gtx590 bottlenecked by 3 year-old processor?

[GXX]

Some newbie questions.

So I'm thinking about purchasing a 590 to replace my aging GTX 280. Do I need to purchase more ram and a different processor? If I remember correctly (don't have the computer on me) the processor is an Intel E8500 3.2 Ghz duo core. 4 gb of standard ram.

Also, will I need a bigger PSU? The one I have is 650 wats. Thanks

I should also mention I'll be playing on a 30 inch monitor.

 

[toyota]

it would be silly to get a gtx590 with a Core 2 duo cpu. not only is that much graphics horsepower going to be choked in most games but SLI adds more overhead for your cpu to deal with. and yes you will need a better power supply too.

if you can afford a gtx590 and 30 inch monitor then you can afford a proper cpu/mobo/ram setup and psu.

 

[GXX]

so I should look to upgrade the whole computer or go for a 580?

 

[toyota]

so I should look to upgrade the whole computer or go for a 580?

well I would go 2500k for a new cpu and then get as much gpu as you want. if you just want a simple gpu upgrade then get a gtx570 or gtx580 and oc your cpu a bit.

 

[RussianSensation]

I would advise highly against spending $700 for a GPU. Wait for 28nm GPUs if you are going to spend that kind of $. With your processor, an HD6950 or a GTX560 Ti is a much better fit (even then they will be bottlenecked in certain games like BF:BC2 and surely BF3).

Either way, GTX590 is a bad value no matter how you slice it since you can get 2x MSi TwinFrozr HD6950 2GB cards that will unlock into a 6970 for less $ than a single 590; and they are faster. Again I wouldn't spend that much $ on a graphics card setup right now with 28nm GPUs likely to launch in the fall (and esp. not with your CPU).

In the short term, you could sell the 280 and just get a 6950 2GB unlocked into a 6970. That will give you performance within 10% of the 580 at 2560x1600 in GPU intensive games and shouldn't cost more than $150 after you sell the 280. Then do a full CPU / GPU upgrade when BF3 ships in October and 28nm GPUs launch. This also gives you the chance to see how Bulldozer will perform. If you are really itching for an upgrade today, 2500k is a good CPU for the $.

 

[BFG10K]

If you run at high detail levels that processor will still turn in respectable scores except in a handful of modern titles: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-highend_6.html#sect0

Those processors will flat-line down to the E8600's levels once you start cranking the details. This is especially true at 2560x1600 with AA.

I was in the same boat as you a while ago with an E6850 + high end single GPU + 30” display, and in every case my GPU was the primary bottleneck at the settings I used in my games.

With that said, a GTX590 is an absolute waste of time and money for your situation. Either get a fast single GPU or wait for the next generation of high-end single GPUs.

 

[toyota]

I still find myself aggravated more by my cpu than my gpu. I can turn down some graphics settings and get the performance I want at 1920x1080 in any mainly gpu intensive game but my cpu just kills me in random spots for some games. pretty much every game I have been playing in the last few weeks has my cpu at 90% or more nearly the whole time. and its odd that some parts of games seem to really use more cpu power than others.

overall average framerate is fine of course but that does not seem important when you do encounter the sluggish spots. not to mention you better hope your pc does not need cpu power for anything else while you are playing a game with the cpu nearly maxed.

for example in SC Conviction there are some parts of the game where my framerate tanks to below 30 fps but it is almost always because of my cpu. I know because I lowered the res to 1280x720 and got basically the identical performance. same thing in Borderlands where those dynamic shadows hit the cpu hard in a few spots and lowering the resolution makes zero difference.

yeah I know it comes down to poor porting or just bad optimization in general but it helps to have all the cpu power possible if trying to push a high end gpu.


and before you call me crazy I did take a couple of shots from SC Conviction.

1920x1080 max settings, no AA, vsync off





1280x720 max settings, no AA, vsync off

 

[LxMxFxD4]

it all depends on what games. Bulletstorm and crysis 2 all will be limited by your dual core, but l4d and WoW wont. What do you play?

As for needing a new PSU: If you have an antec/seasonic/corsair or other quality 650W, you wont need to upgrade it. See my sig for proof.

 

[LxMxFxD4]

it all depends on what games. Bulletstorm and crysis 2 all will be limited by your dual core, but l4d and WoW wont. What do you play?

As for needing a new PSU: If you have an antec/seasonic/corsair or other quality 650W, you wont need to upgrade it. See my sig for proof.

 

[Jetster...]

You can overclock that 8500 to 4000 and your PSU is fine. But really your should save up for a new system. 590 is overpriced

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

3.8Ghz aint slow

Why don't you do an platform upgrade this way you'll have the horses under the hood to push the next-gen GPU. I don't see a good single card solution for ya. Or you can save for dual GPU's on next-gen 28nm GPUs and still try to run it on your current platform, although that may still bottle neck your fps.

