• 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.

Best video card for 1920x1200?

B

Brent

Member
I'm currently running with the following:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
ASUS P5K-E Wifi/AP
XFX Radeon 4890
8GB DDR2
26" Samsung monitor T260HD

I'm looking to spend between $300-$370. I know that I should be able to find a Radeon 6970, GTX 570, or if I'm really lucky, a GTX 580.

I'd appreciate thoughts regarding what would be my "sweet spot" for investment here.
 
All three of those cards are going to be a massive improvement over a 4890. My GTX 580 was a big step over my GTX 295.

Boils down to brand preference, both the 6970 & 570 are really nice cards.
 
I think your CPU will be a bottleneck for all of those cards. Is the CPU @ stock speed settings?.....
Really, with that CPU at stock you would be lucky to get 70% of the GPU's performance..
I guess it doesnt matter, if you are going to upgrade the rest of the system in the future, but by that time perhaps better GPU will be out...
Maybe you can get away with a 460\560Ti or 6870?
 
@Dkcode - thanks for the feedback. It's good to have my thinking reinforced and doubt that I'm going to be "losing" with any of these cards. As SolMeister has noted, any card that I pick up will either be replaced or carried over into a motherboard/CPU/RAM upgrade sometime in the next year or so. 🙂

@SolMiester - Thanks also to you for your feedback. I am curious about some things that you said, so I'm quoting you below.

I think your CPU will be a bottleneck for all of those cards. Is the CPU @ stock speed
settings?.....
Really, with that CPU at stock you would be lucky to get 70% of the GPU's performance..
Click to expand...
OK - this one is "news" to me and is a surprise. Would you have any links to fill me on what leads you to that conclusion? As far as I know, a Q9550 is still a viable processor as it is a 4-core CPU, not the older dual-core procs. I have yet to find a single game that is CPU-bound at 1920x1200.

Maybe you can get away with a 460\560Ti or 6870?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, none of the above will work adequately at 1920x1200 as per every benchmark that I've ever looked at.
 
Last edited:
Brent said:
@Dkcode - thanks for the feedback. It's good to have my thinking reinforced and doubt that I'm going to be "losing" with any of these cards. As SolMeister has noted, any card that I pick up will either be replaced or carried over into a motherboard/CPU/RAM upgrade sometime in the next year or so. 🙂

@SolMiester - Thanks also to you for your feedback. I am curious about some things that you said, so I'm quoting you below.

OK - this one is "news" to me and is a surprise. Would you have any links to fill me on what leads you to that conclusion? As far as I know, a Q9550 is still a viable processor as it is a 4-core CPU, not the older dual-core procs. I have yet to find a single game that is CPU-bound at 1920x1200.


Unfortunately, none of the above will work adequately at 1920x1200 as per every benchmark that I've ever looked at.
Click to expand...
well with your 4890 of course no game would really be cpu limited. with a gtx580 or even gtx570 you will most certainly not get all they have to offer in every game with a stock Q9550. its not really bad at all but I personally would not spend 150 bucks more for the gtx580 over the gtx570 if I knew a lot of that I would never even see. now of course you could crank more AA with the gtx580 but your playable performance in general will be about the same as on the gtx570 for most games.
 
Last edited:
SolMiester said:
Brent, thanks to Russian for his link...CPU bottleneck...
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20486/4
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reference SolMeister 🙂

The 9550 has a lot of overclocking headroom though. So at 3.8ghz, it will be pretty fast (Starcraft 2 loves Core i architecture though).

I say, something like a GTX560 Ti or an HD6950 2GB around $200-240 are sweet upgrades. I wouldn't spend any more $ since performance benefits fall off rather quickly. I'd lean towards the AMD card in your case since with a slower processor AMD cards tend to be more forgiving.

Here is a review that compared HD5870 / GTX470/480 on 2 systems: core i5 750 and a Core i7 965.

In some cases the Fermi architecture tends to be more sensitive in regard to a slower CPU. Since Q9550 is even slower than the i5 750, I think the AMD card is preferable in your case.

