Am I CPU limited enough that the HD4770 would be a waste of time?

[biostud]

I've upgraded from a 7800gtx to 8800gt..... so IMHO go for it

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: wchang99
With the HD4770 out, I'm tempted to get it as a relatively cheap way to max out my system that has just a 305w PSU, but, my CPU is an Athlon 64x2 4400+, which is just older enough than most websites' systems used to test the 4770 that I wonder if my numbers would be drastically different than theirs.

Are there any ways to estimate or guesstimate how close my numbers would be? Any mathematical rules of thumb maybe?

I don't do a lot of gaming, but might check out GRID if I have a fast enough rig.

My alternatives would be HD4650, and HD4670 (I had considered the HD4350 as well, but realized it didn't have s-video out, which I need).

(This is a continuation of an earlier thread in a way: I had ordered a Geforce 9400GT, but found out that TV-out support was crippled by nVidia since the 7xxx, or 8xxx series, so, the 9400GT is going back. From what I understand, this may have been done in hardware and not just the drivers in 8xxx and 9xxx series.)

Thanks!

edited to add: my resolution is 1680x1050 (AA is optional).

What games do you plan on playing?

What FPS do you need?

If your CPU will get good FPS at very low resolution then you can eliminate the idea of CPU/memory bottleneck very quickly.

After determining your FPS at low resolution then you can go about trying to figure out how much various GPUs would begin to lower this? (Strong GPU or GPUs will preserve FPS while using progressively weaker GPUs will lower the FPS baseline you obtained earlier)

That being said most of the time the most cost effective way to get FPS is probably not by pairing extremely cheap CPU with the most expensive GPU. Sometimes having a stronger CPU being somewhat inhibited by a comprimise GPU actually yields more FPS than using a really weak CPU and trying preserve performance by a overkill GPU.

 

[dawgtuff]

Have we overlooked something here? He has an unnamed 305 watt PSU that may not have a 6pin Pci-e power connector. A 4770 is the best bargain for him if he plans to upgrade in the near future, but if his PSU won't handle it. Maybe a $50 vid card would do him best.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: dawgtuff
Have we overlooked something here? He has an unnamed 305 watt PSU that may not have a 6pin Pci-e power connector. A 4770 is the best bargain for him if he plans to upgrade in the near future, but if his PSU won't handle it. Maybe a $50 vid card would do him best.

I think the 4770 comes with a molex to 6 pin adapter, but I have never used one of these myself (so I am not sure how ideal it is).

 

[v0id]

Similar question:

A few years ago (around the beginning of 2007, I think), I built my current computer, which I've been using for moderate gaming. IIRC, it features a C2D E6400, OC'ed to 2.4 GHz, 2GB RAM (800 MHz?), and an ATI x1950 (Pro?) 256 MB video card. I have an NEC 20.1" LCD panel @ 1680x1050. PSU is a 500W Silverstone, I think.

Lately I've been playing through NWN2, which as some of you may be aware, needs/wants ridiculous hardware given its age and visual quality. I would like to turn the effects all the way up, which I can't do right now without serious chug, and also play some newer games at max quality at 1680x1050 resolution.

Would a Radeon 4770 meet these needs? I'm not sure how much of an improvement I'd see over my current system, or whether the CPU is also a problem. I don't want to spend more than around $100 in any event.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: v0id
Similar question:

A few years ago (around the beginning of 2007, I think), I built my current computer, which I've been using for moderate gaming. IIRC, it features a C2D E6400, OC'ed to 2.4 GHz, 2GB RAM (800 MHz?), and an ATI x1950 (Pro?) 256 MB video card. I have an NEC 20.1" LCD panel @ 1680x1050. PSU is a 500W Silverstone, I think.

Lately I've been playing through NWN2, which as some of you may be aware, needs/wants ridiculous hardware given its age and visual quality. I would like to turn the effects all the way up, which I can't do right now without serious chug, and also play some newer games at max quality at 1680x1050 resolution.

