it.

 

[NoOther]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure just how OC-able my CPU is though. It has a Thermaltake XP-120 on it but even at stock, if I run BOINC full blast it gets well into the upper 60s celsius. Maybe I'll just hold off on any sort of upgrade til I'm ready to do it right.

Upper 60s is not bad at all. I wouldn't worry too much until you see it get up into the 80s. As for Skyrim, your CPU matches its optimum settings, while your GPU is below its optimum settings. You should consider getting a mid range card like a 6870 or a 6850. They are between $100-200. If you want a $100 card maybe a 6770.

 

[NoOther]

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.10 GHz
6 GB of ram
geforce 8600 GTS
Windows 7 Professional 64 bit

I think you should really consider upgrading the cpu and gpu. Are there games now you are having problems playing? What resolution do you normally game at? Also as far as linux, I think both cards are represented fairly well in Linux, but probably going to get better support and driver updates from Nvidia. Personally I haven't had too many problems with AMD cards though with my linux machines. If you want an upgrade just for the GPU for that system for under $100 you could try to get an Nvidia 450GTS.

 

[cannondale06]

It all depends on the games being played and how much CPU the games actually use. Some games don't use that much CPU, other games use a lot of CPU. Some games are dependent only on 1 core, some use multi-core. However, pretty much all games use GPUs intensely. So to say you will get no benefit going from a 9800GTX to a 6950 is a little bit ridiculous.

And as far as the Q6600, I have seen plenty of people still using that processor and still get much better benefits from newer cards than OCing or getting a new CPU. But being that it is a pretty good chip for OCing, there is no reason not to OC it.

please read more carefully. I am calling BS on his claim that he saw a difference a 9800gtx and 6950 in BC 2 while using a 1.86 E6300. in fact I know that is a flat out wrong because of all the cpu testing I did in that game.

next he is referring to the OP at some points and then the guy with the Q6600 at other points. the guy with the Q6600 simply needs to oc his cpu a bit. the OP really has no ocing room with his old A64 X2 and that cpu will be a bit sluggish in many newer games no matter gpu he gets.

 

[cannondale06]

Upper 60s is not bad at all. I wouldn't worry too much until you see it get up into the 80s.

um 60s is pretty hot for stock Q6600 using an aftermarket cooler. and 80s would be hot as hell for that cpu. if that is a B3 stepping than 80s would be an insane temp for that cpu to handle.

 

[NoOther]

please read more carefully. I am calling BS on his claim that he saw a difference a 9800gtx and 6950 in BC 2 while using a 1.86 E6300. in fact I know that is a flat out wrong because of all the cpu testing I did in that game.

...

um 60s is pretty hot for stock Q6600 using an aftermarket cooler. and 80s would be hot as hell for that cpu. if that is a B3 stepping than 80s would be an insane temp for that cpu to handle.

First off, please stop with the constant attitude. You demand people give you specs then you question everyone's judgement and experience, and you give information that is not wholly correct. Look, everyone here is just trying to help, so be a little bit more concious of that. Also, just because games get bottlenecked by CPUs does not mean they gain "no" advantage from a better GPU. What it means is that you aren't going to get the full advantage you normally would. The GPU might also be bottlenecked, which in the case of BF:BC2 at 1920x1200 I am sure the 9800GTX+ is getting bottlenecked. So would he see an improvement going to a 6950? Most certainly. Would he still be hampered by his processor, almost certainly. But it does not mean he will not get any performance increase.

Depends on what you are referring to. The Max Tcase acceptable is 71C, but the maximum safe Tjunction (used by Core Temp) is 100C.

So if he is using CoreTemp to monitor, and it is only 60C under load, then he is fine and still has room to OC.

 

[Indolentron]

So would he see an improvement going to a 6950? Most certainly. Would he still be hampered by his processor, almost certainly. But it does not mean he will not get any performance increase.

Depends on what you are referring to. The Max Tcase acceptable is 71C, but the maximum safe Tjunction (used by Core Temp) is 100C.

