Optimal GFX card?

[Space_Coyote]

I'm really overdue for a total system upgrade on my gaming PC, but we don't really have the spare cash for that. What's a nice upgrade for the 460 that:

1. Won't bottleneck too bad on the Q9550
2. Can be run safely on my PSU (in sig)?

Edit: Oh yeah, maybe around $200?

 

[shiningarmor]

7870 with sleeping dogs best deal around that price. If your board is PCI-e 1.x there will be a slight bottleneck.

Check this out:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161404

Make sure it will fit in your case, and it may need additional supports. Despite its excellent cooling I cannot vouch for overclocking, as it seems HiS does not bin their cards yet in the States, and 7870 overclocking is more hit and miss than with some other cards

Also, if you are playing Battlefield 3 there will remain some CPU bottlenecking in multiplayer

 

[Koween]

I doubt that a stock q9550 isn't already bottlenecking your gtx460 in some games.

 

[Space_Coyote]

I doubt that a stock q9550 isn't already bottlenecking your gtx460 in some games.

Sorry, it took me a couple of reads to figure out the double negative So, how much performance increase would I be looking at if I went with something like an i5 and a modern board, instead of the GPU?

 

[Quartz-1]

How about one of the cheaper Geforce 660 ti cards?

 

[whitewater]

Sorry, it took me a couple of reads to figure out the double negative So, how much performance increase would I be looking at if I went with something like an i5 and a modern board, instead of the GPU?

Generally speaking assuming you actually want to play you games at a reasonable resolution at a decent quality.

In 95% of current games....you would gain, very little, if anything.

In 4% of current games, maybe 10% better FPS

In 1% of current games (64 player BF3 multiplayer being the only game I know of that having a better CPU will make this sort of difference in), maybe 20-30% better FPS

However it is worth noting, that you wont be able to improve graphics settings much if at all if you take the CPU route.

Taking the GPU route... you're talking about 100%+ increase in FPS in most games or higher graphics settings

 

[Koween]

Generally speaking assuming you actually want to play you games at a reasonable resolution at a decent quality.

In 95% of current games....you would gain, very little, if anything.

In 4% of current games, maybe 10% better FPS

In 1% of current games (64 player BF3 multiplayer being the only game I know of that having a better CPU will make this sort of difference in), maybe 20-30% better FPS

However it is worth noting, that you wont be able to improve graphics settings much if at all if you take the CPU route.

Taking the GPU route... you're talking about 100%+ increase in FPS in most games or higher graphics settings

Well, it does depend on what games he's playing, but even I find most games playable on high settings @ 1920x1200 at good FPS (40-60 and above).
I had a q6600 OCd to 3.4GHz before, with this same card. I'd used to get quite poor FPS in many multiplayer games, mostly BF3, WoW. When I changed to an Ivy I5 I see very reasonable FPS in many different games. What I used to get is very low FPS in some places, sometimes dipping below 30.
IMO A GTX460 and a core 2 quad is pretty much a balanced system. A GTX660Ti would probably be overkill in most situations.

 

[Quartz-1]

IMO A GTX460 and a core 2 quad is pretty much a balanced system. A GTX660Ti would probably be overkill in most situations.

I have a C2D @2.67 GHz and I've just bought a Geforce 660Ti, and have seen a significant improvement over my previous Radeon HD 6850. In BL2 I was able to max the settings apart from AA. In C&C3 I was able to completely max the settings. Beyond that, the OP will see an improvement simply from having more VRAM - max settings in C&C3 uses ~900 MB @1080p. And then there's the reduction in noise and running costs.

 

[cannondale06]

I have a C2D @2.67 GHz and I've just bought a Geforce 660Ti, and have seen a significant improvement over my previous Radeon HD 6850. In BL2 I was able to max the settings apart from AA. In C&C3 I was able to completely max the settings. Beyond that, the OP will see an improvement simply from having more VRAM - max settings in C&C3 uses ~900 MB @1080p. And then there's the reduction in noise and running costs.

a 2.67 Core duo is not even going to let a gtx660 ti do even half of what its cpabale of in most games. it was beyond silly to buy a $300 gpu with such an outdated and slow cpu. you were already really holding back that 6850 in general regardles of what you claim or think.

and even a 6850 can easly max BL 2 with physx on low. not to mention there are no AA options other than FXAA so your comment about that game made no sesne. then again buying a gtx660 ti for your system made no sense either though.

 

[Quartz-1]

a 2.67 Core duo is not even going to let a gtx660 ti do even half of what its cpabale of in most games. it was beyond silly to buy a $300 gpu with such an outdated and slow cpu. you were already really holding back that 6850 regardles of what you claim or think.

