Best GPU, with Athlon 6000+ bottleneck?

[GaiaHunter]

Keep in mind he's upgrading from a GF 7300LE!! Just get the best card available for an even $100 and the improvement will be massive.

And is that a reason to get less than you can?

A 4670 will be a massive upgrade, but a 4850/GTS 250 will be even more satisfactory and his processor could even benefit from a GTX260/4870 class card.

Having no budget is a compelling reason not to get a more expensive card. But the OP says unlimited budget.

With unlimited budget ATI 4870/4890/5770 or NVIDIA GTX260/275 would still show significant improvement in game play in most situation, IMO, to justify the price. Minimum 4850 or GTS 250, 1GB preferably.

I still think people overrate CPU too much for games or if you want, they underestimate dual cores like E6xxx and Athlon X2.

 

[toyota]

And is that a reason to get less than you can?

A 4670 will be a massive upgrade, but a 4850/GTS 250 will be even more satisfactory and his processor could even benefit from a GTX260/4870 class card.

Having no budget is a compelling reason not to get a more expensive card. But the OP says unlimited budget.

With unlimited budget ATI 4870/4890/5770 or NVIDIA GTX260/275 would still show significant improvement in game play in most situation, IMO, to justify the price. Minimum 4850 or GTS 250, 1GB preferably.

I still think people overrate CPU too much for games or if you want, they underestimate dual cores like E6xxx and Athlon X2.

I think you underestimate how weak the old X2 cpus are especially when paired with a fast video card. an A64 X2 at 3.0 is about equal to my E8500 running 2.0-2.2 and will noticeably hold back a card like 4870 at 1280. a 4870 would have almost 50% of its performance go right down the drain in some games with a 6000 X2 at that res. even a 4850 will not come close to getting fully utilized in most most modern games at 1280 with that cpu so that would be the very highest card I would suggest. anything more than a 4850 at that res will likely have zero benefit in most games while using that cpu.

 

[cbn]

so if I'm at 1280x1024 and I'm using a Phenom II 955 x4, does it really matter what video card I get? Would a 4890 be sufficient, or even overkill?

I would get a DX11 card (HD5750 512 mb) and bypass that HD4890 in that situation for certain.

At that resolution I would rather have the feature set of the HD5750. Shader model 4.1 will obsolete before shader model 5.0. I'm suprised you haven't upgraded the monitor yet.

 

[cbn]

I think you underestimate how weak the old X2 cpus are especially when paired with a fast video card. an A64 X2 at 3.0 is about equal to my E8500 running 2.0-2.2 and will noticeably hold back a card like 4870 at 1280. a 4870 would have almost 50% of its performance go right down the drain in some games with a 6000 X2 at that res. even a 4850 will not come close to getting fully utilized in most most modern games at 1280 with that cpu so that would be the very highest card I would suggest. anything more than a 4850 at that res will likely have zero benefit in most games while using that cpu.

Then we also have to figure any labor costs or time into the equation.

I would say swapping mobo/CPU/Video card is always more cost effective (from a pure parts $$$ standpoint) than using an overkill GPU with a weak processor.....but then there is also more hassle.

For example:

Cost of new Mobo/CPU/Ram/Video card minus selling price of Old Mobo/old CPU/Old Ram/Video card = X price difference.

The net difference here in price will no doubt get far more FPS per dollar @ X resolution/detail settings/IQ than swapping overkill GPU on top of old system.

But then the labor and hassle is so much more with the complete swap (heatware, ebay hassle, shipping costs, installing OS, transferring files, etc)

 

[toyota]

Then we also have to figure any labor costs or time into the equation.

I would say swapping mobo/CPU/Video card is always more cost effective (from a pure parts $$$ standpoint) than using an overkill GPU with a weak processor.....but then there is also more hassle.

well I was just suggesting a gpu thats suitable to his current res and cpu. a 6000 X2 is still on okay cpu but there really is not point in sticking a relatively high end gpu with it at just 1280 and thats really all I was saying.

