Old 939 and newer 4890/5770?

[phatphoeater]

Believe it or not, I can run the bfbc2 demo on my opteron 170 @ 2.4ghz and 7600GT on all the lowest settings and get around 30fps if there aren't a lot of explosions or smoke. I couldn't get more than ~20 with the cpu at stock 2.0ghz. I'm amazed I could even get the game playable with my 5 year old box.

I was debating the cost of building a new box($$$) or just getting a new GPU($). For all my other tasks this setup works fine. BFBC2 is the only game I really intend to play. My last game was BF2. Rather than sell my 939 parts I was going to donate the old box to charity for the tax write-off.

I want to be able to play 1680x1050 with medium-ish settings at an fps above 30. Do you think just dropping in a new GPU will get me there?

 

[MarcVenice]

Won't your opty go any higher? It should do 2,8GHz fairly easy ...

HD 4890 or HD 5770 would prolly be a little overkill though. But they will most certainly let you turn up all the eyecandy. I do think though, that the BFBC2-engine uses a lot of physics, which probably is cpu-intensive. So if you can get that opteron to 2,8GHz, you should be good to go.

You could ofcourse simply get a HD 5770, try it, and if you still drop below 30fps it will be because of your cpu. There's a chance that with a lot of players and lots of buildings going kaboomie, that your cpu will be the bottleneck. But then you could still build a new rig (really, a new socket am3-mobo, x2 550, 4gb ddr2 ram isn't all that expensive), and play BFBC2 at highest possible settings.

 

[ShreddedWheat]

If you are wanting to play medium settings at that resolution then the 5770 is going to be your best bet regardless if you have to upgrade anyways. I would say get the 5770 and then if your cpu can't cut it then upgrade mobo/cpu/ram. But if it is enough then you could wait till next generation

 

[Leyawiin]

I wouldn't bother with an HD 5770 if you have any idea you might want to hang onto the PC another year or two. An HD 4770, HD 4850, 9800 GT or GTS 250 would be a more reasonable choice and better match for your CPU.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you are wanting to play medium settings at that resolution then the 5770 is going to be your best bet regardless if you have to upgrade anyways. I would say get the 5770 and then if your cpu can't cut it then upgrade mobo/cpu/ram. But if it is enough then you could wait till next generation

Actually if you saw the BFBC2 benches, 5770 gets trounced by 4890 and GTX260. So if he is going to spend $150, 5770 is a bad option for that game. However, with his CPU, a 4850 for $100 or 8800GT for $70 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143118&cm_re=8800gt-_-14-143-118-_-Product) are probably more than fast enough for that CPU. Refer to this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2047861

1680x1050 8AA/16AF
9800GT = 18 avg / 12 min
5750 = 20 avg / 14 min
4850 = 21 avg / 15 min
5770 = 23 avg / 17 min
4890 = 30 avg / 21 min
GTX 260 216 = 31 avg / 21 min

Clearly there is no point of paying $150 for 5770.

 

[Lonyo]

Actually if you saw the BFBC2 benches, 5770 gets trounced easily by 4890 and GTX260. So if he is going to spend $150, 5770 is a bad option for that game. However, with his CPU, a 4850 for $100 is probably more than fast enough.

Agreed. No point in spending more money without getting more performance.
A 4850 or 5750 512MB would be more than plenty to be paired with that CPU.
It's only if you plan to upgrade the CPU while still keeping the card that you would want to spend a bit more on something faster.

 

[MarcVenice]

Actually if you saw the BFBC2 benches, 5770 gets trounced by 4890 and GTX260. So if he is going to spend $150, 5770 is a bad option for that game. However, with his CPU, a 4850 for $100 or 8800GT for $70 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143118&cm_re=8800gt-_-14-143-118-_-Product) are probably more than fast enough for that CPU. Refer to this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2047861

1680x1050 8AA/16AF
9800GT = 18 avg / 12 min
5750 = 20 avg / 14 min
4850 = 21 avg / 15 min
5770 = 23 avg / 17 min
4890 = 30 avg / 21 min
GTX 260 216 = 31 avg / 21 min

Clearly there is no point of paying $150 for 5770.

8xAA ? Nice ... How about with 4xAA ... Obviously the lack of memory bandwith hurts the 5770 at 1680x1050 with 8xAA.

Also, a 5770 might be bottlenecked a little by a 2,4GHz opteron, it will outperform a HD 4850 or 9800GT with easy. Slow cpu or not ...

 

[Leyawiin]

8800GT for $70 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143118&cm_re=8800gt-_-14-143-118-_-Product)

That's a good deal for an older PC. Same price as many HD 4670, cheaper than a 9600 GT and faster than either.