 

[Jacky60]

I think you have to accept that 2 cores can't (and shouldn't) cut it any more in PC gaming. Many games will be acceptable but my 4ghz E8400 felt long in the tooth 20 months ago. While ur gfx card is acceptable its hardly cutting edge by today's standards. People can and will make PC games better than simple console ports. Wait for Ivy/Bulldozer then have a huge mindwarp upgrade. A 7000/28nm gfx card and you'll be well into the second decade of 21st century.

 

[apoppin]

Some newbie questions.

So I'm thinking about purchasing a 590 to replace my aging GTX 280. Do I need to purchase more ram and a different processor? If I remember correctly (don't have the computer on me) the processor is an Intel E8500 3.2 Ghz duo core. 4 gb of standard ram.

Also, will I need a bigger PSU? The one I have is 650 wats. Thanks

I should also mention I'll be playing on a 30 inch monitor.

First of all, a quality 650W PSU is marginal for a GTX 590. The minimum recommended is 46A on the 12V rail and 700W with two 8-pin PCIe connectors:

http://forum-en.msi.com/faq/article/power-requirements-for-graphics-cards

Secondly, your C2D at 3.8GHz will be fine for a GTX 590 *except* for the few games that run much better on a quad core CPU. Especially if you are running a 30" display at 2560x1600.
:whiste:

Eventually most games will take practical advantage of Quad-core but it hasn't happened yet outside of the latest games and RTS-type games.

 

[toyota]

First of all, a quality 650W PSU is marginal for a GTX 590. The minimum recommended is 46A on the 12V rail and 700W with two 8-pin PCIe connectors:

http://forum-en.msi.com/faq/article/power-requirements-for-graphics-cards

Secondly, your C2D at 3.8GHz will be fine for a GTX 590 *except* for the few games that run much better on a quad core CPU. Especially if you are running a 30" display at 2560x1600.
:whiste:

Eventually most games will take practical advantage of Quad-core but it hasn't happened yet outside of the latest games and RTS-type games.

have you ever tried to run a gtx590 on a Core 2 duo? I bet that much gpu power with additional sli overhead would really tax a dual core. my E8500 at 3.8 is either at max or close to it in many games just with a gtx260. yes his res would be almost twice as much but that is also four times the graphics power and again with sli overhead to deal with. and it not just about games that run quad core as the newer cpus are MUCH faster even in games that only use 2 cores like Starcraft 2.

 

[Dark Shroud]

A good rule of thumb is that you should spend around the same on both the GPU & CPU.

 

[RussianSensation]

A good rule of thumb is that you should spend around the same on both the GPU & CPU.

That's a bit too general, don't you think? But I know what you are getting at.

For instance, for gaming, a $1000 990X + GTX580 $500 isn't any faster than a $225 2500k + GTX580. I think most people realize that pairing a $700 top-of-the line GPU setup with a CPU from Q1 2008 isn't a great idea. Although, Q6600/Q9550 @ 3.4ghz+ would be a lot better than an E8500 style dual-core.

 

[apoppin]

have you ever tried to run a gtx590 on a Core 2 duo? I bet that ...

Yes i have. While you are "betting & guessing", i have tested SLI, Crossfire and GTX 590 specifically with a Phenom II 550-X2 and it works great.
^_^

Even 4GB of system RAM does not practically disadvantage it in MOST games compared to my i7-920 with 6GB RAM from ~3.2GHz up to 4 GHz.

You have a very short list of games that practically benefit from a quad over a dual - at high resolution (which you don't run) and at high details.

 

[toyota]

Yes i have. While you are "betting & guessing", i have tested SLI, Crossfire and GTX 590 specifically with a Phenom II 550-X2 and it works great.
^_^

Even 4GB of system RAM does not practically disadvantage it in MOST games compared to my i7-920 with 6GB RAM from ~3.2GHz up to 4 GHz.

You have a very short list of games that practically benefit from a quad over a dual - at high resolution (which you don't run) and at high details.

again its not just about quads because Sandy Bridge murders Core 2 in some games that only use dual cores. and I know what games dip down already with my E8500 at 3.8 so a gtx590 would not help in those spots at all. that's why I was thinking with sli overhead, the minimum framerate I experience would be even lower at times.

 

[apoppin]

again its not just about quads because Sandy Bridge murders Core 2 in some games that only use dual cores. and I know what games dip down already with my E8500 at 3.8 so a gtx590 would not help in those spots at all. that's why I was thinking with sli overhead, the minimum framerate I experience would be even lower at times.

Murders is a bad descriptive word that might apply to one or two games.

