A good vc to pair with a 2.4ghz c2d?

[BruceOTB]

hi guys, what's a good video card to pair with an E4600, with 4gb ddr2 800 on an Intel DG31PR board? dont mind the psu, just give ur suggestions. I want my system perfectly balanced thats why dont give a suggestion like a 4890, 285, etc because these strong cards will be choked by my proc.

 

[brblx]

there's no 'perfectly balanced' system.

throw that term in the garbage with 'future proof' and 'bottlenecking,' please.

anyway, slower proc or not, you'll benefit from the best single GPU solution you can buy. i don't see a problem with a 4890, especially if you overclock your processor a bit. a 4850, 4870, or gtx260 would also all be fine choices. since you're not telling us what you play, what resolution, or what your budget is, that's about all that can be said.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: brblx
there's no 'perfectly balanced' system.

throw that term in the garbage with 'future proof' and 'bottlenecking,' please.

anyway, slower proc or not, you'll benefit from the best single GPU solution you can buy. i don't see a problem with a 4890, especially if you overclock your processor a bit. a 4850, 4870, or gtx260 would also all be fine choices. since you're not telling us what you play, what resolution, or what your budget is, that's about all that can be said.

even at 2.4 his E4600 is slower clock for clock than newer Core 2 cpus and such so actually what he said shows that he at least has some common sense. if he isnt going to oc that cpu then even a 4850 wouldnt be fully utilized especially below 1680 so a 4890 or gtx285 would be silly. yeah the res he plays at needs to be known to make a proper suggestion and hopefully he is willing to oc his cpu a little.

 

[brblx]

i'm just saying that there is no magical combination that is going to work better than anything else. yes, he'll see diminishing gains on the super fast cards, but that's hard to pin down without knowing the game or resolution.

i completely disagree, however, that a 4850 would not be 'fully utilized.' that would likely be a fine choice for him and would definately give signifigant improvement over the real budget cards (although the 4850 can still be had for like 90 bucks). with the cpu pumped up to 3ghz, i could see gaming at 1680 or 1900 with a 4890 working fairly well. all he's really missing over the newer core2's is a little cache.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: brblx
i'm just saying that there is no magical combination that is going to work better than anything else. yes, he'll see diminishing gains on the super fast cards, but that's hard to pin down without knowing the game or resolution.

i completely disagree, however, that a 4850 would not be 'fully utilized.' that would likely be a fine choice for him and would definately give signifigant improvement over the real budget cards (although the 4850 can still be had for like 90 bucks). with the cpu pumped up to 3ghz, i could see gaming at 1680 or 1900 with a 4890 working fairly well. all he's really missing over the newer core2's is a little cache.

you disagree that it wouldnt be fully utilized? well you would be wrong because with is cpu at 2.4 that is like having my E8500 at 2.0 which will easily hold back a 4850 below 1680 just like I said. it wouldnt hold it back too much at 1680 and a small oc on the cpu would make a 4850 a good balanced choice at that res. as for the 4890 he would certainly need to oc the cpu to 3.0 to make it worthwhile over a 4850 or especially a 4870.

 

[brblx]

you'd get more fps with your gtx260 if you had a faster processor, too. in fact, you can say that of nearly anyone running a fairly recent card that doesn't have the fastest processor available.

it's all relative. should you sell your GTX260 and downgrade for fear of 'wasting' a couple frames a second? i would say no.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: brblx
you'd get more fps with your gtx260 if you had a faster processor, too. in fact, you can say that of nearly anyone running a fairly recent card that doesn't have the fastest processor available.

it's all relative. should you sell your GTX260 and downgrade for fear of 'wasting' a couple frames a second? i would say no.

no actually overclocking my cpu much more does little to zero at 1920 with a single gtx260. his cpu is much slower but a 4850 is only 20% slower than my 192sp gtx260. if you really want proof I can lower my gpu to 20% below stock clocks and then run some benches with my cpu a 2.0 and the at 3.16. the difference at 1280 would be 25-30% easily in some games and at 1680 20-25% difference. thats way more than a couple of frames.

 

[toyota]

well here you go. I lowered my 192sp gtx260 to 460/1600 which is 20% slower than stock. that would put it pretty close to a 4850. I used very high settings and even 2x AA so it would be pretty gpu intensive. I ran these at 2.0 and stock 3.16 on my E8500. his cpu at 2.4 E4600 would not even be as fast as an E8500 at 2.0 but Ill give you/him the benefit of the doubt.


Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Very High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

1280x1024

cpu at 3.16 GTX260 at 460/1600
Total Frames: 2675, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 52.44
Max. Framerate: 83.45 (Frame:411, 6.59s)
Min. Framerate: 36.61 (Frame:1841, 35.60s)

cpu at 2.00 GTX260 at 460/1600
Total Frames: 2120, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 41.56
Max. Framerate: 67.26 (Frame:348, 6.76s)
Min. Framerate: 27.73 (Frame:802, 17.04s)




Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1680x1050 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Very High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

1680x1050

cpu at 3.16 GTX260 at 460/1600
Total Frames: 2466, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 48.34
Max. Framerate: 70.07 (Frame:368, 6.34s)
Min. Framerate: 34.56 (Frame:1656, 34.44s)

cpu at 2.00 GTX260 at 460/1600
Total Frames: 2040, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 39.99
Max. Framerate: 67.26 (Frame:329, 6.37s)
Min. Framerate: 24.37 (Frame:661, 14.41s)


at 1280 the faster cpu provided 27% better average and 33% better minimum framerate. at 1680 the faster cpu provided 22% better average and 41% better minimum framerate. in any case at both resolutions the slower cpu would be noticeably slower especially at minimum framerates. if he isnt going to oc that cpu then he wont even get all that a 4850 can do especially in a game like Far Cry 2 that will use that extra cpu power.


a small oc to 2.8 to 3.0 will easily eliminate 99% of any cpu limitations at 1680 with a 4850. a 4890 would need a little more boost than that to be fully effective. of course most games will be perfectly playable with his cpu at stock and a 4850 but a little oc on that cpu would really help in many of the current games.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

4830, 4850, 4770, GTS250, 9800GT would all be solid choices. Even with a slow processor, these cards should provide tangible benefits over slower cards like a 9600GT and HD4670, and can be found for quite a bit less than the GTX260 and HD4870 class cards. As mentioned there will be no "perfect balance", but as for price and performance the HD4850 is a damn good choice.

 

[Schmide]

Get the best card you can afford/get a good deal on/support with your PSU. No need to try and find a ballance. If your PSU can handle it don't be afraid of a 4870 that can be found for less than $140 -> nearing $120 after rebate.

 

[BruceOTB]

I'll be playing at 1440x900. My motherboard doesnt allow OC so ill be stuck at 2.4ghz forever.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Get the best card you can afford/get a good deal on/support with your PSU. No need to try and find a ballance. If your PSU can handle it don't be afraid of a 4870 that can be found for less than $140 -> nearing $120 after rebate.

if he is just at 1680 or lower and not going to oc his cpu then there is no point in going above a 4850. his cpu will already keep a 4850 from performing at is potential so why waste money on an even faster card that will have almost zero benefit??

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: BruceOTB
I'll be playing at 1440x900. My motherboard doesnt allow OC so ill be stuck at 2.4ghz forever.

then there is zero point in going above a 4850. heck I would stick to a 4830, 4770, or 9800gt as those cards are plenty for that res. with your cpu there would be almost no benefit in going any faster.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: BruceOTB
I'll be playing at 1440x900. My motherboard doesnt allow OC so ill be stuck at 2.4ghz forever.

Pin mod

 

[BruceOTB]

Why throw away the word "bottleneck"? Of course there such a happening..

 

[BruceOTB]

hey! that link is quite interesting! can i do that on my board? is it safe?

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: BruceOTB
hey! that link is quite interesting! can i do that on my board? is it safe?

Yes you can do it. Is it safe, yes if done properly. With that being said, you can certainly screw things up and destroy things.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: BruceOTB
I'll be playing at 1440x900. My motherboard doesnt allow OC so ill be stuck at 2.4ghz forever.

then there is zero point in going above a 4850. heck I would stick to a 4830, 4770, or 9800gt as those cards are plenty for that res. with your cpu there would be almost no benefit in going any faster.

To say almost zero is a bit harsh.

The E4600 is near a e6600 it just has half the cache. It's going to loose 10% or so. Yes it's not the best but it will benefit from a greater GPU.

PCGH GPU CPU

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: BruceOTB
I'll be playing at 1440x900. My motherboard doesnt allow OC so ill be stuck at 2.4ghz forever.

then there is zero point in going above a 4850. heck I would stick to a 4830, 4770, or 9800gt as those cards are plenty for that res. with your cpu there would be almost no benefit in going any faster.

To say almost zero is a bit harsh.

The E4600 is near a e6600 it just has half the cache. It's going to loose 10% or so. Yes it's not the best but it will benefit from a greater GPU.

PCGH GPU CPU

those are at 1680 and it will be almost zero at 1280 and thats a fact. the E4600 is about 35-40% slower clock for clock and sometimes even more than the E8xxx core 2 cpus so yes. I just ran those benchmarks that clearly show that even with a 4850 he would be cpu limited in many games at 1280 with my E8500 cpu at 2.0 which would still be slightly faster than his at 2.4. a 4890 would deliver nearby zero better performance at that res with his stock cpu.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: BruceOTB
I'll be playing at 1440x900. My motherboard doesnt allow OC so ill be stuck at 2.4ghz forever.

then there is zero point in going above a 4850. heck I would stick to a 4830, 4770, or 9800gt as those cards are plenty for that res. with your cpu there would be almost no benefit in going any faster.

