Does it worth upgrade for gtx 480 to 670/680 ? or wait for 700 series ?

[SpeedTester]

I'm Pretty sure Brandon has the Asus p6t se motherboard which if remember only officially supports crossfire
but I think you can flash the bios to the p6t and obtain sli support.

He is running stock at 3.06ghz and that's going to hold him back
quite a bit.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

I'm Pretty sure Brandon has the Asus p6t se motherboard which if remember only officially supports crossfire
but I think you can flash the bios to the p6t and obtain sli support.

He is running stock at 3.06ghz and that's going to hold him back
quite a bit.

Most games are not held back by the CPU mate. @ 1080P+ CPU limitation is on a nil to very few per game basis GTA 4 comes to mind but even then it still runs great on my frugal Phenom II 955.

 

[brandon888]

Gordon Freemen
+1 .... if game is well optimized .. it takes maximum advantage from gpu ...

600 series are fine .. but not impressive Memory bandwidth holds me to ....

 

[cmdrdredd]

Gordon Freemen

that is right to .. i understand

BTW about OC ing .... my fiend had radeon 7970 ... we tested on my cpu i7 950 at stock clocks and then on 4.2ghz .... do difference with fps ..... so my cpu cna handle at least radeon 7970 ....

Gordon Freemen

i want a single card witch will run BF3 on constant 60 fps ... bu there is no gpu yet that can do it .... expect 690 sure ..... even with gtx 670 i saw some 40 fps dis in multipalyer on large maps

BF3 multiplayer needs CPU Power.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

BF3 multiplayer needs CPU Power.

Funny cause BF3 is very well optimized for muti cores and it really runs great on modest hardware for how great it looks.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

Seriously... You'll probably get away with an older CPU on a GTX 670/680 in many games, but it will bottleneck quite a few of them. And some of them will be bottlenecked in certain parts of the game.

I have a Q9650@4GHz and GTX 670 in my secondary system. Even at 4GHz that CPU bottlenecks the hell out of a 670.

Even my 2600K@4.4GHz bottlenecks my GTX 670 SLI setup a bit in certain games.

At least overclock that i7 1366 CPU if going GTX 670/680.

 

[SpeedTester]

BF3 multiplayer needs CPU Power.

Correct me if I'm worng but don't large mp 64 player maps take advantage of high clock and multi cores. I can't seem to find any creditable source for comparing stock vs oc'd and I haven't done any testing stock vs my OC but I'm sure my fps would scale nicely with the 600 series gpus.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Seriously... You'll probably get away with an older CPU on a GTX 670/680 in many games, but it will bottleneck quite a few of them. And some of them will be bottlenecked in certain parts of the game.

I have a Q9650@4GHz and GTX 670 in my secondary system. Even at 4GHz that CPU bottlenecks the hell out of a 670.

Even my 2600K@4.4GHz bottlenecks my GTX 670 SLI setup a bit in certain games.

At least overclock that i7 1366 CPU if going GTX 670/680.

if an OCed i7 2600K is struggling then it just means the game is bugged up.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Correct me if I'm worng but don't large mp 64 players maps take advantage of high clock and multi cores. I can't seem to find any creditable source for comparing stock vs oc'd. I haven't done any testing stock vs my OC but I'm sure my fps would scale nicely with the 600 series gpus.

Yeah it scales up pretty well with more cores and more clock speed. People with overclocked SB-E were getting pretty good results compared to SB/IB.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

if an OCed i7 2600K is struggling then it just means the game is bugged up.

There are plenty of evidence showing that a GTX 670/680 SLI setup continues to scale even when pushing a Sandy/Ivy beyond 5GHz +.

There will always be a bottleneck in every system, the goal is minimizing it :thumbsup:

 

[brandon888]

The_Golden_Man

i had 7970 and gtx 590 .. tested on 3.0 ghz and 4.0 ghz ... both got from friends ... and no difference when cpu was clocked 4.0 or 3.0 .... gpu usage was 99% on both clocks ....

all you know that gtx 680 is weaker then gtx 590 .... so if i cna hande 590 ..how can't i hande 680 ? strange ...


i saw 40 fps dips even while guy tested gtx 680 on i7 2600k 4.4 GHZ .....so no difference ...