Would a Radeon 4770 meet these needs? I'm not sure how much of an improvement I'd see over my current system, or whether the CPU is also a problem. I don't want to spend more than around $100 in any event.

When you turn down resolution and graphics settings the game plays smoothly with high frame rates right? If that is the case you can rule out CPU and memory bottlenecks.

 

[v0id]

Originally posted by: Just learning

When you turn down resolution and graphics settings the game plays smoothly with high frame rates right? If that is the case you can rule out CPU and memory bottlenecks.

Yep. I actually play NWN2 at 1680x1050, but with a lot of the shadows, draw distance, AA etc turned down or off. It runs pretty smoothly most of the time but still chugs a little when there's a lot of characters/building geometry/lighting effects on screen.

Any thoughts on how much an improvement the Radeon 4770 would represent over an x1950?

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: v0id

Originally posted by: Just learning

When you turn down resolution and graphics settings the game plays smoothly with high frame rates right? If that is the case you can rule out CPU and memory bottlenecks.

Yep. I actually play NWN2 at 1680x1050, but with a lot of the shadows, draw distance, AA etc turned down or off. It runs pretty smoothly most of the time but still chugs a little when there's a lot of characters/building geometry/lighting effects on screen.

Any thoughts on how much an improvement the Radeon 4770 would represent over an x1950?

Try replaying those same parts of the game on 800x600 after playing them with 1680x1050 using FRAPS (to measure frame rates)

If your computer cruises through those same scenes on 800x600 with unwavering high frame rates using then you know your CPU is much stronger than your GPU. In this case a 4770 upgrade could help quite a bit.

But if playing the game on 800x600 doesn't really improve frame rates much over what it did on 1680x1050 then you might need a CPU upgrade first and then maybe a GPU upgrade later.

 

[v0id]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Try replaying those same parts of the game on 800x600 after playing them with 1680x1050 using FRAPS (to measure frame rates)

If your computer cruises through those same scenes on 800x600 with unwavering high frame rates using then you know your CPU is much stronger than your GPU. In this case a 4770 upgrade could help quite a bit.

NWN2 has a built in frame-rate measurement tool. I turned the resolution down to 800x600 and all the graphical effects all the way down or off, and the FPS stayed pretty consistently around 57-60 FPS. Just for fun I turned the resolution back up to 1680x1050 and all the graphical effects all the way up, and I experienced a nice 1-3 FPS. Looks like the CPU isn't the problem.

 

[SickBeast]

The 4770 will apparently run without the 6-pin connector just FYI. Under load it uses 60w which is within the PCI-E specification.

 

[photonboy]

NWN2:

I have an AMD X2-4800+ and an HD3870 512MB.

NWN2 is the only game on my system that is limited by the CPU, probably because it has no multithreading coded.

If your CPU is equal or less than this then the HD3870 or higher video card will not provide any benefit.

So yes, you are CPU limited but considering the price of the card you should still buy it for other games. You may be bottlenecked by your CPU by every game but for some maybe just barely so yeah, go for it.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: v0id

Originally posted by: Just learning

Try replaying those same parts of the game on 800x600 after playing them with 1680x1050 using FRAPS (to measure frame rates)

If your computer cruises through those same scenes on 800x600 with unwavering high frame rates using then you know your CPU is much stronger than your GPU. In this case a 4770 upgrade could help quite a bit.

NWN2 has a built in frame-rate measurement tool. I turned the resolution down to 800x600 and all the graphical effects all the way down or off, and the FPS stayed pretty consistently around 57-60 FPS. Just for fun I turned the resolution back up to 1680x1050 and all the graphical effects all the way up, and I experienced a nice 1-3 FPS. Looks like the CPU isn't the problem.

Sounds good. Unless you need more than 60 FPS I would just leave your current CPU/memory alone then.

My 2 cents.