 

[happy medium]

I think you underestimate how weak the old X2 cpus are especially when paired with a fast video card. an A64 X2 at 3.0 is about equal to my E8500 running 2.0-2.2 and will noticeably hold back a card like 4870 at 1280. a 4870 would have almost 50% of its performance go right down the drain in some games with a 6000 X2 at that res. even a 4850 will not come close to getting fully utilized in most most modern games at 1280 with that cpu so that would be the very highest card I would suggest. anything more than a 4850 at that res will likely have zero benefit in most games while using that cpu.

My overclocked 8800gt is the bottleneck with my 2mb cache e5400 cpu clocked @ 1.6 in Far Cry 2 @1280x1024 res high settings. I don't see how a e8500 @ 2.2 (which is = to my cpu @ 2.6) would bottleneck a 4870 50% @ 1280x1024?

My 85$ 9800gtx+1gb is comming in the mail this week. the 9800gtx+ is about = to
a 4850. I have Crysis,Crysis Warhead,Left for Dead,Grid,NFS shift, all the Call of Duties (Modern Warfare 1,2,WAW),Medal of Honor Air Borne,Fear. I'm sure I can find the bottleneck average.

I'll clock my cpu @ stock 2.7 (about = to a Athlon 64 @ 3.0) ,and see what happends.
I can test at 1024x768,1280x1024 and 1600x1200. My cpu will clock from 1.6 to 3.6 also.

If my e5400 cpu @ 2.7 bottlenecks a 9800gtx+ 1gb @ 1280x1024 all high settings with these games I'll be suprized.
My guess is a athlon 64 @ 3.0 will be fine for a 4870 at 1280x1024 high settings with these games. It also gives you a little insurance for future games.

On a side note do you think my cpu @ 3.6 will be a large bottleneck for a 5850 @ 1600x1200?

Edit: Take a look at the 4850 in this article. You dont need that much cpu to max it out.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-platform,2469.html

 

[GaiaHunter]

I think you underestimate how weak the old X2 cpus are especially when paired with a fast video card. an A64 X2 at 3.0 is about equal to my E8500 running 2.0-2.2 and will noticeably hold back a card like 4870 at 1280. a 4870 would have almost 50% of its performance go right down the drain in some games with a 6000 X2 at that res. even a 4850 will not come close to getting fully utilized in most most modern games at 1280 with that cpu so that would be the very highest card I would suggest. anything more than a 4850 at that res will likely have zero benefit in most games while using that cpu.

Do you even seen the links I presented?

A frigging 4850 has exactly the same performance at 1280 with a Pentium E6300 and with a i7 920!!!!!!!!! In all frigging games, except Grid!!!!!!! A 4850 512MB didn't even presented results in GTA IV, regardless of processor! (memory related though).

No, even a 4890 and a GTX260 in a Pentium E6300, which I wouldn't consider much faster than a Athlon X2 6000+ (probably around X2 6400+ speed), are posting 80%+ performance compared to an i7 920, except in the situations of games that can take advantage of more than 2 threads, where even the E8400 takes huge beatings compared to the Q9550.

A 4850 and a GTS250 are something like 8800 Ultra level of performance, and those cards were being paired with much lesser processors than the Athlon X2 6000.

If he wants to save money to throw at a processor like a Phenom II X2 550 or even an X3/X4 (or just save money), that is alright. Now, not getting a 4850/GTS250 or even a GTX260/4870 because he won't see improvements, well that isn't true. He won't bottleneck a 4850 or a GTS250 and he will see improvements with a 4870/GTX260.

 

[toyota]

My overclocked 8800gt is the bottleneck with my 2mb cache e5400 cpu clocked @ 1.6 in Far Cry 2 @1280x1024 res high settings. I don't see how a e8500 @ 2.2 (which is = to my cpu @ 2.6) would bottleneck a 4870 50% @ 1280x1024?

