How much video card do I really need?

[Termie]

XO.
For every website you show me that proves me wrong, I can show you one or two that counter it..... Hence why I said SOME versions. I was looking for real world experiance.
Every website is a data base entered by humans. And we can make statistics say ANYTHING we want...

Here is a link to show your link is wrong.... VERY WRONG..
Search GTX 560 and then scroll down to 670M or 675M.... Significantly LOWER than the 560


http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

Go have a bran muffin....

Wow, just wow.

The 670M is a notebook GPU.

I'd say we best get back on topic, OK? If you have more questions, you should really start your own thread.

 

[DietDrThunder]

OK, since I found out that with a Bios update, my MSI 890GXM-G65 will support the new AMD FX-8350 Vishera 4.0GHz CPU, I'm going to go ahead and buy the SAPPHIRE 100351SR Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card OC with Boost that is on sale at NewEgg for $379 and has a $20 rebate. I will then in 6 months buy the new CPU when the prices drop a bit and I should be set for the next few years.

Let me know if you think it is a bad idea to buy this Sapphire card.

 

[Eureka]

It's a good price and you can make more back if you sell the bundle if you don't want the games. However, until you switch your CPU it will be bottlenecked... and by then the 8000 series (and probably the GTX 700s) will be out as well, which means you'll have had less performance this entire time.

I would do both now, or wait to get both later. Or get a 7870 now, and take the hit when you sell it later to put towards a 8000 series chip. Either way, there's really no good solution to a severely staggered upgrade like this.

 

[Remobz]

It's a good price and you can make more back if you sell the bundle if you don't want the games. However, until you switch your CPU it will be bottlenecked... and by then the 8000 series (and probably the GTX 700s) will be out as well, which means you'll have had less performance this entire time.

I would do both now, or wait to get both later. Or get a 7870 now, and take the hit when you sell it later to put towards a 8000 series chip. Either way, there's really no good solution to a severely staggered upgrade like this.

This ^^^

 

[Termie]

It's a good price and you can make more back if you sell the bundle if you don't want the games. However, until you switch your CPU it will be bottlenecked... and by then the 8000 series (and probably the GTX 700s) will be out as well, which means you'll have had less performance this entire time.

I would do both now, or wait to get both later. Or get a 7870 now, and take the hit when you sell it later to put towards a 8000 series chip. Either way, there's really no good solution to a severely staggered upgrade like this.

This.

While $360 for the 7970 is a good deal, the performance you're going to get from that upgrade will be equivalent to what you'd get from a $200 card.

Take Eureka's advice. Buy the appropriate card now, and buy a replacement in 6 months if you actually upgrade your CPU.

Want proof of why this is a bad upgrade? Take a look at this: http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html. In a brand-new game, Hitman, your card will provide below 40fps saddled with your CPU, which is the same as an HD7870 on an Intel platform: http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page3.html

This is not theoretical. It's real-world performance. Spending $360 on an HD7970 without a CPU upgrade is a huge mistake, and frankly, I'm not convinced that you're going to want to go with Vishera now or 6 months from now, but that's another question all together.

 

[raghu78]

OP a Phenom II X6 with a slight overclock will do fine. Most games when maxed out are entirely limited by GPU performance. the CPU especially the Phenom II X6 is not a bottleneck.

 

[raghu78]

This.

Want proof of why this is a bad upgrade? Take a look at this: http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html. In a brand-new game, Hitman, your card will provide below 40fps saddled with your CPU, which is the same as an HD7870 on an Intel platform: http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page3.html

if the same tests on Hitman were run with Ultra quality the CPU would not be the limiting factor and the GPU would be.

 

[Termie]

if the same tests on Hitman were run with Ultra quality the CPU would not be the limiting factor and the GPU would be.

Actually, his 1055 would still limit him to under 40fps, and thus the 7970 would underperform on his system even at these settings. He'd have to overclock above 3.5 or so to get the full potential of a 7970 at ultra.

He said he's currently at 3.2. That's a good start, but he should invest in an aftermarket heatsink and try to go higher if he wants to put that much money into his GPU.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Actually, his 1055 would still limit him to under 40fps, and thus the 7970 would underperform on his system even at these settings. He'd have to overclock above 3.5 or so to get the full potential of a 7970 at ultra.

He said he's currently at 3.2. That's a good start, but he should invest in an aftermarket heatsink and try to go higher if he wants to put that much money into his GPU.