 

[nemesismk2]

Yeah that is a good deal because the 8800 GT is a very good video card.

 

[phatphoeater]

Thanks for all the responses. I hope to keep this box as long as possible. Changing platforms would also include costs for a new OS and Office suite since my office 97 wont run on win7. I'm also on the stock cooler/volts. Getting a stopgap GPU would be more cost-efficient until a complete system upgrade is needed. I just thought getting a mid-range card for about $150 would provide adequate performance. Now I realize I'll be CPU bottlenecked so there will be steep diminishing returns.

I saw those russian bfbc2 benchies too but have no need to run high AA/AF and would be running dx9 (xp pro) if that makes a difference. I ran BF2 with AA/AF on zero and low settings so am willing to sacrifice eye candy for performance. I figure some eye candy would be nice though.

While looking at more options I ran across this GTS 250 for $100 after MIR. For 40% more than the 8800GT, I could potentially get about 30% for avg frames if those benchies are correct.

Am I fooling myself into thinking my current setup will be any different with a GTS 250 over the 8800GT?

Another option would be to get a budget CPU cooler, add some volts, and get a higher OC. The difference from 2.0->2.4ghz was very noticeable. I assume going from 2.4->2.8 as suggested would increase frames with either the 8800GT or GTS 250. Thoughts?

 

[Pederv]

I've dropped both a 4890 and a 5750 into a 4800 X2 (939) system and both cards significantly increased the game playability of the system (original video card was based on an X1900), but both cards would have performed better in a more current system. The 4890 is the fastest of the two. For the most part the 4800 with either video card outperformed an Athlon II 620 with a 4670 GPU.

If you upgrade your GPU with the intention of transfering it to a new system then get the fastest that you can afford. If you plan on leaving the video card in the system then you might want to put a less capable card in your system, but keep in mind that your perfomance will never be on par with the same card in a newer platform.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you upgrade your GPU with the intention of transfering it to a new system then get the fastest that you can afford.

Only if he intends to buy a new system within the next 6 months. Technology moves so fast that buying today for tomorrow is a waste of $. Once Fermi derivatives release, it may be that ATI will lower prices even on 5850s to $239 or lower. Who knows. I say a $70-80 videocard is a good match for his system. Save the rest towards a new system. Also there isn't anything that compelling in the $150 right now given the performance for the $.

 

[tweakboy]

MAJOR bottleneck here. Your games will not run smooth. You will see more gains from the video card if u upgrade cpu. Your video card is not pumping all its frames per second cuz the CPU is slowing it down. You could throw a 4650 and you wouldnt tell a difference... gl

 

[cbn]

Thanks for all the responses. I hope to keep this box as long as possible. Changing platforms would also include costs for a new OS and Office suite since my office 97 wont run on win7. I'm also on the stock cooler/volts. Getting a stopgap GPU would be more cost-efficient until a complete system upgrade is needed. I just thought getting a mid-range card for about $150 would provide adequate performance. Now I realize I'll be CPU bottlenecked so there will be steep diminishing returns.


Another option would be to get a budget CPU cooler, add some volts, and get a higher OC. The difference from 2.0->2.4ghz was very noticeable. I assume going from 2.4->2.8 as suggested would increase frames with either the 8800GT or GTS 250. Thoughts?

I would get a budget cooler and OC up to about 2.8.

Hopefully this computer should hold up until all the nice goodies come out in 2011 (PCI-E 3.0, SATA 3, USB 3). In addition, the CPUs really interesting next year with AMD Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge being released.

Really 2011 looks like the time to buy unless you absolutely need to have something now.

If you find out your Overclocked Opteron is too weak for your tastes I would suggest LGA 1156/Core i5 750 and a retail copy of Windows 7/MS Office. (MS office allows three installs) Then if you feel the need you can move data over to a new 2011 mainboard.

However, if you hate moving data over and want something to last 4 years or more I would go x58.

 

[cbn]

Believe it or not, I can run the bfbc2 demo on my opteron 170 @ 2.4ghz and 7600GT on all the lowest settings and get around 30fps if there aren't a lot of explosions or smoke.

When you say lowest settings? Are you talking 800x600 resolution or lower?

 

[cbn]

170 @ 2.4ghz and 7600GT on all the lowest settings and get around 30fps if there aren't a lot of explosions or smoke. I couldn't get more than ~20 with the cpu at stock 2.0ghz.

If you went from 20 FPS to 30 FPS with just a 20% bump in CPU speed I am guessing "GPU" is a big part of your problem @ higher resolutions.

Intel has made good jumps in IPC since AMD 939, but that 7600 GT is positively weak by today's standards.

 

[phatphoeater]

When you say lowest settings? Are you talking 800x600 resolution or lower?

i'm not at home now, but it was 12xx or 10xx by 7xx. All other settings on low. There are no lower available resolutions in the options.