So if he is using CoreTemp to monitor, and it is only 60C under load, then he is fine and still has room to OC.

I am using Core Temp and didn't realize how much room I had left. I seem to remember some problems with OCing before, which surprised me since it's the G0 stepping Q6600, but it has been so long that I don't remember what they were. Maybe it could have had something to do with RAM voltage etc. Perhaps I'll get a 6950 and try OCing again. Or maybe I'll just wait til summer and get a 79xx in a whole new system.

Thanks for the info.

 

[MrWizard6600]

and what are you disagreeing with? its a fact that with good gpu, a great deal of the performance would be wasted with a slower cpu. its a fact that the OP's cpu will barely meet minimum requirements to play most newer games and it will not be a very nice experience in many of them.

and if you are talking about the old E6300 Core 2 duo then you are full of poop. I doubt you saw any difference between 9800gtx and a 6950 with a stock 1.86 E6300 unless you were trying to run insane settings that the 9800gtx was struggling with just as much as your cpu. an old 1.86 E6300 cannot even maintain more than 30-35 fps in single player BC 2 so I cant imagine it in multi player. I did plenty of testing with my E8500 lowered to 1.8, which is still 15-20% faster than the 1.86 E6300, and it was not very playable in many spots even in single player.

Firstly, If your going to call someone names, do it properly. I'd be mildly offended if you called me "full of shit", but calling me full of poop just has me wondering if your autistic.

I am referring to "the old E6300" (the chip's name is Conroe, the later E6300 was based on the 45nm Wolfdale --you'll find code names thrown around alot on these boards because more often then not the marketing term is irrelevant where the code names tend to stick to actual silicon, so its worth learning them: The old E6300 is a 2MB L2 Conroe, the new one is a 2MB L2 Wolfdale, the FX60 is the highest-end Toledo). My chip was running at all sorts of speeds, including the stock 1.86GHz at some times and as high as 3.6GHz (on 680i, which, alas, blew up after 8 months), though I believe for most of the time that I was playing BF:BC2 I was running around 2.8GHz. I was also playing around with the settings a fair bit as well. And what I can say is, particularly with post-FX off, there was a significant gain in switching to the HD 6950. I was able to increase a number of settings (as I mentioned, tripling the resolution), with a minimal performance impact.

I dont like the concept of bottlenecking because it hugely trivializes the problem to the point where it doesn't give an earnest representation of the problems. When you quadruple the mini-map texture resolution (as is often the case when going from a "medium" to a "high" on a texture settings slider), what increased CPU workload does this create? Short of some really shotty practices, in openGL and I'd imagine every other graphics language, any use of a texture is done through references (pointers), meaning, regardless of the actual density (memory foot-print) of the texture, it will consume the same number of CPU cycles. The function code written to give the order "Texture X goes on characters Y's face" remains the same --this is infact why texture Packs are so pervasive, because you don't need to recompile to substitute in new textures.

So if we try to imagine a computer as being a river, with one component (the problem component) being the bottleneck, we get really poor representation of that system. In this analogy the water in the river would be processes and the throughput of water would be performance, except the problem is different processes have different requirements on any one system, meaning to one program a Toledo with eight GF-110's (8x GTX 580's) running some CUDA-based monstrosity might be well balanced, while to some applications (most applications) the vast majority of that GPU power is inaccessible because we're waiting the CPU cycles to finish.

The argument to this would be "we'll lets just say 'in general to most games, what's the bottleneck'", but, again, I think this trivializes the problem in that games are hugely different. Something like Civilization V drops a massive path finding workload on the CPU every time you hit "next turn", while between turns there's a relatively small GPU workload. So what's a better computer given a user who wants to play hundreds of hours of Civ V? A 16GB system with a SandyBridge (2600k) CPU at 5.0GHz, and Intel's integrated graphics (meaning you're going to get an "average" FPS in the 20's, but the wait when you click "next turn" will be very short), or an older dual-core CPU running at a slow speed with GTX 590?