Gordon Freemen

game is buggy for sure ....
gtx 680 sli and 55 fps drops ... yeah only 1 second or few .. but wtf ????



i haven't tested on other gmaes ... idk maybe i7 950 will bottleneck a bit gtx 590 on other games .... i really don't know .. but on battlefield 99% gpu usage and no cpu blottleneck for sure ....

 

[cmdrdredd]

The_Golden_Man

i had 7970 and gtx 590 .. tested on 3.0 ghz and 4.0 ghz ... both got from friends ... and no difference when cpu was clocked 4.0 or 3.0 .... gpu usage was 99% on both clocks ....

all you know that gtx 680 is weaker then gtx 590 .... so if i cna hande 590 ..how can't i hande 680 ? strange ...


i saw 40 fps dips even while guy tested gtx 680 on i7 2600k 4.4 GHZ .....so no difference ...

Gordon Freemen

game is buggy for sure ....
gtx 680 sli and 55 fps drops ... yeah only 1 second or few .. but wtf ????



i haven't tested on other gmaes ... idk maybe i7 950 will bottleneck a bit gtx 590 on other games .... i really don't know .. but on battlefield 99% gpu usage and no cpu blottleneck for sure ....

99% GPU usage doesn't mean no CPU bottleneck. It simply means you're using your GPU to the max, but that doesn't tell you if a 4Ghz CPU will be faster than a 3.4Ghz CPU. Here's a hint...it will.

FPS drops in BF3 multiplayer are common no matter what. Turn off vsync for starters to open up your card (so it's not going to 60fps and then waiting for work).

You're asking for advice and not listening to the people who know what they're talking about who are giving you advice.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

There are plenty of evidence showing that a GTX 670/680 SLI setup continues to scale even when pushing a Sandy/Ivy beyond 5GHz +.

There will always be a bottleneck in every system, the goal is minimizing it :thumbsup:

LOL lets be realistic you dont need 200fps+ to play a game for me 60fps is just fine and I can even PWN in BFBC2 at only capped 60fps LOL.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

LOL lets be realistic you dont need 200fps+ to play a game for me 60fps is just fine and I can even PWN in BFBC2 at only capped 60fps LOL.

Actually, when I play The Witcher 2 I prefer to play with Vsync disabled, because of the input lag Vsync introduces.

Here is the kicker.. I get screen tearing with Vsync disabled when I'm falling much under 80FPS, but 80FPS + give me no screen tearing and a much more fluid experience than Vsync at 60FPS. This is on a 60Hz monitor.

There are however games I like to play with Vsync on. But now, I at least have the GPU power to choose what's best for me.

It will vary from game to game what's best, and for each person.

 

[brandon888]

cmdrdredd

i got more fps on gtx 590 then on radeon 7970 ... on my cpu with 3.0 .... how cna you explain it then ??? it means i can handle at least 7970 and i got 60+ fps with some small dips with gtx 590 ...


BTW ... as i said it was only about cpu usage .... no need to lie here ;/ .. i saw it myself ... on 4.0 cpu usage was less on task manage then on 3.0 .... bu they never were on 100% ... i got like 60-75% usage on on 3.0 ghz and like 40-50% on 4.0 ghz .....



The_Golden_Man


i use vsync always .... i have 60hz TV .... so i don't care fps will be 123212 or 60 ..... i will not notice above 60 anyway

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Actually, when I play The Witcher 2 I prefer to play with Vsync disabled, because of the input lag Vsync introduces.

Here is the kicker.. I get screen tearing with Vsync disabled when I'm falling much under 80FPS, but 80FPS + give me no screen tearing and a much more fluid experience than Vsync at 60FPS. This is on a 60Hz monitor.

There are however games I like to play with Vsync on. But now, I at least have the GPU power to choose what's best for me.

It will vary from game to game what's best, and for each person.

Also IMHO a higher Dpi mouse will mitigate what you don't like about vsync. IMHO turn up your Dpi to reduce that micro millisecond of lag from mouse input to screen movement.

 

[brandon888]

Gordon Freemen

i have 2000 dpi ^^ on 1080p ... i think it is enough ^^

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Gordon Freemen

i have 2000 dpi ^^ on 1080p ... i think it is enough ^^

If it works for you and you are happy with it then that's what matters.

 

[cmdrdredd]

cmdrdredd

i got more fps on gtx 590 then on radeon 7970 ... on my cpu with 3.0 .... how cna you explain it then ??? it means i can handle at least 7970 and i got 60+ fps with some small dips with gtx 590 ...