I overclocked my 1055T(which always shows in the bios and in windows 7 as a 1075T) last night with the stock heatsink/fan to 3.4GHz(I didn't try for more), ran AMD's burn in utility for 4 hours, and it is currently running rock solid. I could order a new/better heatsink/fan as well and bump it to 3.5 or higher. Thanks for the idea.

This.

Spending $360 on an HD7970 without a CPU upgrade is a huge mistake, and frankly, I'm not convinced that you're going to want to go with Vishera now or 6 months from now, but that's another question all together.

I can start another thread or you can answer this here. Why do you think it wouldn't be a good idea to go with the Vishera?

 

[frozentundra123456]

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

a variety of CPUs from core i7, core i5 , phenom II X4 , FX and core i3 are all able to run the HD 7950 very well. BF3 performance is limited almost entirely by GPU power.

the phenom ii x6 with a slight overclock to 3.4 ghz should be enough.

Maybe with an overclock, yea. If he wants to play multiplayer, it does require more cpu power.

 

[Termie]

I overclocked my 1055T(which always shows in the bios and in windows 7 as a 1075T) last night with the stock heatsink/fan to 3.4GHz(I didn't try for more), ran AMD's burn in utility for 4 hours, and it is currently running rock solid. I could order a new/better heatsink/fan as well and bump it to 3.5 or higher. Thanks for the idea.



I can start another thread or you can answer this here. Why do you think it wouldn't be a good idea to go with the Vishera?

Happy to help. You actually have a great overclock going, and a $20 aftermarket cooler will get you to the next level. Given that you've invested time into getting the most out of your system, I can see the HD7970 being a good choice. Maybe I'd split the difference though and go for the HD7950, which is very close once overclocked: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202006

The reason I'd argue against Vishera is that clock-for-clock, it's only about the equal of your current CPU. Yes, it can clock higher (around 4.5, most likely), but that's still only going to be about 20% faster than your the potential performance of your current CPU. At $200, that's not much bang for the buck - for ~$300 you could pick up a 3570k and motherboard that would really provide a significant boost. If you're interested in that, I'd suggest you start a thread in the CPU forum.

 

[DietDrThunder]

I overclocked my 1055T to 3.825GHz with the stock heatsink/fan, ran Prime95 FFT for 2 hours, and this CPU is rock solid. The CPU temp seamed a bit high at 64C, so I slowed it back down to 3.625GHz. I think with a proper heatsink/fan, I might be able to hit 4GHz, but I'll be happy with 3.825.

So here is the new plan. I ordered a ZALMAN 92mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler ($34.99 after rebate) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835118223 , Artic Silver 5, and the the SAPPHIRE 100351SR Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card OC with Boost ($359 after rebate plus 3 games) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202008.

Thanks for all of your input.

 

[Termie]

I overclocked my 1055T to 3.825GHz with the stock heatsink/fan, ran Prime95 FFT for 2 hours, and this CPU is rock solid. The CPU temp seamed a bit high at 64C, so I slowed it back down to 3.625GHz. I think with a proper heatsink/fan, I might be able to hit 4GHz, but I'll be happy with 3.825.

So here is the new plan. I ordered a ZALMAN 92mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler ($34.99 after rebate) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835118223 , Artic Silver 5, and the the SAPPHIRE 100351SR Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card OC with Boost ($359 after rebate plus 3 games) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202008.

Thanks for all of your input.

Nice! You're going to have quite the setup. Your CPU will be ~25% faster than your original overclock, and over 40% faster than stock. It will now be a good match for a 7970.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Final Update:

Over the holidays I installed the ZALMAN 92mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler and used Artic Silver 5, installed the SAPPHIRE 100351SR Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card OC with Boost, overclocked my 1055T to 3.825GHz, ran Prime95 FFT for 24 hours, 3DMark for 4 hours, and memtest86+ for 24 hours, and the system is rock solid. The CPU temp never went higher than 53C, that's 11C less than with the stock CPU cooler.

I would have posted earlier, but I was too busy this holiday season playing BF3, FarCry3, Hitman, and Sleeping Dogs, all on max settings and it was AWESOME!

Of course now my only problem is my wife is threatening to destroy my PC if I spend anymore time playing games.

 

[Termie]

Congrats!

Sounds like an awesome setup. And the fact that you're enjoying the free games you got with that 7970 made it an even sweeter deal.