My 85$ 9800gtx+1gb is comming in the mail this week. the 9800gtx+ is about = to
a 4850. I have Crysis,Crysis Warhead,Left for Dead,Grid,NFS shift, all the Call of Duties (Modern Warfare 1,2,WAW),Medal of Honor Air Borne,Fear. I'm sure I can find the bottleneck average.

I'll clock my cpu @ stock 2.7 (about = to a Athlon 64 @ 3.0) ,and see what happends.
I can test at 1024x768,1280x1024 and 1600x1200. My cpu will clock from 1.6 to 3.6 also.

If my e5400 cpu @ 2.7 bottlenecks a 9800gtx+ 1gb @ 1280x1024 all high settings with these games I'll be suprized.
My guess is a athlon 64 @ 3.0 will be fine for a 4870 at 1280x1024 high settings with these games. It also gives you a little insurance for future games.

On a side note do you think my cpu @ 3.6 will be a large bottleneck for a 5850 @ 1600x1200?

in Far Cry 2 at 1280 a 4870 level of card would most certainly lose 50% of its performance with a 3.0 X2 as opposed to running a high end Core 2 Duo or better. I have already ran benchmarks that easily showed this to be true.

no with a 3.0 X2 a 4870 would lose a crap load of performance at 1280 compared to having a high end Core 2 Duo or better. that future games argument is nonsense because most newer games have become even more cpu intensive too.

your E5400 at 3.6 would only limit you at little bit at 1600 with a gpu as the 5850. really only in Games such as GTA 4 or others that really use more than 2 cores would there be any noticeable difference though.

 

[toyota]

Do you even seen the links I presented?

A frigging 4850 has exactly the same performance at 1280 with a Pentium E6300 and with a i7 920!!!!!!!!! In all frigging games, except Grid!!!!!!! A 4850 512MB didn't even presented results in GTA IV, regardless of processor! (memory related though).

No, even a 4890 and a GTX260 in a Pentium E6300, which I wouldn't consider much faster than a Athlon X2 6000+ (probably around X2 6400+ speed), are posting 80%+ performance compared to an i7 920, except in the situations of games that can take advantage of more than 2 threads, where even the E8400 takes huge beatings compared to the Q9550.

A 4850 and a GTS250 are something like 8800 Ultra level of performance, and those cards were being paired with much lesser processors than the Athlon X2 6000.

If he wants to save money to throw at a processor like a Phenom II X2 550 or even an X3/X4 (or just save money), that is alright. Now, not getting a 4850/GTS250 or even a GTX260/4870 because he won't see improvements, well that isn't true. He won't bottleneck a 4850 or a GTS250 and he will see improvements with a 4870/GTX260.

sorry but a 2.8 Pentium E6300 is much faster than a 3.0 A64 X2.

 

[cbn]

well I was just suggesting a gpu thats suitable to his current res and cpu. a 6000 X2 is still on okay cpu but there really is not point in sticking a relatively high end gpu with it at just 1280 and thats really all I was saying.

For some reason I was getting this thread mixed up with another one.

Based on what I said in post #28 I agree with you.

At 1280x1024 resolution even a relatively weak GPU will yield very short computational times. The only caveat might be if he had a very large monitor (ie, very large pixels) and needed more than normal AA to smooth things out.

 

[GaiaHunter]

sorry but a 2.8 Pentium E6300 is much faster than a 3.0 A64 X2.

So you are telling me that 3.2 X2 6400 is much faster than a 3.0 X2 6000?

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3572&p=9

Cause I see the 6400 equal to the Pentium E6300...

 

[toyota]

So you are telling me that 3.2 X2 6400 is much faster than a 3.0 X2 6000?

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3572&p=9

Cause I see the 6400 equal to the Pentium E6300...

you are right. I didnt realize that the reduced cache on the E6300 had that much of impact. I was thinking about clock for clock performance compared to my E8500.

 

[GaiaHunter]

you are right. I didnt realize that the reduced cache on the E6300 had that much of impact. I was thinking about clock for clock performance compared to my E8500.

