GPU upgrade for (ancient) motherboard

[VirtualLarry]

What would you recommend for a GPU now? Personally I'm in favor of the 750 TI as it is super efficient where FPS/watts are concerned...

But do you think it will have problems with such a dated PCI-E 1.1 motherboard?

As long as the motherboard and card don't have BIOS bugs, it should work. In theory, at least, PCI-E is both forward and backwards compatible.

Then again, I tried to use a PCI-E NV 6600 video card in a Via-chipset P4 mobo, and attempting to boot with the card installed would screw up the mobo CMOS settings. (Required removal of the card, and clearing CMOS, to get the mobo to boot again.) Then again, Via chipsets are know to be quirky.

I've run a Gigabyte GTX460 1GB card in my P35 motherboard, with a C2Q CPU. I can't say I've actually tried a PCI-E 3.0 card in those boards yet, but I've been contemplating getting a R9 270 2GB GDDR5 card for it, to replace the HD4850 (fan is starting to make noise).

Edit: The 750ti wouldn't be a bad choice. What kind and wattage PSU do you have? If you have a 6-pin power connector available, the R7 260X and R9 270 are a bit faster than the 750ti, but they take more power.

 

[sniper7137]

Edit: The 750ti wouldn't be a bad choice. What kind and wattage PSU do you have? If you have a 6-pin power connector available, the R7 260X and R9 270 are a bit faster than the 750ti, but they take more power.

I don't have a supplementary connector with my PSU (500 Watts, 13 A on single 12 V rail) and I want to keep the power supply to a minimum. So I'm preferring 750ti over the AMD cards!

Plus the 750TI is available close to my home and can easily be replaced should there be a problem in compatibility.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't have a supplementary connector with my PSU (500 Watts, 13 A on single 12 V rail) and I want to keep the power supply to a minimum. So I'm preferring 750ti over the AMD cards!

Plus the 750TI is available close to my home and can easily be replaced should there be a problem in compatibility.

13A @ 12V, is 156W. Where did the rest of the 500W go? That PSU sounds very el-cheapo, if it can't deliver most of it's wattage on the 12V rail. I would consider upgrading the PSU before installing any discrete GPU larger than a 5450. Any decent (or even half-decent) 500W PSU should have at least one PCI-E 6-pin power connector, if not two.

Did your power-supply come with your case, by any chance? If so, replace it.

 

[sniper7137]

Did your power-supply come with your case, by any chance? If so, replace it.

Yes it did. Do you have any recommendations for a replacement? Between $40 to $60?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes it did. Do you have any recommendations for a replacement? Between $40 to $60?

I've been using Antec VP-450 PSUs in my two Q9300 @ 3.0 rigs with HD4850 512MB cards. That's a decent budget PSU, and can put out its rated wattage. Another good one is the Corsair CX430v2, which seems to perennially have rebates on it at Newegg.

Pretty sure both of them have a single 6-pin PCI-E power connector.

Both of those PSUs are roughly $40 usually, at Newegg, and with rebate the CX430 is generally $20 AR.

VP-450
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817371045

CX430v2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817139026

CX500
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139027

 

[RussianSensation]

CX600 is $35 after $10 off coupon and $20 mail in rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817139028

Rosewill HIVE 650W for $50:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-132-_-Product

Rosewill 750W Bronze for $60:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-294-_-Product

Modular
Cooler Master V550 550W Gold rated and modular for $65 after rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817171092

Corsair CSM550 550W Gold rated for $65 after rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817139059

 

[SlickR12345]

I played Crysis 1 on a Pentium 4, 1GB DDR1 ram and X1650 pro 512mb GDDR2. My computer was bellow the minimum recommended hardware at the time.

Played on average at 20 frames per second, which is smooth, not great, but still smooth enough with low settings.

Core2Duo, even the 6000 series can handle Crysis 3 and any other game. It might have trouble in unoptimized and badly coded games like Watch Dogs, but on low settings and lower resolutions he won't have any problems running these games at decent frames.