If you want to save some $, Newegg has an OpenBox Asus 6950 1GB Direct CU II for $200. That's a good deal and performs reasonably well against a GTX 560 Ti. Of course if you play videogames which prefer NV's architecture (Lost Planet 2, Crysis 2, Civ5), then go with an NV card.

I still advise you to overclock your processor at least to 3.6ghz.
 
Last edited:
All:

Thanks for taking a moment to correct my expectations. Any rudeness that may have been seen in my language was simply surprise at this revelation. If I have given offense, I do apologize. I knew that my system was aged, but I really hadn't thought that it had become quite so outdated. I don't presently overclock my CPU and realize now that it's time to see how far I can push it.

With that said, it's also become clear that I need to invest in far more than just a video card. That's a shame but that's the way of the enthusiast/gaming PC world, eh? 🙂

So thanks, SolMiester, Toyota and RussianSensation for the feedback and time you put into your responses. This is why I have been coming (and will continue to come) to these forums!
 
Since you already have 8GB of DDR2, and Q9550, your videocard is still the most limiting component for gaming, especially given the resolution of your monitor. My advice is to overclock the CPU to 3.4ghz+. This should be very easy since the Q9550 has a high multiplier of 8.5x. Your motherboard has a P35 chipset which means it should handle 400 FSB with a 45nm quad-core without problems. Therefore, at minimum you should be able to get 3.4ghz out of your processor (and likely with barely any voltage increase, if at all). You will probably need a FSB voltage bump of +0.1V, and MCH voltage bump of +0.1v. Don't forget to lock the PCI Express frequency at 100, and make sure to set the lowest CPU:RAM ratio when overclocking so that you aren't being limited by your RAM.

Just pick up a good aftermarket cooler, such as the Cooler Master Hyper 212+ for $30.

I still think you can ride out the wave with the Q9550 @ 3.4ghz-3.5ghz until next year when Ivy Bridge launches. The top cards are almost 2x faster at higher resolutions than the 4890 in more modern games.

The games where the Q9550 may be lacking would be Civilization 5, Starcraft 2, etc. But those games don't really need 60 fps to begin with. Sure a Sandy Bridge system would be faster (but is it worth a $150 mobo + $225 CPU + $50 for RAM?), if you manage to overclock the CPU, you'll be more GPU limited.

Although I should mention that there are many users who would love to have your Q9550 on the used market. A quick look at EBay shows that used Q9550 sell for astronomical prices. So perhaps that's also something you should consider since that CPU is in high demand for anyone still chugging along on a dual-core processor on Socket 775.
 
Last edited:
Even at stock CPU a 6970 would be a big upgrade over what you have and it will last you when you roll in a new motherboard and processor next year.
 
Dkcode said:
Even at stock CPU a 6970 would be a big upgrade over what you have and it will last you when you roll in a new motherboard and processor next year.
Click to expand...
and next year there would be a 7970 for the same price by time he decides to fully use the 6970. in general it never makes sense to have a gpu that you cant really fully use for a year. saving 100 bucks and getting a 6950 would make more sense if he is not willing to oc the cpu. plus he could oc the 6950 close the gap anyway. in other words with a stock Q9550 he would never see the small percentage difference between the cards because his cpu anyway.
 
<snipping out brain-dead/inaccurate commentary but leaving in my thoughts below>

My problem with the 4950/560Ti cards is that, per the benchmarks that I've seen, they simply don't do all that well at 1920x1200 and I really don't feel like throwing money away on a card that can't compete with AA/AS enabled. If I'm wrong about this impression, then please point me to a benchmark that shows that they compete well at my monitor's resolution.

If I could sell the Q9550 for $100+, then it might make sense for me to perform a full system upgrade given that the i5-2500K + P67 motherboards can be had at a fairly reasonable price. I haven't looked at Intel's latest CPU roadmap but that's on me to do and I don't really want to sidetrack this discussion into CPU/Motherboard/RAM topics. I guess that it's time to chat with my wife again! 😉
 
Last edited:
um its not conflicting. I said "saving 100 bucks and getting a 6950 would make more sense if he is not willing to oc the cpu". and then I said "with a stock Q9550 he would never see the small percentage difference. "

so I just said the same thing he did then. get the 6970 IF you are going to co your Q9550.
 