So, to both the guy with the Q6600 (Kentsfield --aka 2 Conroe's stitched to the same FSB) and to the guy with the FX 60, I think a GTX 560 or HD 6850 is a good buy: both represent good values. For non-gaming, the modern ATI cards have the ability to run three monitors off a single graphics card, and that has been a huge boost for my productivity. If you're into 3D the GTX 560 comes with the ability to play games in 3D (and unfortunately this is an either-or, short of buying two Nvidia cards there's no way to get both). Further, to the OP, I believe both support HDMI out.

 

[cannondale06]

the OP's 6000 X2 (not FX60 if that even matters) will not even deliver a very playable framerate in many newer games and even in those that it does, a gtx560 would have close to half its potential wasted in some cases. the guy with the Q6600 would fare much much better. still even for him, his cpu would be a fairly large bottleneck on average for a gtx560. also that stock Q6600 would hurt him pretty badly in games that need raw cpu power not just more cores. Skyrim is an example of that and he would be quite limited in a game like that until he overclocked.

 

[NoOther]

the OP's 6000 X2 (not FX60 if that even matters) will not even deliver a very playable framerate in many newer games and even in those that it does, a gtx560 would have close to half its potential wasted in some cases. the guy with the Q6600 would fare much much better. still even for him, his cpu would be a fairly large bottleneck on average for a gtx560. also that stock Q6600 would hurt him pretty badly in games that need raw cpu power not just more cores. Skyrim is an example of that and he would be quite limited in a game like that until he overclocked.

And yet even "if", and that is a very strong "if", the Q6600 holds him back in Skyrim, the graphics card upgrade should still give a very noticeable improvement. And the same with the OP. The CPU bottleneck is only "1" part of the equation, not the "whole" equation. While it may limit the full potential of the card, it does not keep it from adding value and better overall performance. Why force the posters to spend ~$500 for MB/CPU/GPU, if they can spend ~150 and still get improved performance? They can do small steps at a time and still get some added value. Probably both of them 'want' to upgrade their CPUs, doesn't mean they have the money to do it.

 

[Tudz]

I think you'll both benefit from a GPU upgrade. Sure, you will be bottlenecking it, but it'll still be far better than what you have now. I bought a Crucial M4 128gb for my netbook... its being bottlenecked to the shit, I know, I've benchmarked it But who cares, its still massively faster than the original drive and was well worth the swap out, and that's gonna be the case here as well. You could try and fine tune your upgrade and only upgrade to a card that isn't overly bottlenecked, or just buy what you have the budget to get and be happy.

The dude with the Q6600... my friend had a similar system with a 320mb version of that card and upgraded to a 4870 giving a pretty big jump in performance, and a 4870 is similar in performance to a GTX460, and that was with no OC on the CPU. I'm sure you could go even higher than a GTX460 and still see performance gains.

 

[cannondale06]

And yet even "if", and that is a very strong "if", the Q6600 holds him back in Skyrim, the graphics card upgrade should still give a very noticeable improvement. And the same with the OP. The CPU bottleneck is only "1" part of the equation, not the "whole" equation. While it may limit the full potential of the card, it does not keep it from adding value and better overall performance. Why force the posters to spend ~$500 for MB/CPU/GPU, if they can spend ~150 and still get improved performance? They can do small steps at a time and still get some added value. Probably both of them 'want' to upgrade their CPUs, doesn't mean they have the money to do it.

the Q6600 owner is coming from an 8600gts so of course he will see massive difference. all I am saying is that he will need to oc his cpu to get the best use out of a higher end gpu upgrade. AGAIN for a few games though it will be a NOTICEABLE limitation.

as for the OP, you are crazy to think his cpu is adequate enough for most newer games. AGAIN it barley meets the minimum requirements to even play many newer games. sure he will get an increase over his current gpu but a card like a gtx560 is a huge waste if he has no intentions of upgrading his cpu anytime soon.

 

[Tudz]

the Q6600 owner is coming from an 8600gts so of course he will see massive difference. all I am saying is that he will need to oc his cpu to get the best use out of a higher end gpu upgrade. AGAIN for a few games though it will be a NOTICEABLE limitation.