 

[hoorah]

FWIW I bought an E6600 to upgrade one of my HTPCs awhile ago for like $11 shipped. Depending on what that board could handle, a slightly faster chip + overclocking could go a long way.

Or, it could be a waste of $11 if it ends up not being good enough.

 

[infoiltrator]

I would probably go with a GTX 750 Ti, low power, low bandwith, good resale or future use. Buy from Amazon for return policy.
Note, if the motherboard supports there is a 771 to 775 mod for 54xx server chips, might be worth considering.
These go used about $40-60, $3 for mod strip. Equivalent to Q6600.

 

[toyota]

I played Crysis 1 on a Pentium 4, 1GB DDR1 ram and X1650 pro 512mb GDDR2. My computer was bellow the minimum recommended hardware at the time.

Played on average at 20 frames per second, which is smooth, not great, but still smooth enough with low settings.

Core2Duo, even the 6000 series can handle Crysis 3 and any other game. It might have trouble in unoptimized and badly coded games like Watch Dogs, but on low settings and lower resolutions he won't have any problems running these games at decent frames.

BS. I already showed you a link where cpus faster than his were not getting but 25 fps in Crysis 3. he would be lucky to get in the low 20s for an average even if he oced a little plus the minimum framerate would be in the teens for him. that is not acceptable no matter what you have fooled yourself into thinking.

 

[sniper7137]

FWIW I bought an E6600 to upgrade one of my HTPCs awhile ago for like $11 shipped. Depending on what that board could handle, a slightly faster chip + overclocking could go a long way.

Or, it could be a waste of $11 if it ends up not being good enough.

I've placed an order for an E7500 and do intend to take it to about 3.4 Ghz

 

[blackened23]

BS. I already showed you a link where cpus faster than his were not getting but 25 fps in Crysis 3. he would be lucky to get in the low 20s for an average even if he oced a little plus the minimum framerate would be in the teens for him. that is not acceptable no matter what you have fooled yourself into thinking.

Maybe he's playing at 640x480? Heh. I agree. Dual cores just don't handle Crysis 3 too well, and while I think the G3220 is a great chip (I use one in my HTPC)......even Haswell dual cores kinda struggle at 1080p. (by struggle, I mean you have to lower settings a lot to get a smooth 60 fps). I couldn't imagine a core 2 duo. I also don't consider 20 fps "smooth". If it's averaging 20 fps that means its dipping to 5 fps at times. Hardly smooth.

 

[sniper7137]

I would probably go with a GTX 750 Ti, low power, low bandwith, good resale or future use. Buy from Amazon for return policy.
Note, if the motherboard supports there is a 771 to 775 mod for 54xx server chips, might be worth considering.
These go used about $40-60, $3 for mod strip. Equivalent to Q6600.

Looks like its gonna be the 750ti for me, as well as a new PSU, probably a 450W from Corsair

@RussianSensation @VirtualLarry and everyone else thanks for such detailed and extensive advice guys :thumbsup:

 

[SlickR12345]

BS. I already showed you a link where cpus faster than his were not getting but 25 fps in Crysis 3. he would be lucky to get in the low 20s for an average even if he oced a little plus the minimum framerate would be in the teens for him. that is not acceptable no matter what you have fooled yourself into thinking.

You have no idea what you are talking about, probably because you've never played on low end machines.

I've played on many low end machines, you can play pretty much any game on low end machine, 20 frames per second is actually good enough to play at.

Yeah the optimal frame rate is 60, but for a FPS game even 15 FPS is good, you want 30fps for strategy games because there are a ton of units on the map so you need it to be very precise and smooth to be able to play properly, for FPS games or racing games, sports games you don't actually need more than 20fps to play a game.

Plus you have different settings, he already said he won't play at 1080p resolutions, but at around 700p resolutions and on lower settings, which he would absolutely be able to play Crysis 3, BF3, BF4, even Watch Dogs.