 

[wchang99]

@ Just learning - Racedriver: Grid would be my main target game, it is somewhat demanding of the current games.. and the fps I hope to get would be above 40fps, and 30fps would be ok. From the article ShreddedWheat posted, and benchmarks for the 4770, I did some cross-tabulating and made a super rough estimate, I might in fact get around 30-40 @ 1680x1050 and everything turned on. But, this is kind of theoretical, I'm probably going to put off getting a card for a while.

The trick you mentioned of lowering all the graphics settings and res down to sort of isolate the CPU is really good -- I'm going to have to try that, but at 640x480 and as ugly as possible, my onboard video is so poor. :laugh:

@ dawgtuff & SickBeast - I've also read that the 4770 is right on the borderline, and seems to come in below the 75w limit in many cases, with them using the PCI-E power connector to be safe. Some of the 4770's come with a 2 molex-to-PCIE adapter, and Sapphire, I think, uses just 1 molex-to-PCIE, so there's some difference of opinion as to how much extra is needed. For my system, I gamble it would be ok; I might strip out an extra DVD drive if needed, though I suppose that might not make a difference.

It's interesting how the 4830 and also the 4850 have been marked down so much in slickdeals-type deals (both in the $80's), esp. since the 4850 isn't being phased out. The 4770's on the other hand are closer to their $110 or whatever list price now after an initial wave of rebates that ended. I'm sure a 4850 at that price would be a no-brainer over the 4770 for anyone who has a good PSU.

edit:

@ v0id, you should look into the 4850, if you have a PCI-E power connector (if not, can the 4850 get by with a molex-to-PCIE adapter, anyone?). Unfortunately, the $80-$85 deals are gone, but the Newegg one is at $95 AR + free s/h, along with a free copy of Rainbow 6 Vegas 2.

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1344179
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...A&Item=N82E16814127414

 

[v0id]

Originally posted by: wchang99

@ v0id, you should look into the 4850, if you have a PCI-E power connector (if not, can the 4850 get by with a molex-to-PCIE adapter, anyone?). Unfortunately, the $80-$85 deals are gone, but the Newegg one is at $95 AR + free s/h, along with a free copy of Rainbow 6 Vegas 2.

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1344179
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...A&Item=N82E16814127414

Thanks, I ended up ordering the MSI 4850 which is now $85 AR including the discount code, and comes with rainbow six vegas 2. Hopefully it's quieter than my current sapphire x1950 pro, which sounds like a blow dryer and is really irritating.

 

[wchang99]

Originally posted by: v0id

Originally posted by: wchang99

@ v0id, you should look into the 4850, if you have a PCI-E power connector (if not, can the 4850 get by with a molex-to-PCIE adapter, anyone?). Unfortunately, the $80-$85 deals are gone, but the Newegg one is at $95 AR + free s/h, along with a free copy of Rainbow 6 Vegas 2.

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1344179
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...A&Item=N82E16814127414

Thanks, I ended up ordering the MSI 4850 which is now $85 AR including the discount code, and comes with rainbow six vegas 2. Hopefully it's quieter than my current sapphire x1950 pro, which sounds like a blow dryer and is really irritating.

Ah, you got the discount code? I copy-and-pasted it, and didn't get it to work, but must've missed a digit or something -- my bad. But, glad that it turned out well for you.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: wchang99
@ Just learning - Racedriver: Grid would be my main target game, it is somewhat demanding of the current games.. and the fps I hope to get would be above 40fps, and 30fps would be ok. From the article ShreddedWheat posted, and benchmarks for the 4770, I did some cross-tabulating and made a super rough estimate, I might in fact get around 30-40 @ 1680x1050 and everything turned on. But, this is kind of theoretical, I'm probably going to put off getting a card for a while.

