• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

570 as a replacement for 9800GX2 on Core2d?

C

cadred

Member
I'm currently running with a 9800GX2* on a Core2Duo system (E8500). I cannot afford an entire new system, but I was hoping to increase performance in more recent games such as Civ 5, Metro 2033*, New Vegas and even some older ones like Crysis, GTA IV etc.

So, other than Civ 5 and GTA IV, how CPU bound am I? Will I get significantly better performance out of a 570?





*This is a dual card in a single package type card, and even though it is spec'ed at 1GB of video ram, games only see and use 512MB of it.

*It would be nice to have Metro 2033 playable in DX11, even if I can't crank it all the way up.
 
you will have a much better overall gaming experience in most cases with the gtx570. but yes your E8500 will really hold you back in very cpu intensive games. I hope you are playing at 1920 though because any less would be quite a waste in those cpu intensive games with a $350 card and dual core cpu.
 
Last edited:
Your CPU is a huge bottleneck. The 570 will under perform. Even a 480 and 295 will be bottlenecked and you wont get the maximum FPS your supposed to with the card.

Instead of getting spend happy on a 570 for 400 close to dollars. Instead get a quad core cpu I bet your motherboard might support it. and a 460 and call it a night. What res you play @ ,, gg and gl,
 
It looks like you will be able to max Metro 2033 and get a good experience if you're playing at 1920x1080 or lower.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4051/nvidias-geforce-gtx-570-filling-in-the-gaps/6
34512.png
 
Qbah said:
It looks like you will be able to max Metro 2033 and get a good experience if you're playing at 1920x1080 or lower.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4051/nvidias-geforce-gtx-570-filling-in-the-gaps/6
Click to expand...
thats also with a fast i7 not an E8500. it probably wont make more than a few fps difference since Metro 2033 is very gpu intensive though. even at 1920 and high settings I still lose a couple fps with lower cpu speeds even with a gtx260.

xbit has some drastic differences between cpus in Metro 2033 but tbh their numbers don't make sense because I certainly average way better with my Core 2 duo. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend_6.html#sect1
 
Last edited:
cadred said:
Will I get significantly better performance out of a 570?
Click to expand...

Yes you will. A gtx570 will perform much better with those games , even with a e8500.

ARe you playing at 1900x1080? If not just wait till the gtx560 is released in a few weeks.
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
thats also with a fast i7 not an E8500. it probably wont make more than a few fps difference since Metro 2033 is very gpu intensive though. even at 1920 and high settings I still lose a couple fps with lower cpu speeds even with a gtx260.

xbit has some drastic differences between cpus in Metro 2033 but tbh their numbers don't make sense because I certainly average way better with my Core 2 duo. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend_6.html#sect1
Click to expand...

Very weird results... I get more than 21 on my Q9450... And at 1920x1080.
 
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.
 
cadred said:
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.
Click to expand...
personally I would not buy a $350 card for that res with a core 2 duo. I would grab the cheapest gtx460 you can find if you want an upgrade now. if you want to wait a bit then a gtx560 will be a good choice but it will probably be at least $75 more than you can get a gtx460 for now.
 
That is what I said,, grab a 460 1GB because even with that card you wont see the the max FPS of card due to CPU bottleneck. gg and gl
 
Thanks tweakboy, I've considered that, and the price is right, but I've been told in the past that the gtx460 wouldn't provide much (or any) performance improvement over the 9800gx2?
 
cadred said:
Thanks tweakboy, I've considered that, and the price is right, but I've been told in the past that the gtx460 wouldn't provide much (or any) performance improvement over the 9800gx2?
Click to expand...

Thats bullcrap, a e8500 will push a gtx480 in most games at 1900x1080 just fine.