 

[toyota]

You have no idea what you are talking about, probably because you've never played on low end machines.

I've played on many low end machines, you can play pretty much any game on low end machine, 20 frames per second is actually good enough to play at.

Yeah the optimal frame rate is 60, but for a FPS game even 15 FPS is good, you want 30fps for strategy games because there are a ton of units on the map so you need it to be very precise and smooth to be able to play properly, for FPS games or racing games, sports games you don't actually need more than 20fps to play a game.

Plus you have different settings, he already said he won't play at 1080p resolutions, but at around 700p resolutions and on lower settings, which he would absolutely be able to play Crysis 3, BF3, BF4, even Watch Dogs.

15 fps is NOT playable for a shooter and to say you dont need more than 20 fps is laughable. and the freaking resolution means NOTHING as its the cpu we are talking about. but hey if the OP has ridiculously low standards like you then he will be just fine I guess...:whiste:

 

[Techhog]

You have no idea what you are talking about, probably because you've never played on low end machines.

I've played on many low end machines, you can play pretty much any game on low end machine, 20 frames per second is actually good enough to play at.

Yeah the optimal frame rate is 60, but for a FPS game even 15 FPS is good, you want 30fps for strategy games because there are a ton of units on the map so you need it to be very precise and smooth to be able to play properly, for FPS games or racing games, sports games you don't actually need more than 20fps to play a game.

Plus you have different settings, he already said he won't play at 1080p resolutions, but at around 700p resolutions and on lower settings, which he would absolutely be able to play Crysis 3, BF3, BF4, even Watch Dogs.

Even console gamers would question your sanity from reading this post.

 

[ocre]

Maybe he's playing at 640x480? Heh. I agree. Dual cores just don't handle Crysis 3 too well, and while I think the G3220 is a great chip (I use one in my HTPC)......even Haswell dual cores kinda struggle at 1080p. (by struggle, I mean you have to lower settings a lot to get a smooth 60 fps). I couldn't imagine a core 2 duo. I also don't consider 20 fps "smooth". If it's averaging 20 fps that means its dipping to 5 fps at times. Hardly smooth.

the original crysis?

That was one of the smoothest engines ever. i remember playing it on a rig that maybe was around 25fps and it was amassing how well it paced out the frames. It wasnt a slideshow and never microstuttered. It really impressed me. At the time i had a more powerful rig that could do 35fps with slightly higher settings. So i was really impressed at how well it handled at sub 30fps.

But seriously, I know a lot of people here could never imagine playing games on these weaker machines but it not only happens, it is actually pretty common.

My brothers son has an Phenom2 720 triple core and the GTX460 with gimped memory...... 728mb wasnt it? Anyway, he is still playing and getting new games. I am guessing its reducing IQ and resolution, but he is managing. And it is not like he has to, he has both the xbox360 and PS3 (dont think he got a new console yet) but still gets a lot of his games for PC. Most of them are cross platform and I know he has to be reducing the settings but he still says they look better than the console and play fine to him.

He doesnt load up fps overlays or run benchmarks but he knows to reduce settings when the animations slows down. Most people dont care about the fps anyway, just if they can play the game. Anyway, he claims he still plays medium to med/high hybrid settings for most games. No AA though.

Heck is father has an old phenom 2 920 on DDR2 with an 8800gt and is still managing. Mind you he is real old school (still using CRT refuses modern LCDs). Last time i talked to him about his PC he said he was playing AC3 on it. It was before Christmas

Now, I dont know how well these games play. I mean, I wouldnt/couldnt imagine playing todays games on these rigs. But people do it and it brings them joy. Who am i to try to knock it down.

I mean, He could have bought AC3 for the PS3/360 but instead bought and finished it his antique pc.
CRT, Phenom 2 920 @ 2.8ghz(not overclocked), 8800gt 512mb, 2 gb slow OEM ram that came with his windows vista HP.

And bought and finished AC3 on it last year.