The trick you mentioned of lowering all the graphics settings and res down to sort of isolate the CPU is really good -- I'm going to have to try that, but at 640x480 and as ugly as possible, my onboard video is so poor. :laugh:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127415

I think this might be a good card for you and it doesn't need a 6-pin either. $52 After rebate with Free Rainbow six 2 vegas.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=6 Notice how well this $52 AMIR 4670 does against last years $200 offering in Race driver GRID.

Lots of times around here a big deal is made about Anti-aliasing but so far I haven't seen that much advantage to it using my 4770 (which I finally bought yesterday).

I have also noticed 4x AA slows down my frame rates quite a bit without really adding much in the way of visual appeal. I suspect most people spending on a budget will do well just picking something that can handle the native resolution of their monitor with maybe medium detail effects.

 

[wchang99]

Thanks, but I think I will go all the way (relatively speaking), if I spend anything sizable, for the 4770. That is a really good price for the 4670, but I think I will end up regretting if I don't spend the extra $30 or so (assuming a sale price on the 4770); I don't think I will want too much of AA either, but I think I will still want most of the other settings on high. (If I am going to plunk down the cash, the 4770 will already be the natural limit for my system.)

But, thanks for the tip. 🙂

It's strange, that 4670 price is so close to a 4350 I saw (the only one with s-video, and 2 dvi's, which I'm looking for) -- the 4350 has a freakish 1Gb memory. I guess it's their high-margin, high end 4350.

edit: as to the benchmark in Grid you included, I saw that, too, but I had to scale the numbers down since I'm going to be playing in 1680x1050, and then down a little further because of my CPU, so I didn't think I had as much room with the 4670 to still be playable at high settings. But, thanks again.

 

[dflynchimp]

1GB of memory for 4350 is pragmatically redundant and is only a marketing ploy. The processing power of 4350 is only a tenth of a 4870, with only 80 (5X16) shader cores. Comparatively the 4650 has 320 (5X64) shader cores, a four fold increase over the 4350.

 

[wchang99]

Originally posted by: dflynchimp
1GB of memory for 4350 is pragmatically redundant and is only a marketing ploy. The processing power of 4350 is only a tenth of a 4870, with only 80 (5X16) shader cores. Comparatively the 4650 has 320 (5X64) shader cores, a four fold increase over the 4350.

I think I know what you mean, yeah. I've read that 1GB isn't something that can be used in most cases by many cards more powerful than the 4350. I guess it does work for them as a marketing ploy.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: wchang99
Everybody helped, but, ShreddedWheat's article (Tom's) was a HUGE help, I remember reading that sort of thing when I used to be more up on video cards (when the Riva 128 was big), and it was like getting some of the brain cells back that understood such things.

Thanks again.

How is that article relevant other than those games are gpu limited at 1600x1200? Very close to your desired resolution you are trying to play BTW. They test mostly 3 year old games except for Crysis and COD 4 still GPU limited at 1600x1200 with a HD4850. Also very close in performance to the card you are trying to get. :light:

 

[wchang99]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: wchang99
Everybody helped, but, ShreddedWheat's article (Tom's) was a HUGE help, I remember reading that sort of thing when I used to be more up on video cards (when the Riva 128 was big), and it was like getting some of the brain cells back that understood such things.

Thanks again.

How is that article relevant other than those games are gpu limited at 1600x1200? Very close to your desired resolution you are trying to play BTW. They test mostly 3 year old games except for Crysis and COD 4 still GPU limited at 1600x1200 with a HD4850. Also very close in performance to the card you are trying to get. :light:

Yeah, there were some commonalities, as you pointed out. The res of 1600x1200 was very close to my res, and although the games didn't include all the games I'm interested in, I was able to (though I don't really remember the process, or my assumptions) kind of eyeball by association, through 3 or 4 steps, what the fps's might be. Very imprecise, but kind of interesting. And as you said, the 4850 is really close to the 4770, so, both CPU and GPU are really close. It's like they were benchmarking my system.

Not sure if I picked up everything in your drift, in your post (kind of Socratic??), but, interesting. :thumbsup: Thanks for adding in.