Sorry if my previous posts sounded a bit rude.

BTW, I think your recommendations have merits (in these and other threads), but I also think you overrate a bit too much the CPU. If someone is a gamer, and have a processor of around Pentium E5300 caliber, they can use a GPU like a GTX260/4870 (although they will be paying a bit of a premium and only recommend for heavy gamers). My experience as a budget gamer has been that if you reach a certain minimum CPU you can (generally) then pair it with a mainstream or even a high end GPU.

Peace.

 

[toyota]

Sorry if my previous posts sounded a bit rude.

BTW, I think your recommendations have merits (in these and other threads), but I also think you overrate a bit too much the CPU. If someone is a gamer, and have a processor of around Pentium E5300 caliber, they can use a GPU like a GTX260/4870 (although they will be paying a bit of a premium and only recommend for heavy gamers). My experience as a budget gamer has been that if you reach a certain minimum CPU you can (generally) then pair it with a mainstream or even a high end GPU.

Peace.

well a lot of the times I do look at worst case scenarios. overall for gaming that cpu A64 X2 at 3.0 is about like my E8500 at 2.0. at 1280 I can tell you that with my cpu at 2.0 that I do give up around 40-50% of what my 192sp gtx260 is capable of in several games. with those settings overclocking my card does nothing in many games as the cpu is becoming the limiting factor. even in games that dont take a huge hit in average framerate the minimums become quite low. really a card like the 4850 is much more suited to his cpu and current res than having something faster would be. if he was at 1680 or especially 1920 then I could see going with a 4870 as making sense.

 

[happy medium]

Sorry if my previous posts sounded a bit rude.

BTW, I think your recommendations have merits (in these and other threads), but I also think you overrate a bit too much the CPU. If someone is a gamer, and have a processor of around Pentium E5300 caliber, they can use a GPU like a GTX260/4870 (although they will be paying a bit of a premium and only recommend for heavy gamers). My experience as a budget gamer has been that if you reach a certain minimum CPU you can (generally) then pair it with a mainstream or even a high end GPU.

Peace.

I agree totally. Toyota gives good recommendations, and Gaiahunters information.

Toyota, In the other thread I was trying to tell you that the cache makes a difference.
Well we all learned something and thats what its all about.

 

[toyota]

I agree totally. Toyota gives good recommendations, and Gaiahunters information.

Toyota, In the other thread I was trying to tell you that the cache makes a difference.
Well we all learned something and thats what its all about.

yeah that cache and even fsb can make a big difference depending on the game. the low end Pentium E2xxx series of cpus are basically equal to the A64/Opty X2 cpus clock for clock.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Sorry if my previous posts sounded a bit rude.

BTW, I think your recommendations have merits (in these and other threads), but I also think you overrate a bit too much the CPU. If someone is a gamer, and have a processor of around Pentium E5300 caliber, they can use a GPU like a GTX260/4870 (although they will be paying a bit of a premium and only recommend for heavy gamers). My experience as a budget gamer has been that if you reach a certain minimum CPU you can (generally) then pair it with a mainstream or even a high end GPU.

Peace.

I'm pretty much right with your line of thinking regarding the CPU. I gamed very comfortably on a Phenom (not PhII, the first Phenoms) at 2.7GHz. Some games will certainly be held back by that CPU, but other games would benefit from that level of card (a 5770).

But what might be more important is that the 5770 is DX11 capable giving him a feature that is pretty important in my opinion. Also the better image quality and other features that the Radeon 5xxx cards offer. The 5770 is really a mid range to upper mid range GPU and his CPU is really a mid to lower mid range part. I think that would be a fairly balanced system that has some future proofing as it has DX11 capability and should have plenty of power to run games at that resolution in the future. At $170 it's really not going to break the bank either.