This box doesn't do much besides word process/spreadsheet/browsing. The only game I've played in the past 5 years is BF2 and don't expect to play anything but BFBC2. If I can find a serviceable GPU, I may keep this box going another couple years.

After looking at a bunch of different benchmarks it looks like the 4850 512gb ($100 no MIR) is roughly equivalent to the gts 250 512gb($100 after MIR). I'm thinking i'll try one of these. If it doesnt get me playable at 1680x1050 @ medium settings then I'll get a $30 cooler and go for a higher OC. If this doesn't work, I'll return the GPU and consider doing a complete rebuild with a higher end GPU.

The main thing holding me back is whether there will be a difference between a 4850 and 8800GT with my setup. As Tweakboy is suggesting, am I that CPU-bottlenecked that it wont make a difference? Also, looking at those russian benchmarks, would their 4850/8800GT test setup even get to 30fps at 1680x1050 at medium settings and AAx2/AFx2?

 

[cbn]

The main thing holding me back is whether there will be a difference between a 4850 and 8800GT with my setup.

There may not be much difference, but HD4850 is a faster video card than 8800 GT.

Also, looking at those russian benchmarks, would their 4850/8800GT test setup even get to 30fps at 1680x1050 at medium settings and AAx2/AFx2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield:_Bad_Company_2

Well according to Wikipedia the minimum requirements are a Core 2 duo @ 2 Ghz. I think this roughly corresponds to a Opty 170 @ 2.8

Major thing to consider is how important gaming is to you? If Gaming is not a big deal I would try the OC first and maybe a cheap $100 video card for extra resolution capacity.

 

[phatphoeater]

well i went out and picked up a gts250 since that's all that was available at fry's just to see what i got.

at 1680x1050 and all low or all med settings, i get about 21-22 avg frames. taking it down the next 2 resolutions, 1440x and 1240(?)x, i avg the same frames. i'm guessing this means i'm still cpu limited. i'm going to try to OC a bit more and see what happens.

 

[toyota]

well i went out and picked up a gts250 since that's all that was available at fry's just to see what i got.

at 1680x1050 and all low or all med settings, i get about 21-22 avg frames. taking it down the next 2 resolutions, 1440x and 1240(?)x, i avg the same frames. i'm guessing this means i'm still cpu limited. i'm going to try to OC a bit more and see what happens.

I have been telling people for a while that those X2 cpus, especially lower clocked ones, are just not suitable for many newer games. you are now seeing that first hand and considering you are only at 21-22 fps overclocking that X2 isnt going to make much difference.

 

[phatphoeater]

For all you folks on a 939 cpu interested in running bfbc2, it's not going to look pretty. I got my opty 170 up to 2.8ghz and could not break 20 avg fps even on the lowest res/settings. I cranked it up to 1680x1050 and highest settings (whatever that may be in the beta) and it was 18-19 avg fps.

these fps were playable and there wasnt significant stuttering with explosions and smoke.

 

[cbn]

I got my opty 170 up to 2.8ghz and could not break 20 avg fps even on the lowest res/settings. I cranked it up to 1680x1050 and highest settings (whatever that may be in the beta) and it was 18-19 avg fps.

these fps were playable and there wasnt significant stuttering with explosions and smoke.

I actually don't mind mind low 20 FPS for RPGs like Fallout 3 GOTY (with Eye candy on) . But lots of people just won't tolerate that for Online FPS.

Toyota is right, though, in that there has been a good IPC jump with Intel CPUs relative to those old 939 AMDs.

 

[Ben90]

Thanks for all the responses. I hope to keep this box as long as possible. Changing platforms would also include costs for a new OS and Office suite since my office 97 wont run on win7.

Open Office

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Well according to Wikipedia the minimum requirements are a Core 2 duo @ 2 Ghz. I think this roughly corresponds to a Opty 170 @ 2.8

Are you serious? You really think a Core2 is 40% faster clock for clock? That's ridiculous. The Athlon X2 line is nearly clock for clock comparable with Core2 duo's with 2mb or less cache. Opterons had more cache than the Athlons.

Realistically, the Opteron @ 2.8ghz is about a 2.6ghz Core2. You really underestimate why that CPU was so popular.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2160_13.html#sect0

 

[phatphoeater]

Realistically, the Opteron @ 2.8ghz is about a 2.6ghz Core2. You really underestimate why that CPU was so popular.

i don't know if it matters, but for this particular application, getting my opt 170 to 2.8ghz did not make much difference.

as for playability, the lack of stuttering was acceptable but the lack of detail made it hard to identify the tangos from the jaggy trees at any distance beyond a couple yards.