570 as a replacement for 9800GX2 on Core2d?

[tweakboy]

I agree with everything HM said. I would wait it out for the 560 . Also yes the cool part is once you upgrade your CPU ; perhaps your mobo supports c2quads. If so expect huge gains. Crysis or Metro 2033 push up to 70 percent of a c2q processor. Soo you have 30 percent free to render in the background. heee

Matter of fact there is no game out yet that pushes a c2q to 100 percent full usage.

 

[cadred]

I agree with everything HM said. I would wait it out for the 560 . Also yes the cool part is once you upgrade your CPU ; perhaps your mobo supports c2quads. If so expect huge gains. Crysis or Metro 2033 push up to 70 percent of a c2q processor. Soo you have 30 percent free to render in the background. heee

Matter of fact there is no game out yet that pushes a c2q to 100 percent full usage.

I don't know if it's worth upgrading to a c2q, they aren't much cheaper than mid-range core i7. I would still need a mobo & ram, maybe psu, but not counting the video card, it doesn't seem like a good upgrade.

 

[happy medium]

I don't know if it's worth upgrading to a c2q, they aren't much cheaper than mid-range core i7. I would still need a mobo & ram, maybe psu, but not counting the video card, it doesn't seem like a good upgrade.

give us your full system specs.

motherboard, ram, psu and do you overclock?

 

[bryanW1995]

My monitors cap out at 1680x1050. To give an idea of what I'm seeing now, basically New Vegas and Dirt 2 (dx10) generally play fine with fairly high settings. Civ 5 gets pretty chunky and slow after a while as the world gets more complex, but is playable enough in DX10.

Crysis is not really playable in DX10, mostly sub 30 fps. Metro 2033 is sub 10 fps in DX10/11, I have to play it on DX9/medium to get an even meh framerate.

GTA IV looks and plays poorly, but I hear that's just how it is. But I can't even turn the textures up past medium because it can only see 512mb of vram.

civ V is chunky as you have more things going on. there are some serious memory leakage issues, the new patch that is coming out soon is supposed to address that. on larger maps you're going to be cpu bound regardless of what you do on a gpu, in fact a gtx 460 -768 is allegedly the 2nd fastest card in civ V. also, it gets FASTER at higher res than 1680x1050. very annoying to me since like you I also game at 1680x1050.

 

[cadred]

give us your full system specs.

motherboard, ram, psu and do you overclock?

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
Xgimatech Dark Knight
GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R
CORSAIR 650W PSU
OCZ Reaper HPC 4GB (2 x 2GB)
Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB
Geforce 9800gx2

No overclocking, I've not had the best luck with it.

 

[Will Robinson]

With that mainboard an E8500 will easily overclock to 3.3GHz on air with no voltage increase.
Where are you having problems?

 

[AtenRa]

In 1680x1050 with filters on (4xAA, 16xAF) in DX-11 games the GTX570 will be better than GTX560 even if you keep the Intel Core 2 Duo 8500.

Remember that DX-11 Games (Tessellation) with filters ON need more GPU performance than multi CPU Cores. Also if you plan on a later CPU/mobo upgrade, the GTX570 will get even better.

If you planning on playing more DX-11 Games, then I would go with GTX570 as its faster in Tessellation. I believe even in Crysis at 1680x1050 Filters ON, C2D 8500 will not be a bottleneck.

 

[toyota]

In 1680x1050 with filters on (4xAA, 16xAF) in DX-11 games the GTX570 will be better than GTX560 even if you keep the Intel Core 2 Duo 8500.

Remember that DX-11 Games (Tessellation) with filters ON need more GPU performance than multi CPU Cores. Also if you plan on a later CPU/mobo upgrade, the GTX570 will get even better.

If you planning on playing more DX-11 Games, then I would go with GTX570 as its faster in Tessellation. I believe even in Crysis at 1680x1050 Filters ON, C2D 8500 will not be a bottleneck.

IMO its not worth paying $180 more for the gtx570 over a gtx460 at 1680 with a core 2 duo. really paying that extra amount of money just to increase AA in a game is silly. if he was that concerned about seeing a more crisp image with less aliasing then getting a 1920 monitor would be more of a priority. he has no concrete plans of upgrading so by the time he gets a new cpu we have a card as fast as the gtx570 for half the price.

 

[edplayer]

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
Xgimatech Dark Knight
GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R
CORSAIR 650W PSU
OCZ Reaper HPC 4GB (2 x 2GB)
Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB
Geforce 9800gx2

No overclocking, I've not had the best luck with it.

that is a good motherboard and can support Core 2 Quads (even the 45nm versions).

You can find used Q9550 for about $180. You could probably get $100 or so for your E8500. You have a good PSU so no need to upgrade that. I'd buy a 1GB 460 in your situation and I've seen those get down to $160. They will likely drop a little more as there is a replacement coming out sometime soon.