No, he's coming from an 8800GTS 640mb. But its still a worthy upgrade IMO.

as for the OP, you are crazy to think his cpu is adequate enough for most newer games. AGAIN it barley meets the minimum requirements to even play many newer games. sure he will get an increase over his current gpu but a card like a gtx560 is a huge waste if he has no intentions of upgrading his cpu anytime soon.

I was looking at a benchmark chart and it put the 6000+ just above a stock clocked E6600. I was running up until BFBC2 on a stock clocked E6600, using just an 8800GTS 320mb, and it still ran playable. He's got an 8600GTS now... I think its a worthwhile upgrade to get something newer, maybe not a GTX560... but that's well out of his $100 budget anyway! I could be wrong, but I reckon Skyrim and Batman would play fine on his system with maybe a GTX460 or GTX550, which he might be able to get in that price range. Not at massively high settings, but maybe low to medium settings, there are people on other forums saying they are doing similar.

 

[erehwon6811]

Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll start saving for a new CPU and video card. I want to play Skyrim, but I'll just put that off till I can do some upgrades. I want to wait and see what the modding community comes out with anyways. That, and I need to play Oblivion and all the other stuff in my backlog.

 

[cannondale06]

Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll start saving for a new CPU and video card. I want to play Skyrim, but I'll just put that off till I can do some upgrades. I want to wait and see what the modding community comes out with anyways. That, and I need to play Oblivion and all the other stuff in my backlog.

well any gpu will be upgrade over what you have now. there is not much point in getting something that can play higher settings though as your cpu will not be letting that happen anyway.

here you can see Skyrim on max settings with various cpus. the slowest cpu on here which is averaging just 36 fps would still be at least 15% faster than your cpu. http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

 

[Tudz]

Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll start saving for a new CPU and video card. I want to play Skyrim, but I'll just put that off till I can do some upgrades. I want to wait and see what the modding community comes out with anyways. That, and I need to play Oblivion and all the other stuff in my backlog.

Don't let cannondale worry you, just try and snag a GTX 460 or 550, it'll be a huge upgrade from the 8600GTS even in the games you're currently playing. Cannon is talking about the hypothetical situation where you buy a card beyond your budget. You might still struggle to play certain CPU intensive games, but I reckon you'll be able to play most of them ok. Especially since your playing on TV, it probably won't kill you to lower a couple of settings.

well any gpu will be upgrade over what you have now. there is not much point in getting something that can play higher settings though as your cpu will not be letting that happen anyway.

here you can see Skyrim on max settings with various cpus. the slowest cpu on here which is averaging just 36 fps would still be at least 15% faster than your cpu. http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

Yeah, so it should be fine, just don't play at max settings. It'll still look vastly better than it would on console

 

[cannondale06]

Don't let cannondale worry you, just try and snag a GTX 460 or 550, it'll be a huge upgrade from the 8800GTS even in the games you're currently playing. Cannon is talking about the hypothetical situation where you buy a card beyond your budget. You might still struggle to play certain CPU intensive games, but I reckon you'll be able to play most of them ok. Especially since your playing on TV, it probably won't kill you to lower a couple of settings.Yeah, so it should be fine, just don't play at max settings. It'll still look vastly better than it would on console

he has an 8600gts not an 8800gts. the Q6600 owner is the one with the 8800gts. I got them confused earlier too.

 

[Tudz]

he has an 8600gts not an 8800gts. the Q6600 owner is the one with the 8800gts. I got them confused earlier too.

My bad, was typing it on my phone, I meant to say 8600GTS

In addition to what I said above, if you reckon you can wait and save for a better PC, do that. But if you can't afford that even if you wait longer, I'd still just upgrade the GPU and be happy with it, and maybe keep an eye on the FS/FT forum and look for some possible CPU/mobo upgrades.

 

[krazyatom]

@OP

I would recommend used ati 5770. You can find one for $60-$70 used and they should perform pretty well with your sig.