 

[toyota]

I'm pretty much right with your line of thinking regarding the CPU. I gamed very comfortably on a Phenom (not PhII, the first Phenoms) at 2.7GHz. Some games will certainly be held back by that CPU, but other games would benefit from that level of card (a 5770).

But what might be more important is that the 5770 is DX11 capable giving him a feature that is pretty important in my opinion. Also the better image quality and other features that the Radeon 5xxx cards offer. The 5770 is really a mid range to upper mid range GPU and his CPU is really a mid to lower mid range part. I think that would be a fairly balanced system that has some future proofing as it has DX11 capability and should have plenty of power to run games at that resolution in the future. At $170 it's really not going to break the bank either.

at 1280 I would say the 5750 would be better for him though if he wants DX11. its a little faster than a 4850 and really at that res with that cpu having something faster isnt going to help in most cases IMO. if he is not using Vista or 7 then DX11 is irrelevant anyway and the 4850 would be the smarter overall choice.

 

[tcsenter]

And is that a reason to get less than you can?

A 4670 will be a massive upgrade, but a 4850/GTS 250 will be even more satisfactory and his processor could even benefit from a GTX260/4870 class card.

Having no budget is a compelling reason not to get a more expensive card. But the OP says unlimited budget.

With unlimited budget ATI 4870/4890/5770 or NVIDIA GTX260/275 would still show significant improvement in game play in most situation, IMO, to justify the price. Minimum 4850 or GTS 250, 1GB preferably.

You are contradicting yourself. If you keep pointing to this "unlimited budget" as the justification for getting "as much as you can", then you should be recommending the fastest card on the market at any cost. But here you are, trying to balance some compromise like everyone else.

The fact that he has been satisfied this long with a freaking GF 7300LE suggests he isn't literally looking for the fastest available at any cost. He just doesn't know what cards will give him a huge improvement or at what price point. $100 will give him a huge improvement, no sense causing him to spend $200 or $300 when $100 will do it.

 

[evolucion8]

I can give you testament of the Pentium Dual core performance. I used to had a Pentium M CPU running at 2.70GHz with an overclocked HD 3850 512MB, and it offered comparable performance with my brother's in law Pentium Dual Core E2180 running at stock speed of 2.20GHz, only in multi threaded games, it had the sligh edge, having 512KB of cache L2 per core kills its performance considerably, in some scenarios it can bottleneck slighly the HD 3870 as far as Anti Aliasing is off with that card. AMD K8 architecture is not dependant of cache for performance like the Core architecture.

Since the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ offers comparable gaming performance to a Core 2 Duo Conroe at 2.40GHz (Not Penryn), he will do fine with cards ranging from the 9600GT up to the GTX 260+ and or from the HD 4770 up to the HD 4870.

 

[GaiaHunter]

You are contradicting yourself. If you keep pointing to this "unlimited budget" as the justification for getting "as much as you can", then you should be recommending the fastest card on the market at any cost. But here you are, trying to balance some compromise like everyone else.

The fact that he has been satisfied this long with a freaking GF 7300LE suggests he isn't literally looking for the fastest available at any cost. He just doesn't know what cards will give him a huge improvement or at what price point. $100 will give him a huge improvement, no sense causing him to spend $200 or $300 when $100 will do it.

I'm pointing to cards that probably won't be getting 100% of their use, so you are paying a premium and only get 70-85% of that card performance, although still seeing improvement over cards that would show 100% usage.

On the other hand, he is considering upgrading, so maybe he isn't satisfied anymore or just got money available.

You have to consider the chance that he might have been playing some low requirement game for ages, like Warcraft 3, that could have kept him hooked for years, and recently got tired of it and moved into a more recent game.

That "look he has a GF 7300LE so any crap will satisfy him" argument doesn't make me change my position. Especially, cause a GTX 260 or a 4870 aren't $200 or $300.

When I bought a 4850 for an Athlon X2 6000+ system of mine, I chose a 4850 over a 4870 but a 4850 was $175 and a 4870 was $300 then. If I was buying with today prices I would have bought a 4870.