So a new 1GB GTX 460 and a used Q9550 should be around $250 or so if you sell your E8500. Less if you sell your 9800GX2

 

[AtenRa]

IMO its not worth paying $180 more for the gtx570 over a gtx460 at 1680 with a core 2 duo. really paying that extra amount of money just to increase AA in a game is silly. if he was that concerned about seeing a more crisp image with less aliasing then getting a 1920 monitor would be more of a priority. he has no concrete plans of upgrading so by the time he gets a new cpu we have a card as fast as the gtx570 for half the price.

1680x1050 with 4xAA & 16xAF will be better than 1920x1080 no AA/AF.

Dual core CPUs are ok for shooters with high Quality settings and filters ON, you only need more than 2 cores in a few games as of now and in DX-11 with Tessellation enable, the VGA is the bottleneck and not the CPU.

If he can afford it, then why not take the GTX570 to be better in DX-11 games ? after all, most new games will be DX-11 from now on.

 

[toyota]

1680x1050 with 4xAA & 16xAF will be better than 1920x1080 no AA/AF.

Dual core CPUs are ok for shooters with high Quality settings and filters ON, you only need more than 2 cores in a few games as of now and in DX-11 with Tessellation enable, the VGA is the bottleneck and not the CPU.

If he can afford it, then why not take the GTX570 to be better in DX-11 games ? after all, most new games will be DX-11 from now on.

any modern gpu can handle 16x AF with no hit and at 1680 he can still run AA in most games with a gtx460. I cant think of a game that isn't playable at 1680 on highest settings and usually with AA on my gtx260. and an overclocked gtx460 would be about 25-30% faster than my 192sp gtx260. so again I just don't think its worth nearly TWICE the price for a gtx570 at 1680 with a dual core.

 

[cadred]

As for overclocking, I had some initial success, but I accidentally set a memory timing incorrectly, which crashed the system. After that the system wouldn't take anything but the most trivial overclocking, even at default memory timings. However everything runs solid as a rock at default.

The gx2 doesn't like any overclocking.

So, would a gtx460 give me any improvement over my 9800gx2? It's hard to find direct benchmarks.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

If your games are running into framebuffer limits or having SLI problems, then yes it would be an improvement.

 

[happy medium]

that is a good motherboard and can support Core 2 Quads (even the 45nm versions).

You can find used Q9550 for about $180. You could probably get $100 or so for your E8500. You have a good PSU so no need to upgrade that. I'd buy a 1GB 460 in your situation and I've seen those get down to $160. They will likely drop a little more as there is a replacement coming out sometime soon.

So a new 1GB GTX 460 and a used Q9550 should be around $250 or so if you sell your E8500. Less if you sell your 9800GX2

This is what I would do, good post.

 

[cadred]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for Core2 processors specifically, the clock speed has a greater impact on performance than core numbers for games/apps that don't really take advantage of multi-threading? So trading my E8500 @ 3.16GHz in for a Q9550 @ 2.83GHz, wouldn't I take a performance hit in some games and apps?

 

[happy medium]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for Core2 processors specifically, the clock speed has a greater impact on performance than core numbers for games/apps that don't really take advantage of multi-threading? So trading my E8500 @ 3.16GHz in for a Q9550 @ 2.83GHz, wouldn't I take a performance hit in some games and apps?

You could easily take the front side bus in your bios to 375 on stock voltage and smoke that e8500 with a q9550.Your board will do it with everything set on auto. Trust me I did the same thing. You would see a performance increase. I had a e8400 @ 3.6 before my current setup.
Yes it is worth it.

Edit: and civ5 and GTA V will see an instant increase without a gpu upgrade.

 

[tweakboy]

IMO its not worth paying $180 more for the gtx570 over a gtx460 at 1680 with a core 2 duo. really paying that extra amount of money just to increase AA in a game is silly. if he was that concerned about seeing a more crisp image with less aliasing then getting a 1920 monitor would be more of a priority. he has no concrete plans of upgrading so by the time he gets a new cpu we have a card as fast as the gtx570 for half the price.

I love what you do for me "Toyota"

Well said, pointless to go 5xx series on a dual core .

With that motherboard you should be able to put in a C2Q cpu. Save your money and upgrade that.

 

[notty22]

If you considered o/c, and live near a microcenter, they have the q9300 for 99.99 this week. http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0328258
Thats not a bad price to extend a platform, just a fyi.

 

[yottabit]

I wouldn't automatically listen to the people suggesting to upgrade your cpu. But at your resolution it is a tough call. I do feel like a 570 would probably be overkill for your resolution except for maybe extreme settings.

If you start playing a lot of Starcraft 2 custom games or things like that where you can run into extremely CPU bound scenarios then maybe it would be worth it, but especially if you don't overclock, a c2q is still going to be a bottleneck.

Eventually you can develop a feel for whether a game is GPU or CPU bottlenecked, but if you can't then run the games you are having trouble with at the graphics settings you want and use the resource monitor to create a log of CPU usage (and also memory). If either of them spike near 100% and this corresponds to your fps drops then that is your bottleneck, otherwise it is your graphics card. It also gives you an idea of how much headroom you have.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I wouldn't automatically listen to the people suggesting to upgrade your cpu. But at your resolution it is a tough call. I do feel like a 570 would probably be overkill for your resolution except for maybe extreme settings.