I intend moving it to a more powerful system when funds become available. And your observation does not match my experience.

 

[cannondale06]

I intend moving it to a more powerful system when funds become available. And your observation does not match my experience.

if its going to be several months then you should have just waited as prices will go down on gpus. and my observation is based on having a much faster Core 2 duo than yours and then testing it at various speeds with various cards. not to mention that simply looking at benchmarks would show that you will not even get half of what a gtx660ti is capabale of in most cases.

 

[Medion]

I currently have a Q6600 (at stock), and a GTX 560. The GPU is massively bottle necked by the CPU. Granted, I run stock 2.4ghz. However, I've gone to 3.2 and I'm still significantly bottle necked. I don't think you'll see much of a performance gain in most cases except in resolution (if you go with a higher-res monitor) and AA levels. Your 460 is likely ideal if not already bottlenecked by your current CPU.

It depends on when you want to upgrade and your budget. For me, I've saved up and will be going Haswell + mobo + ram + psu +(maybe) SSD. I'll hold off on the GPU until the next summer (GTX 800 series or HD9k series).

 

[Red Falcon]

I have a C2D @2.67 GHz and I've just bought a Geforce 660Ti, and have seen a significant improvement over my previous Radeon HD 6850. In BL2 I was able to max the settings apart from AA. In C&C3 I was able to completely max the settings. Beyond that, the OP will see an improvement simply from having more VRAM - max settings in C&C3 uses ~900 MB @1080p. And then there's the reduction in noise and running costs.

lulz, and I bet you are getting 20fps if you're luck with such a slow ass CPU.
Sorry to break it to you, but that processor was already heavily bottlenecking your 6850, let alone a 660Ti.

You might want to start OCing that CPU to at least 3.5GHz, just doing that alone would have improved your fps significantly with your old GPU.

 

[Red Falcon]

I intend moving it to a more powerful system when funds become available. And your observation does not match my experience.

Run FRAPS during gameplay and show us some screenshots of what your fps are.
I doubt you could even hit 25fps with such a slow/old processor.

 

[whitewater]

The reality is that a quad core CPU at 3Ghz is more than capable of running the CPU simulation side of things easily at 60Hz or more in basically every game. If you want to run at a higher FPS than that sure, you might have problems.

Of course the other reality is that there are actually a lot of ticks in lots of threads with different update rates all running simultaneously in a modern game, the render speed is inherently being limited by the GPU because there CPU rendering thread(s) isn't doing much else! This is also a big reason why just "quad core" is stated as the recommended CPU for a lot of games - balancing lots of ticks on 2 cores doesn't work that well.

A challenge to CPU upgrade fans. Find 3 games in a CPU review in which an "old" Quad core CPU @ 3Ghz fails to hit 60 FPS @ 1920x1080 @ High settings and a much "better" sandy/ivy bridge beats it by more than 5%.

 

[Quartz-1]

Run FRAPS during gameplay and show us some screenshots of what your fps are.
I doubt you could even hit 25fps with such a slow/old processor.

30-40 fps running around inside Sanctuary, actually. Not much more if I turn the quality down. No tweaks. Didn't have time for a more extended test.

 

[BranNutz]

GTX 670 is the best bang for buck, at the current price point.

 

[cannondale06]

30-40 fps running around inside Sanctuary, actually. Not much more if I turn the quality down. No tweaks. Didn't have time for a more extended test.

30-40 fps just running around Sanctuary which is not demanding at all? my gpu is half as fast as yours and I can get way better performance. that pretty much backs up what I said about your gtx660ti not even being able to produce half of what its capable of with your cpu. and again you were already limiting that 6850 by quite a bit in many games including BL 2.

 

[Space_Coyote]

Well now I don't know what to think, since there seems to be arguments for going either route. I guess I could try and revisit overclocking the CPU to squeeze a little more out of it, and keep an eye for a deal on a 7870/7850. I see that HSI 7870 linked above is back in stock, but I've read too many horror stories about them, and I need more than a 1-year warranty.

 

[cannondale06]

Well now I don't know what to think, since there seems to be arguments for going either route. I guess I could try and revisit overclocking the CPU to squeeze a little more out of it, and keep an eye for a deal on a 7870/7850. I see that HSI 7870 linked above is back in stock, but I've read too many horror stories about them, and I need more than a 1-year warranty.

your cpu is not all that bad and 3.4 is on okay oc as going much higher will probably start needing more voltage and using way more power. the person I had been discussing things with only has 2 cores that are clocked much lower and even slower clock for clock as I assume he has an older Core 2 duo. overall a 7870 would be a really good choice for your situation though.