With the games you play, especially Crysis and Metro you wll see huge gains with a gtx570. When you finally spring for a quad core you will see even more gains. Since your only playing at 1650x1050 a gtx560 will be great. I would just wait for that.
 
cadred said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your GPU is holding you back here. Only 512MB of VRAM is probably the big culprit.
cadred said:
Civ 5 gets pretty chunky and slow after a while as the world gets more complex, but is playable enough in DX10.
Click to expand...
This game is fairly CPU-bound, but SLI might not be working for you. You will probably see some gains with a new GPU but the CPU will limit you.

cadred said:
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.
Click to expand...
With updated patches and tweaks you should be able to use whatever settings you want, ignoring the framebuffer limits of the game. You can google to see how to do it. Anyway, high textures do make a pretty big difference in GTA4 and a better GPU should give you better results. However like Civ 5 expect to be held back by your processor. GTA4 performs best with quad cores.
 
notty22 said:
Here is a good article.
How many cores do you need ? http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1
Crysis only needs 2 cores.
They use a gtx 470 / HD 5870
Click to expand...
that article is basically useless because all they did was use an i7. 2 cores of an i7 is completely different than a Core 2 duo. you cant come to a conclusion using only one architecture.

although they did not look at many games this article is better because they actually used different cpus. you can see in some games that turning off 2 cores of an i7 is much different than using 2 cores of a different cpu architecture. http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,1.html
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
that article is basically useless because all they did was use an i7. 2 cores of an i7 is completely different than a Core 2 duo. you cant come to a conclusion using only one architecture.
Click to expand...
Every article can be scrutinized as being useless. Its more data, that is applicable.
It still shows whether some game engine can utilize extra cores, regardless of the actual fps results.
 
notty22 said:
Every article can be scrutinized as being useless. Its more data, that is applicable.
It still shows whether the game engine can utilize extra cores, regardless of the actual fps results.
Click to expand...
so if a game runs smooth on one core of a Core 2 duo will it be ok on a Pentium 4? again the article is almost useless but I edited my post and linked you to an article that actually uses different cpus.
 
toyota said:
so if a game runs smooth on one core of a Core 2 duo will it be ok on a Pentium 4? again the article is almost useless but I edited my post and linked you to an article that actually uses different cpus.
Click to expand...
Sorry you want to assume that people reading these type of articles can't apply a little analytical thinking. But whatever.
 
notty22 said:
Sorry you want to assume that people reading these type of articles can't apply a little analytical thinking. But whatever.
Click to expand...
look I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just clearly pointing out that 2 cores of an i7 does not equal to the same performance you would get with 2 cores of another architecture. how many cores you need is an asinine name for those articles that only use one cpu architecture.
 
I would have to agree with the Yota about the CPU test.Also, A 9800GX2 to a GTX 460 1GB I wouldn't think be huge upgrade since the GTX 460 is not much faster then a GTX 285 and a 9800 GX2 hangs if not beats a GTX 280.
 
Greenhell6 said:
I would have to agree with the Yota about the CPU test.Also, A 9800GX2 to a GTX 460 1GB I wouldn't think be huge upgrade since the GTX 460 is not much faster then a GTX 285 and a 9800 GX2 hangs if not beats a GTX 280.
Click to expand...
well it would probably only be about 15-20% faster at stock speeds but we all know the gtx460 overclocks really well and scales almost perfectly. plus he would not have any sli issues and that 512mb of vram is limiting what his 9800gx2 is actually capable of in some games.
 
cadred said:
Thanks tweakboy, I've considered that, and the price is right, but I've been told in the past that the gtx460 wouldn't provide much (or any) performance improvement over the 9800gx2?
Click to expand...

9800GX2 lets say is same speed as GTX280 but 295 edges it out. The 460 is faster then the gtx295 by a generation.

The best thing for that CPU is a 460 1GB version make sure because it has higher memory bandwidth as well... @ 180 dollars if you look hard enough.
 
tweakboy said:
9800GX2 lets say is same speed as GTX280 but 295 edges it out. The 460 is faster then the gtx295 by a generation.

The best thing for that CPU is a 460 1GB version make sure because it has higher memory bandwidth as well... @ 180 dollars if you look hard enough.
Click to expand...
um what? the gtx295 is almost like TWO gtx280 cards together. a gtx460 is NOT faster than a gtx295.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top