His mileage will vary. He will get different results from different games. Some of his games need a CPU upgrade and some need a GPU upgrade:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,1.html

When comparing equally clocked processors the Core 2 Duo was on average 19% slower when testing with Battlefield Bad Company 2, Far Cry 2, Supreme Commander 2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Mass Effect 2 and World in Conflict. Furthermore, the minimum frame rate was 23% lower, which is a massive difference for the processor to make and will certainly be noticed in-game.

However in the half a dozen mentioned games, the Core i7 920 was also on average 16% slower, while the minimum frame rate was 22% lower. So even a powerful processor such as the Core i7 920 still struggles in these games without the correct number of cores.

If we were to only test in games such as Crysis Warhead, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Just Cause 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat and Metro 2033, then we would conclude that for now gamers still only require a dual-core processor. Overall these games only saw an average frame rate reduction of about 1% when going from four cores to just two cores.

 

[cadred]

Honestly yottabit, I'd be happy to play Metro 2033 and Crysis in DX10 on high quality. I'm okay with the performance of Civ IV in general (it's good enough for turned based) and I got GTA IV for $5 on steam, so I don't want to drop a load of money to play it.

Right now I cannot play Metro or Crysis in anything other than DX9 mode (I can almost get away with Crysis in DX10), and if a gtx 460 or 470 will accomplish that than I would get one.

I was hoping a 570 might make up enough difference from my cpu to give me decent frame rates, but I don't know as there seems to be some disagreement here.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Honestly yottabit, I'd be happy to play Metro 2033 and Crysis in DX10 on high quality. I'm okay with the performance of Civ IV in general (it's good enough for turned based) and I got GTA IV for $5 on steam, so I don't want to drop a load of money to play it.

Right now I cannot play Metro or Crysis in anything other than DX9 mode (I can almost get away with Crysis in DX10), and if a gtx 460 or 470 will accomplish that than I would get one.

I was hoping a 570 might make up enough difference from my cpu to give me decent frame rates, but I don't know as there seems to be some disagreement here.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,6.html
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,4.html

It's pretty clear Crysis and Metro are both extremely GPU-limited. Their Core 2 Quad Q6600, whether it has 2 or 4 cores active, is getting the same exact framerates as other processors using a single HD 5870.

If those two games are you main concern then upgrading to a Core 2 Quad won't really help you much.

I'd also note that the two cores in their Q6600 are only running at 2.4 GHz. Your two cores are running at 3.16 GHz. You have about 33% more CPU performance than their results for a Q6600 with two cores disabled.

 

[yottabit]

His mileage will vary. He will get different results from different games. Some of his games need a CPU upgrade and some need a GPU upgrade:

When comparing equally clocked processors though. The e8500 is a pretty fast processor. If he goes from a 3.16 ghz e8500 to a q9300 which is 2.5 ghz and doesn't want to overclock, he is losing 20% of his clock speed which will largely negate that 20% performance boost you are talking about, although it may still improve his min FPS.

If there are specific games you are wondering about the only way to really know is to find a benchmark with someone who has a similar CPU. Like I said running the resource monitor will give you an idea if you have the extra CPU headroom to justify a GPU upgrade. You have to keep in mind that as you bump up the graphics settings, the CPU usage will increase somewhat as well because more work is being done overall.

I honestly think a GTX460 will be fine for those games with high settings at 1680 res as well, even though it won't be a huge performance upgrade (if at all) it will give you the directx functionality you're looking for. If you think you'd carry over your vid card to a new system soon then it's worth it to get the 570 or something

EDIT: Looks like cusideabelincoln beat me to responding to his own post...

EDIT EDIT: Should've specified GTX460 1 GB
I'm coming from the ATI camp but I can run the games you mention tolerably at high (note: not extreme or ultra or enthusiast) with my 5770 at 1080p, so I think you would have no trouble at all with a 460. Gtx460 is on average 15%+ faster, plus ~15% or so boost for the lower res

 

[cusideabelincoln]

When comparing equally clocked processors though. The e8500 is a pretty fast processor. If he goes from a 3.16 ghz e8500 to a q9300 which is 2.5 ghz and doesn't want to overclock, he is losing 20% of his clock speed which will largely negate that 20% performance boost you are talking about, although it may still improve his min FPS.

Yeah, that wasn't me saying that. The 20% number is quoted from Legion. And really I wasn't concerned with absolute performance. I was using that quote to highlight how half their games can utilize a quad core and half their games show no difference.

 

[cadred]

I honestly think a GTX460 will be fine for those games with high settings at 1680 res as well, even though it won't be a huge performance upgrade (if at all) it will give you the directx functionality you're looking for.

I'd be happy with the same framerate as DX9, but with most of the DX10 candy.