 

[rastaban]

Why are people even suggesting the 660Ti? it is obviously out of the OP's stated target price.

A challenge to CPU upgrade fans. Find 3 games in a CPU review in which an "old" Quad core CPU @ 3Ghz fails to hit 60 FPS @ 1920x1080 @ High settings and a much "better" sandy/ivy bridge beats it by more than 5%.

This doesn't make much sense considering benchmark reviews are conducted with games of their relative time period. The only game that continues to be benchmarked since the Core 2 Quad generation is Crysis.

Here is a 2 generation old, well respected HD5850 running Crysis at 1080p with a Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUm4z4WRLBo ...doesn't look like 60fps to me.


btw, for the OP to consider:
There is someone on the buy/sell thread trying to sell a XFX 7870 Black Edition for $200ish. Considering I got my XFX 7850 BE for $250, I say go for it.

 

[Quartz-1]

30-40 fps just running around Sanctuary which is not demanding at all?

Well, actually, it appears it is demanding - likely because of the PhysX - because I went outside Sanctuary, fought the nomads just outside, went and killed some bullymongs, and fought against some more nomads in the station near the crossroads where I died against the badass nomad and the nomad with the shield. Performance was 30+ fps with dips into the high 20s. Remember that I have AA turned off.

 

[whitewater]

Why are people even suggesting the 660Ti? it is obviously out of the OP's stated target price.



This doesn't make much sense considering benchmark reviews are conducted with games of their relative time period. The only game that continues to be benchmarked since the Core 2 Quad generation is Crysis.

Here is a 2 generation old, well respected HD5850 running Crysis at 1080p with a Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUm4z4WRLBo ...doesn't look like 60fps to me.


btw, for the OP to consider:
There is someone on the buy/sell thread trying to sell a XFX 7870 Black Edition for $200ish. Considering I got my XFX 7850 BE for $250, I say go for it.

It is difficult to find said reviews, but older games are ironically the most likely to bottleneck the CPU because GPUs are more than 10x better than 5 years ago and CPUs really arn't - you can reach 100s of FPS on the GPU in said games, and the CPU can't always process at such high FPS. New games the bottleneck is always on the GPU first (try running BF3 on Highest settings with a 3yr old high end GPU + High end CPU vs 3 Yr old High end CPU + High end GPU).

Crysis is a GPU killer though, even now - a 5850 isn't capable of running Crysis at 60 FPS + you'd need to prove that a better CPU on the same system/settings would do much better with a range of CPUs. which is tough.

Here's a classic game - AvP at 1080P/decent settings not reaching 60 fps, so we think we're onto a winner, but it's the difference between 46 and 48 FPS between the highest and lowest rated CPU <5%
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_corei7_3770k/9.htm

In Civ V it's between 66 and 76 FPS a 15% difference! but you're already above 60 so....who really cares, esp. in a turn based game!
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_corei7_3770k/10.htm

Then Bad Company BC2 a 10% difference between the lowest and highest CPU - 85 and 93, but again we're already above 60 anyway...
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_corei7_3770k/11.htm

Reviews of CPUs also try to use the most intense/worst case games to test a system on, and yet best case difference they can get on said reasonable settings, - a 15% difference between best and worst, almost sounds impressive!

....but it's not that simple as the above review was for the high end "3770k" the said cpu scored lowest, around middle and around highest in the bar charts at those settings...so it was actually completely average compared to all the other CPUs it was reviewed against...and yet it was given a "Gold" award with no cons at all.

 

[defaultluser]

I'm really overdue for a total system upgrade on my gaming PC, but we don't really have the spare cash for that. What's a nice upgrade for the 460 that:

1. Won't bottleneck too bad on the Q9550
2. Can be run safely on my PSU (in sig)?

Edit: Oh yeah, maybe around $200?

BE CAREFUL about your GPU choice pertaining to your PSU.

Johnny Guru says that PSU is only rated for 360w on the 12v rail:

http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story&reid=16

And your heavily-overclocked quad core + motherboard + drives is probably already consuming around 150-200 watts at load, so use care how much more load your GPU adds to the system.

I would keep your choices to the 660 Ti or below, as those cards use only slightly more power than the GTX 460 you already have:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_660_Ti_Direct_Cu_II/26.html

Try to keep your 12v power consumption to 325w or less (no need to stress older PSUs), or bite the bullet and get a modern PSU replacement:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371030