 

[mango123]

IMHO----
Minimum fps is more important than average or maximum.!!!
You are not going to lock @ 55-60 minimum with anything less than 7970/680.
IDC what anyone tells you.


nice choice on 7970.

 

[Zenoth]

What video cards would you guys suggest buying? I don't want to buy more than I need but I don't want to buy too little of a card either.

Back in early February 2009 I asked myself the same question.

At the time I went with a GTX 285. Just this very morning I bought my new card, a GTX 670. So that GTX 285 lasted me pretty much four years, and I never upgraded it until now. In my opinion it's too easy to think that mid-range cards are "just enough" when in fact you're not sure if you'll keep it just one year, or if you're going to skip following generations for three years or more. Before upgrading to the GTX 670 I was in fact just a few clicks away from buying a GTX 660 instead (regular non-Ti version), just to save some money. But I know that I usually never upgrade my GPUs until at least three years after the previous upgrade, and who knows what my GTX 660 wouldn't have been able to run well enough in three years from now. Sure, right now many games won't demand more than that... but the same could be said with my GTX 285 back then in 2009 (since it was more than plenty of GPU power at the time).

It didn't take very long when I started to lower in-game settings and/or anti-aliasing and/or screen resolution to get smooth frame rates in the latest games. Already by late 2009 and early 2010 I was feeling like I should consider the next generation's high-end cards for a near-future upgrade (fortunately I was simply patient, overall, and I was content with what I had and I simply endured the fact that my 285 by that point was already not enough in some cases). My GTX 285 at the time was considered just that, a "high-end" card, when the GTX 260 and 275 were the mid-range variants. The cycle repeats and I believe the same logic applies now. At the moment a GTX 660 or any other mid-range type cards from NVIDIA or AMD might seem enough (or even more than enough for many games). But that's for now, and maybe this year only. I would say that you might wonder if going for a notch higher (even if obviously a bit more expensive) wouldn't have been a better choice after all.

What I believe is this; if you have the money, then do not go for mid-range cards if (and only if) you're the type of gamer who does not upgrade components often (be it GPU or others). For example, I bought a GTX 670 (which isn't the top high-end single card anyway, but not exactly mid-range either) but I know that already sometime next year I'll have to start reducing in-game settings here and there. It won't happen often and will still remain very selective and situational, but as the years pass it will become a necessity (in some cases, sure, not all the time) to keep smooth frame rates, while sacrificing eye-candy and/or resolution. So, to reiterate, in my opinion, it is better - when under the right conditions - to opt for one of the "high-end" single card variants that you could financially afford.

If, ultimately, you have to (not "want to", but have to) stay within your budget and if it happens to be modest (especially when and if for instance money is tough to come buy lately, or if you just don't spend that much money on "PC stuff") then indeed a current generation mid-range card along the lines of a GTX 660 (or 660 Ti, which can sometimes be on sales for quite cheap nowadays and is significantly better than the regular version) would be enough, for maybe two years or so. If you keep a mid-range card beyond the three years mark you will inevitably have to - at some point or another - reduce in-game settings, anti-aliasing and/or screen resolution to "keep up" with the games of those later years which themselves won't exactly ask permission to your mid-range card first to come up with the latest in gaming visual and physics technology (and whatever else them crazy devs will come up with in three or four years from now).

Bottom line, I guess, is think "future proof". These are my two cents on the subject of upgrading GPUs, but I also apply this same logic for CPU/Motherboard/Memory upgrades. So I hope it helps!

 

[Termie]

Back in early February 2009 I asked myself the same question.

At the time I went with a GTX 285.
[snip]

Bottom line, I guess, is think "future proof". These are my two cents on the subject of upgrading GPUs, but I also apply this same logic for CPU/Motherboard/Memory upgrades. So I hope it helps!

While I see where you're coming from, your arguments actually support doing the exact opposite. The GTX285 cost at least $100 more than a GTX260-216 when it was introduced exactly 4 years ago: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2711

The truth is, however, that the two cards perform almost identically today, and in fact are probably selling for within $5 of each other on the used market.

So, as an alternative to your bottom line, I'd say that people who buy cards only every few generations should never buy at the top of the market, because within a year their expensive high-end card will perform just like the next couple of cards down the pecking order. It's people who trade up (and sell) cards every year who probably get the most value out of high-end cards.

 

[2is]

I'd go with a 7950/670 if you want to play Ultra settings. Overclocking that CPU will help a lot too. I'd say if you can manage 3.5GHz with that CPU that's good enough to not invest in a new processor.