To say almost zero is a bit harsh.

The E4600 is near a e6600 it just has half the cache. It's going to loose 10% or so. Yes it's not the best but it will benefit from a greater GPU.

PCGH GPU CPU

it will be almost zero and thats a fact. the E4600 is about 35-40% slower clock for clock than the E8xxx core 2 cpus so yes. I just ran those benchmarks that clearly show that even with a 4850 he would be cpu limited in many games at 1280 with my E8500 cpu at 2.0 which would still be slightly faster than his at 2.4. a 4890 would deliver nearby zero better performance at that res with his stock cpu.

You're so stuck on benchmark numbers. There is more to a system than average, min, and max. Still following the numbers.

e4600 vs e6550

About a 10% difference. In the PCGH benchmark there is at least a 5fps difference in all those very taxing benchmarks.

To say almost zero is just false. Is a 4870 too much, ehh. Possible. Is there no discernible difference between a 4850 and a 4870, I would say no.

I don't think it's fair to exclude something outright the way you do.

 

[NA1NSXR]

I would say any choice in the $110 region currently is a perfect fit (4850/512, GTS250/512, etc). At 1440x900 these cards match the longevity of the rest of your system at a reasonable price and provides an outstanding experience for today's apps.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: BruceOTB
I'll be playing at 1440x900. My motherboard doesnt allow OC so ill be stuck at 2.4ghz forever.

then there is zero point in going above a 4850. heck I would stick to a 4830, 4770, or 9800gt as those cards are plenty for that res. with your cpu there would be almost no benefit in going any faster.

To say almost zero is a bit harsh.

The E4600 is near a e6600 it just has half the cache. It's going to loose 10% or so. Yes it's not the best but it will benefit from a greater GPU.

PCGH GPU CPU

it will be almost zero and thats a fact. the E4600 is about 35-40% slower clock for clock than the E8xxx core 2 cpus so yes. I just ran those benchmarks that clearly show that even with a 4850 he would be cpu limited in many games at 1280 with my E8500 cpu at 2.0 which would still be slightly faster than his at 2.4. a 4890 would deliver nearby zero better performance at that res with his stock cpu.

You're so stuck on benchmark numbers. There is more to a system than average, min, and max. Still following the numbers.

e4600 vs e6550

About a 10% difference. In the PCGH benchmark there is at least a 5fps difference in all those very taxing benchmarks.

To say almost zero is just false. Is a 4870 too much, ehh. Possible. Is there no discernible difference between a 4850 and a 4870, I would say no.

I don't think it's fair to exclude something outright the way you do.

here you go. I ran the bench again at 1280 with my gpu clocked at 655/2200 instead of th earlier runs at 460/1600 when i was trying to simulate similar 4850 performance. as you can see adding 200mhz to my gtx260 did ZERO just like I said it would at 1280 with my cpu at 2.0. his cpu would be even a tad slower. you talk theory while I talk facts and I will back up everything I say. its nonsense to think you can always get greater performance from a faster card when your cpu is limiting you in the first place at a certain res.

cpu at 2.00 GTX260 at 460/1600
Total Frames: 2120, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 41.56
Max. Framerate: 67.26 (Frame:348, 6.76s)
Min. Framerate: 27.73 (Frame:802, 17.04s)

cpu at 2.00 GTX260 at 655/2200
Total Frames: 2094, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 41.05
Max. Framerate: 64.51 (Frame:305, 6.17s)
Min. Framerate: 27.23 (Frame:1425, 34.42s)

 

[Schmide]

I looked back, did you even mention what benchmark this is? I couldn't find it. Physics on high and doesn't help a lesser CPU. I bet if you play with the settings that affect the CPU you could find some numbers that show the reverse.

My point and I hope you accept it. One benchmark, or for that matter benchmarks as a whole, do not tell the complete picture.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
I looked back, did you even mention what benchmark this is? I couldn't find it. Physics on high and doesn't help a lesser CPU. I bet if you play with the settings that affect the CPU you could find some numbers that show the reverse.

My point and I hope you accept it. One benchmark, or for that matter benchmarks as a whole, do not tell the complete picture.

Far Cry 2 because it has a good bench. the point was that a game that would need a 4890 at 1280 would also need a decent cpu to push it. I will gladly do this for some other games if you like. you name the game and I will run a bench for you.

here it is with physics on low and the difference is zero.

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Very High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Low), RealTrees(Very High)

Total Frames: 2112, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 41.41
Max. Framerate: 65.54 (Frame:389, 7.54s)
Min. Framerate: 27.86 (Frame:1447, 34.46s)

 

[Schmide]

Nah. You don't have to.

Originally posted by: Schmide
My point and I hope you accept it. One benchmark, or for that matter benchmarks as a whole, do not tell the complete picture.

[/quote]