I am sure he still is using it but really the only time we talk about his PC is when i am ragging on him.

 

[infoiltrator]

This is in the may or may not work for the poster.
A trial purchase of a 750Ti is a maybe, and would indicate whether the rig will work.
13 ANP 12V is worrisome.
fwi I've had good luck with refurbished parts from 3BTech
http://3btech.net/motherboards.html
might be worth a look for upgrades

 

[ocre]

i would really like an update from the OP when he gets everything together

 

[sniper7137]

i would really like an update from the OP when he gets everything together

I will let you know as soon as I get it done

 

[SlickR12345]

15 fps is NOT playable for a shooter and to say you dont need more than 20 fps is laughable. and the freaking resolution means NOTHING as its the cpu we are talking about. but hey if the OP has ridiculously low standards like you then he will be just fine I guess...:whiste:

Yes it is, you can ABSOLUTELY PLAY shooter games at 15 frames per second.

Unplayable would be 10fps and less, or less than 20fps in strategy games and stuff.

For shooters 15fps is playable, its not great, but its PLAYABLE!

And I bet you $1000 dollars that he is going to have a decent enough experience playing Crysis 3 on that cd2.

 

[ocre]

what he finds acceptable may differ drastically from what i might. I remember playing AC 1 on an single core athlon 64. 22-25 fps.

The animation kinda reminded me of Shadow of the Colossus on PlayStation.
But i was playing it on high and it looked amazing. I could reduce settings but i preferred the lower fps/higher detailed version. I loved that game......

But after that, I went upgrade crazy. Dropped an opteron 180 in that socket 939 (dual cores where hard to find for that socket) and quadrupled the ram. Finally upgraded to vista 64 and held out till the phenom2 finally came. I was a huge AMD fan and i suffered throughout waiting on their comeback...........

 

[2is]

@ShintaiDK @RussianSensation
What I'm worried about is whether the board itself will have compatibility issues due to an out of date BIOS. Because I've come across several cases of people not being able to run 3.0 cards on old 1.1 mobos (the most recent bios update for my board was back in 2008). The new cards such as the GTX 750 Ti or R7 260x would be my first choice.

And I was indeed intending to do some overclocking to get a little more juice out of the CPU

I've personally never run into an issue of running a 3.0 card in a 1.1 slot. One off issues like these are going to be on a case by case basis. If you research a card, you're bound to find someone somewhere that had an issue. If you're going to keep that from you moving forward, you'll never move forward. There "shouldn't" be an issue, but no one is going to be able to tell you with 100% certainty that there won't be. You just have to try it. Return policies exist for a reason and if it doesn't work, take advantage of it.

Also, what Toyota said... That system is old, and if you're trying to suggest that Crysis on a 5450 is doable, then all you're doing is deluding yourself and hunting for answers you want to hear instead of the truth.

 

[2is]

Yes it is, you can ABSOLUTELY PLAY shooter games at 15 frames per second.

Unplayable would be 10fps and less, or less than 20fps in strategy games and stuff.

For shooters 15fps is playable, its not great, but its PLAYABLE!

And I bet you $1000 dollars that he is going to have a decent enough experience playing Crysis 3 on that cd2.

Not everyone has the same standards. I'd say yours are quite low as I don't find 15 fps playable in the least, and that's probably an average, meaning minimums are single digits.

Seriously, if people are going to defend crap performance why even bother wasting anyone's time asking for upgrade advise?

 

[toyota]

Yes it is, you can ABSOLUTELY PLAY shooter games at 15 frames per second.

Unplayable would be 10fps and less, or less than 20fps in strategy games and stuff.

For shooters 15fps is playable, its not great, but its PLAYABLE!

And I bet you $1000 dollars that he is going to have a decent enough experience playing Crysis 3 on that cd2.

even pre rendered movies requiring no user input are at least 24 fps so stop making a fool of yourself claiming 15 fps average is playable for a fps video game.