Should i sell my 7850 for a 670/680

[HURRIC4NE]

well, i recently had a huge cashflow so i was wondering if i should go ahead with this....

i do game quite a lot and i'm combating adobe applications (photoshop, illustrator and indesign) all day cause thats my work...

do you think it will be better if i moved to the 600 series?
if yes, 670 or 680??

 

[bxcloud]

What games you play and resolution? Are you overclocking 7850?

 

[HURRIC4NE]

What games you play and resolution? Are you overclocking 7850?

i cant overclock above 1050 cause then my system crashes... i play all the latest games that you could think of and that uses a shitload of graphics horsepower... i'm at 1080p resolution

i've also heard that nvidia cards are better with adobe apps... is that true?

 

[flopper]

i cant overclock above 1050 cause then my system crashes... i play all the latest games that you could think of and that uses a shitload of graphics horsepower... i'm at 1080p resolution

i've also heard that nvidia cards are better with adobe apps... is that true?

check for your needs.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2253643

grooverider stated
AMD is best for Adobe CS6.

AMD supports all features including OpenCL.

OpenCL is not supported for nvidia cards in CS6.

So AMD is the way to go.

 

[daveybrat]

Asus Radeon HD 7850
Intel i5 650 3.5 GHZ (Corsair H100)
8GB DDR3 @1333 8-8
1 TB Seagate 7200 RPM SATA 2
Thermeltake Chaser MK-1
Corsair TX-650W
AND A CAP ON YOUR GLUTEUS MAXIMUS.

Looking at your system specs, the 7850 is probably the last thing i'd upgrade.
I'd upgrade your cpu/mb first before i ever thought about a new GPU.

Second upgrade i'd do personally is an SSD.

 

[HURRIC4NE]

Asus Radeon HD 7850
Intel i5 650 3.5 GHZ (Corsair H100)
8GB DDR3 @1333 8-8
1 TB Seagate 7200 RPM SATA 2
Thermeltake Chaser MK-1
Corsair TX-650W
AND A CAP ON YOUR GLUTEUS MAXIMUS.

Looking at your system specs, the 7850 is probably the last thing i'd upgrade.
I'd upgrade your cpu/mb first before i ever thought about a new GPU.

Second upgrade i'd do personally is an SSD.

i'm waiting for the haswell upgrades thats why i aint upgrading that yet lol

 

[aaksheytalwar]

With that CPU a gpu upgrade is useless.

 

[lehtv]

grooverider stated
AMD is best for Adobe CS6.

AMD supports all features including OpenCL.

OpenCL is not supported for nvidia cards in CS6.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/opencl-and-premiere-pro-cs6.html

What can Premiere Pro CS6 process with OpenCL?

Everything that Premiere Pro CS6 can process with CUDA, with four exceptions:

• Fast Blur effect
• Gaussion Blur effect
• Directional Blur effect
• Basic 3D effect

As far as support is concerned, NVIDIA is better for CS6. I don't know which is faster though, OpenCL or CUDA.

 

[HURRIC4NE]

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/opencl-and-premiere-pro-cs6.html


[/LIST]As far as support is concerned, NVIDIA is better for CS6. I don't know which is faster though, OpenCL or CUDA.

i dont use premiere pro much, all i use is illustrator photoshop indesign and dreamweaver (i'm a graphic + web designer)

 

[Dark Shroud]

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/opencl-and-premiere-pro-cs6.html


[/LIST]As far as support is concerned, NVIDIA is better for CS6. I don't know which is faster though, OpenCL or CUDA.

The GTX 670 & 680 are not supported by Adobe yet. And they stink at CUDA performance anyway.

 

[f1sherman]

You guys do realize that OpenCL acceleration is only for Macs?

Adobe took a chance with OpenCL because Nvidia was out of Macs.
Porting Mercury to OpenCL was such a PITA, I doubt we'll ever see it on Windows now that Apple is back to Nvidia.

 

[SolMiester]

With that CPU a gpu upgrade is useless.

What?....3.5 Lynnfield is just as fast as 3.3 Sandy Bridge.

 

[toyota]

What?....3.5 Lynnfield is just as fast as 3.3 Sandy Bridge.

an i5 650, which is a dual core with ht, is not as fast as Sandy Bridge i5 at all. and that 3.5 is probably just the single core turbo frequency. its certainly not useless like aaksheytalwar said but it would be a limitation if gaming is important. I certainly would not get the 680 over the 670 as with that cpu he will never see the small difference that is there.