BTW ... as i said it was only about cpu usage .... no need to lie here ;/ .. i saw it myself ... on 4.0 cpu usage was less on task manage then on 3.0 .... bu they never were on 100% ... i got like 60-75% usage on on 3.0 ghz and like 40-50% on 4.0 ghz .....



The_Golden_Man


i use vsync always .... i have 60hz TV .... so i don't care fps will be 123212 or 60 ..... i will not notice above 60 anyway

It's a known fact that a slower CPU uses MORE resources to do the same work. You just proved it. Maybe you should try listening to the people you're asking rather than arguing with them at every turn. People like you, I point to Dell.com and give up.


A GTX 590 is faster than a 7970. The 590 is a dual GPU card. So it's obviously going to have a higher fps. The thing is, you are starving it with a 3Ghz CPU. It's fact, we don't make this stuff up! Clock speed scales well with a card like that. You think you can handle it with no bottleneck but I'll tell you what. A 7970 is a touch faster than a GTX 670 at stock, and a GTX 590 is faster than both at stock. I had a Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz (that's 800Mhz more than you) and my FPS jumped significantly when I upgraded to my current system with a 4.5Ghz 3570k and I kept my GTX 670 the same. Read my post I linked below, it will prove it to you. If you ignore this then I know you're not here for advice at all and simply want to argue all day about stuff you obviously don't understand.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33521789&postcount=1

 

[Gordon Freemen]

It's a known fact that a slower CPU uses MORE resources to do the same work. You just proved it. Maybe you should try listening to the people you're asking rather than arguing with them at every turn. People like you, I point to Dell.com and give up.


A GTX 590 is faster than a 7970. The 590 is a dual GPU card. So it's obviously going to have a higher fps. The thing is, you are starving it with a 3Ghz CPU. It's fact, we don't make this stuff up! Clock speed scales well with a card like that. You think you can handle it with no bottleneck but I'll tell you what. A 7970 is a touch faster than a GTX 670 at stock, and a GTX 590 is faster than both at stock. I had a Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz (that's 800Mhz more than you) and my FPS jumped significantly when I upgraded to my current system with a 4.5Ghz 3570k and I kept my GTX 670 the same. Read my post I linked below, it will prove it to you. If you ignore this then I know you're not here for advice at all and simply want to argue all day about stuff you obviously don't understand.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33521789&postcount=1

Those graphics you posted showed nothing other than how each GPU perform in BF3 OPs CPU is OK
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html

 

[cmdrdredd]

He asked why a 590 was faster than a 7970 and I showed him.

BTW: Toms hardware only tests Single Player on one mission. Bad example of BF3 overall performance with the CPU.

You guys are utterly hopeless

This is about CPU scaling and I proved I'm right with the link I provided. Faster CPU = faster performance from the same GPU. In Battlefield 3 it's obvious if you do your research that in MP CPU power plays a significant role in your FPS.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

He asked why a 590 was faster than a 7970 and I showed him.

BTW: Toms hardware only tests Single Player on one mission. Bad example of BF3 overall performance with the CPU.

You guys are utterly hopeless

This is about CPU scaling and I proved I'm right with the link I provided. Faster CPU = faster performance from the same GPU. In Battlefield 3 it's obvious if you do your research that in MP CPU power plays a significant role in your FPS.

I hardly lose any FPS in BF3 online vs single player you are hopeless BF3 scales like cake.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Hardly lose any is not the same performance. What you're saying is "I'm going to twist my words to sound positive because I have to win the argument even if I'm proven wrong".

 

[brandon888]

Gordon Freemen

thanks god .... i forgot that link ^^ i mean thank you

yeah dude ... BF3 is GPU intensive .. not cpu ... 4 core cpus will do fine ... just need grat gpu for that ....

cmdrdredd

okay i got 590 right ? i got 52-55 dips only with gtx 590 .... i said ... my friend tested it on own i7 2600 4.4GHZ .... same results ....

okay leave it .... all you think that i lie ... no problem ... serius ....

that topic is about GPU .... not cpu ... i will upgrade cpu if you will be right .... thats all ....

 

[cmdrdredd]

You didn't read my link and everyone who posted the same stuff I'm saying you argue with. Forget it...

Do you even understand the difference between single player and multiplayer? That link you hold up as the holy grail is testing single player only!! If you play MP the CPU has a large impact on performance.