Show me the PRACTICAL benefits of a SB quad over a q9550s - for example; or over a Phenom II X2 - or a penryn Dual - at HIGH resolution and HIGH details.

Again .. you are guessing; i have tested this and it is my "specialty"
^_^

 

[toyota]

Murders is a bad descriptive word that might apply to one or two games.

Show me the PRACTICAL benefits of a SB quad over a q9550s - for example; or over a Phenom II X2 - or a penryn Dual - at HIGH resolution and HIGH details.

Again .. you are guessing; i have tested this and it is my "specialty"
^_^

if a cpu is providing only 35-40fps average in a game with dips even lower what difference does the res make? yes I know how you and your buddy like to crank the settings to make a more gpu heavy experience but I am talking about playabilty in general. if I said gosh my cpu is limiting me, you would say use 8x AA. lol

just like in that part of SC Conviction where my cpu is maxed out and cannot achieve even 30 fps. who cares if its at 1280x720 or 2560x1600 with 8x AA because the performance will suck either way at that spot.

 

[apoppin]

if a cpu is providing only 35-40fps average in a game with dips even lower what difference does the res make? yes I know how you and your buddy like to crank the settings to make a more gpu heavy experience but I am talking about playabilty in general. if I said gosh my cpu is limiting me, you would say use 8x AA. lol

just like in that part of SC Conviction where my cpu is maxed out and cannot achieve even 30 fps. who cares if its at 1280x720 or 2560x1600 with 8x AA because the performance will suck either way at that spot.

i am talking about playability in general; not one game that you are hung up on. After testing many dozens of games - probably close to 100 over the past few years (i just reviewed over 70 games for 3D Vision using GTX 590) - i have come to the conclusion that a quad-core makes a *practical* difference in less than 0.1% of games and most of them are RTS.

You guys exaggerate the advantages of a quad over a dual. Maybe it makes quad owners feel better about their expense of upgrading to Sandy Bridge. But the OP will notice a HUGE performance increase with a GTX 590 over his GTX 280 at 2560x1600 in MOST of his games with his current CPU at 3.8GHz.

Now this brings up more "practicality" .. the GTX 590 is a halo card that commands a price premium at $750 because it is a multi-GPU flagship. The OP would do well to get a single GTX 580 (without upgrading his PSU) to get a solid increase over his GTX 280; or if he wants GTX 590 performance, he can get 2 x GTX 570 with a PSU upgrade for the price of a GTX 590 (if he has a SLI MB).

 

[toyota]

for the third time I am not necessarily talking about quads. you can look at reviews to see Sandy Bridge deliver a much higher framerate in some games that only use dual cores. so its not just about quads as ipc makes a huge difference here too.

you run all the benchmarks you want but that does not change MY experience with some of my games. Ghostbusters was a nightmare at times because of my cpu. Red Faction Guerrilla had horrible minimum framerates during destruction. some games have spots that are noticeably cpu intensive and my cpu is nearly maxed already in many newer games. that means I have to close everything else down just to make sure something does not need any cpu power while playing a game.

and sure the number of games where a fast cpu helps is small if you look at ALL games but so what? that's like saying my gearing on my bicycle is good enough except for about 10 steep mountains around here. well what if I want to ride those 10 mountains. do I give a crap about the other 90% of roads while I am weaving and struggling?

and I think its foolish to get a very high end gpu when you cannot get the best playable experience in EVERY game you want to play because of the cpu.

 

[BFG10K]

A good rule of thumb is that you should spend around the same on both the GPU & CPU.

The GPU is usually the one that dictates gaming performance the most, not the CPU. I usually spend 2x - 3x more on the GPU than on the CPU.

 

[apoppin]

for the third time I am not necessarily talking about quads. you can look at reviews to see Sandy Bridge deliver a much higher framerate in some games that only use dual cores. so its not just about quads as ipc makes a huge difference here too.

you run all the benchmarks you want but that does not change MY experience with some of my games. . . .

and I think its foolish to get a very high end gpu when you cannot get the best playable experience in EVERY game you want to play because of the cpu.

i look at silly SB reviews at tech sites that bench at low resolutions and low details
- these reviews are all over the 'net and they are a ridiculous joke for PC gamers who never play at stupidly low resolutions just to give an ego boost about their quad-core CPU or to make a certain CPU vendor look good at the expense of another.

Your experience is your own. As i said, if you play mostly CPU-bound PC games which are still mostly RTS games at relatively low resolutions, you DO want a quad over a comparable dual-core.

As to your last comment, I think its foolish to get a very high end CPU when you cannot get the best playable experience in EVERY game you want to play because of the GPU - as you would have the OP do.
:whiste:

 

[toyota]

and again with the resolution comment? 30 fps at 1280 or 30 fps at 2560 is still the same crappy experience.