Last edited:
Brent said:
To be fair, I did say that "I don't presently overclock my CPU and realize now that it's time to see how far I can push it."

I'm absolutely going to see what I can do with my existing configuration before I make any final decisions.

Therefore, it was confusing because you have contradicted Dkcode both times that he's posted in support of the 6970/570 purchase. I'll grant you that you did put in the qualifiers but it left me with the sense that you were advising against buying one of those cards.
Click to expand...
you are not making any sense. look at the post of his that I replied to. he says "Even at stock CPU" so I simply addressed that. there are no conflicting comments here so I dont understand why you are getting confused.
 
toyota said:
you are not making any sense. look at the post of his that I replied to. he says "Even at stock CPU" so I simply addressed that. there are no conflicting comments here so I dont understand why you are getting confused.
Click to expand...
Ok so I needed a kick in the proverbial pants to pay attention. You're right and I see where I am wrong now. Blah. Getting rid of my confusing posts to keep this thread on track.
 
I'd say dont buy anything now, just oc your cpu to ~3.5-3.8Ghz and do an overhaul nextyear when Ivy/Bulldozer-HD7000/keplar are released. or buy 5850/70 for cheap to hold you till your next build.
 
I run that same CPU with a GTX 460 at 1900x1200 fine. Plays every game at least high settings without any problems.

FYI the cpu does not overclock well at all. I tried to overclock it when it first came out with the best cpu cooler and was less than 200mhz overlock for a massive cpu temp increase. Not worth it.
 
imaheadcase said:
I run that same CPU with a GTX 460 at 1900x1200 fine. Plays every game at least high settings without any problems.

FYI the cpu does not overclock well at all. I tried to overclock it when it first came out with the best cpu cooler and was less than 200mhz overlock for a massive cpu temp increase. Not worth it.
Click to expand...
so because you could not oc your cpu it means all Q9550 cpu wont oc just fine? sorry but that makes no sense because plenty of people have oced that cpu just fine. anybody with any remotely decent board can easily do 3.4 for sure.
 
i think all 3 cards u listed are cpu limited... :X

meaning i honestly think ud be fine with any of the choices you listed.

imaheadcase said:
FYI the cpu does not overclock well at all. I tried to overclock it when it first came out with the best cpu cooler and was less than 200mhz overlock for a massive cpu temp increase. Not worth it.
Click to expand...

mmmm have u tried coming over to my section of this forum and asking for advice?
(cases and cooling)
You'd be suprised how much air sinks have evolved since C2Q days.
 
Last edited:
2gb 6950 flashed to unlocked shaders and overclocked on stock volts to 6970 clocks.
Or 2gb 6970.

The 2gb will serve you better for current and future games.

Overclock that 9550 to 4ghz!
 
Last edited:
i have a 21.5 inch monitor that does 1920x1080 i know it isnt of much help to you with your higher reso but i play bc2 and my gtx580 plays the game fully maxed out solid frames,i would recommend it myself and with the bf3 demo showing it running on a gtx580 kinda hard to not wanna pick one up for that,bit overkill for the current games me i would go gtx570 if i had to do it again so gtx570 as my recommendation:d
 
Last edited:
Superbiiz has a special on the Sapphire HD6950 2GB.

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=AT-HD6950

$262.49 - $30 MIR - $15 off (Take 15&#37; off your order (Max $15) w/code: RAPTURE15, ends 5/31) = $217.49.

Sell that 4890 for $70 and that's a decent upgrade. If you find the performance is unsatisfactory (i.e., being held back by a stock Q9550, crank the AA to 8x.). If you are still unhappy with minimum framerates, put that Q9550 on Ebay and see how that goes for you. You can always upgrade the CPU. 6950 seems to be the sweet spot since spending beyond that won't provide any benefits with your CPU.
 
toyota said:
so because you could not oc your cpu it means all Q9550 cpu wont oc just fine? sorry but that makes no sense because plenty of people have oced that cpu just fine. anybody with any remotely decent board can easily do 3.4 for sure.
Click to expand...

Its pretty common for that CPU. So it does make sense.

So a 200-400mhz..woopity do still not worth the effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top