 

[skipsneeky2]

When i had my i3 2100,i had it matched up with a gtx560 and when it was overclocked near ti specs,i notices in some games i already had a bottleneck so i think with your dual core 650 chip,i would hold off till haswell.

Heck by then perhaps you can look at other cards like the 660ti but the 7850 you got is new i assume?You could crossfire that card later when you go haswell as i am sure those 7850s will be cheap enough by then.

Hold off till haswell then crossfire your 7850=best plan

 

[Destiny]

Save your money for Haswell and Big Keplar... at 1080p you are fine with your rig.. your AMD 7850 and your CPU is good with your current resolution...unless you go 2560x1440p or multi-monitor then I recommend getting a new CPU and GPU,,,, if the money is burning in your wallet use some of your money to get a better monitor like an IPS 2560x1440 for work then use the rest of your money later to upgrade your rig...

 

[Arkadrel]

@HURRIC4NE

that 7850 is better value than a 670 or 680, and overclocks like a beast.
There are apparently lots of people that take the 860mhz core -> ~1250mhz core (45% oc),
and get it to beat a 680 (stock) in performance.

If you have lots of cash comeing in and want a upg, its time to sell your motherboard/ram/cpu and get a Ivy bridge/Ssndy bridge, or something smaller but equally important a SSD.

 

[SolMiester]

an i5 650, which is a dual core with ht, is not as fast as Sandy Bridge i5 at all. and that 3.5 is probably just the single core turbo frequency. its certainly not useless like aaksheytalwar said but it would be a limitation if gaming is important. I certainly would not get the 680 over the 670 as with that cpu he will never see the small difference that is there.

Quite right, forgot 6xx denotes dual core clarkdale?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

@HURRIC4NE

that 7850 is better value than a 670 or 680, and overclocks like a beast.
There are apparently lots of people that take the 860mhz core -> ~1250mhz core (45% oc),
and get it to beat a 680 (stock) in performance.

If you have lots of cash comeing in and want a upg, its time to sell your motherboard/ram/cpu and get a Ivy bridge/Ssndy bridge, or something smaller but equally important a SSD.

You mean stock 580 performance, right?

And the OP already stated his won't go over 1050.


SSD has 0 effect on actual game performance.

 

[Arkadrel]

@BellaTheFeared

A stock 580 is neck and neck with a 7870.
A 7850 is only ~15% or so behinde a 580.

With 45%+ overclocks the 7850 becomes faster than the 7970 (stock) in some things.
The only card above the 7970 currently thats a single gpu, is the 680.

Yes its slower than the 680 (stock) but not by huge margins.... thats how much a overclock can mean on these cards.

Yes it sucks he cant get his over 1050..... is he useing CCC and the slider wont go higher?
Its probably a issue like that, of a person that doesnt know how to overclock.


On the SSD count,... loading things faster helps, maybe not in some simulated benchmark mark thats already loaded to ram before its run, but in real world applications like games, it should be noticable.

(1300+ mhz core is higher than most go for 27/4 operation, seems like most leave them around the 1250mhz mark)

this is what a 7850@1325mhz looks like:

 

[f1sherman]

Arkadrel got any benchies with 1500 MHz OC?

That should be even less relevant for OP

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Arkadrel got any benchies with 1500 MHz OC?

That should be even less relevant for OP

You're saying his water cooled 7850 isn't relevant to this OP?

It's still pretty impressive though. It's about 50% faster than my $40 system.

 

[Homeles]

SSD has 0 effect on actual game performance.

Quite false, unless you're talking about raw frame rate.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

What else would actual game performance mean?

It helps with load times and texture loading, but then a modern HDD isn't slow there anyways so we're talking low end seconds in difference.

SSD's really aren't practical for anything other than the OS due to current price per GB. As it pertains to this thread, OP is looking for higher gaming performance, not quicker load times.

 

[Homeles]

What else would actual game performance mean?

Er, everything that you've just stated just now. It can make a huge difference in certain games.

"Game performance" is an incredibly broad term.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

That's mostly SP only though, I can tell you as an SSD owner I'd say they're pretty over-hyped.

Most games I play are MP, so it doesn't matter if I cut 50% off my load times, because I'm still waiting on everyone else, or the server.

In the OS eviroment they're amazing, I'd recommend one for that. I personally would never recommend a high density one for games, the difference is very minor expect cost difference, which is quite huge.