• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Time for an upgrade?

ImpulsE69

ImpulsE69

Lifer
So, I've currently a x1900gt. This card has been fine for years, and really I've not had too much issue with the latest games, but it is definitely starting to show its age.

What kind of "boost" are we talking from x1900gt to 4xxx or 5xxxcard?

I've been out of the loop on gfx cards since I got it, and I know the new gen cards have HD, dx11 etc. Currently I don't need/use either - however I'm sure I will at some point(I just wanna save that whole argument, it's not what I'm asking). Without taking those 2 things into account, is it worth an upgrade? I'm not particularly interested in SLI/Crossfire either.

Thanks
 
If you're running a card that old (circa 2006) it's likely you have an older, slower CPU and a low resolution monitor.

Even if I were to say a newer card like the $115 5770 (the 512 meg powercolor on the egg) has roughly 200-300% the processing power of your card for newer titles that won't really be meaningful. If the games you play run fine at the resolution you're at then stick with it.
 
You are correct, Pentium D 3.2ghz...I just read in another thread that these cpus aren't great on the newer games and would bottleneck the newer cards. Good to know.

Thanks for the input.
 
The good news is that these days you don't need too much cpu power for gaming and an athlon II x3 or x4 is a great bargain for not too much money. You are better off spending more money on a decent video card than an overkill cpu for gaming.
 
Dark4ng3l said:
The good news is that these days you don't need too much cpu power for gaming and an athlon II x3 or x4 is a great bargain for not too much money. You are better off spending more money on a decent video card than an overkill cpu for gaming.
Click to expand...
I disagree somewhat. if you are going to build a gaming pc from scratch and plan on keeping it for a while then go ahead and spend an additional 75-100 bucks for a more competent cpu. that extra money now will payoff for quite a while and will allow you to push what ever future gpu upgrades you do.
 
if you want to hold off on a whole computer upgrade, consider the GT240. Its the best bang for the buck card right now. You can find it for as low as $40 (after rebate) sometimes.
 
I also think you should upgrade your whole system. Pentium D 3.2 is such a major bottleneck, it's just too much of a limitation for a meaningful upgrade.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6261472/p-5.html

I recommend a system around 1055T AMD or Core i5 750. Considering you kept your system for such a long time, both of those should last you for a while.

If you can only afford to upgrade the graphics card, try to find an 8800GT or 9800GT for $50: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-288-_-Product

For $50, it's MUCH faster than the GT240.
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
I disagree somewhat. if you are going to build a gaming pc from scratch and plan on keeping it for a while then go ahead and spend an additional 75-100 bucks for a more competent cpu. that extra money now will payoff for quite a while and will allow you to push what ever future gpu upgrades you do.
Click to expand...

Depending on what games you are playing, a $300 i7 or a $100 720BE with a 5850 (or any new high end video card) will generate very similar and hardly noticeable results.
 
Patrickz0rs said:
Depending on what games you are playing, a $300 i7 or a $100 720BE with a 5850 (or any new high end video card) will generate very similar and hardly noticeable results.
Click to expand...

What about World in Conflict, GTA IV, Dragon Age, Arma II, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Resident Evil 5, Dirt2, HAWX, Modern Warfare 2?

Also don't forget the most important area which is minimum framerates. Core i7 will destroy the 720BE in min frames. Add to the fact that most people have something running in the background even when they game such as an anti-virus, ad-aware program/ad-watch, maybe some internet browsers open. When you see benchmarks, all programs are closed to produce the highest possible framerate. That's probably not how most people use their system.

We have already seen that a Core i7 975 is on average 14% faster than Core i5 750 @ 1920x1080 4AA when pared with a GTX480: http://www.xbitlabs.com/misc/picture/?src=/images/cpu/cpus-and-games-2010/perf_table.png&1=1
In the games I mentioned, the difference in performance is actually closer to 20%. That's a difference between Nehalem architectures of different clock speeds.

So no, a 720BE will have no chance against a Core i7 3.8-4.2ghz. I would bet with a GTX480, you are looking at a 30% difference in framerates, if not more.
 
Last edited:
Nobody with a GTX480 is going to be buying a budget cpu. Give this guy a 5850 instead and the results will be much closer. Also when the choice is between a 720BE with a 5850 or a core i5 750 with a 5770(or even a 5750 when you consider motherboard costs) then your better off with the cheap cpu.

That and some of the games you listed like MW2 are bad examples. I don't care if my min fps is 70 or 170.
 
The best CPU you can get that offers you similar gaming performance that matches more expensive processors is the Phenom II X4 965, it offers you stellar gaming performance and is considerable cheaper, another alternative albeit with a higher platform costs would be the Core i5 750. Pentium D is a disgusting processor ( I worked in a customer PC that had a Pentium D at 2.80GHz and its performance even in general tasks is pityful). Coupled with a nice HD 5770 or faster ATI or nVidia card, it will give you enough performance to enjoy your games without breaking your wallet. Both processors are great for gaming, moving higher will diminish greatly their returns in performance, plus will only make sense if you are going to do multi GPU configuration.
 
Thanks for all the input. Yes I know my system is old. Truthfully it's not bad for me though. I'm not the power gamer I used to be, and learned years ago it's just not worth trying to keep up with the latest and greatest tech. I just played through Singularity - @ 1024x768 (oh the horror), and it was fine aside from some stutter toward the end with all the debris flying around. I'm old school and just don't have to have the highest res and 16xAA etc. I know when I ultimately jump to it I'll love it, but I'm not missing it yet 😉

I got the answer I was looking for. Basically the newer cards are quite faster than my current card, except that the rest of my system isn't fast enough to handle the extra power. Good enough. I imagine I'll upgrade sometime later this year...I'm not in a big hurry though, since I will have to replace pretty much everything and move to Win7 (I knew that already though). I've been waiting for this CPU stuff to settle a little bit before jumping into that.
 
Your computer is fast enough to handle a better videocard but you won't see the "full benefit" of it. That is why I was suggesting a cheap card.

The 9800GT that RussianSensation posted is a good deal and here is an EVGA version:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-535-_-Product


Both cost $55 after rebate but the evga version is $2 shipping vs free for the gigabyte (gigabyte also has a 3 year warranty vs 2 on the evga). GT240 are about 80% of the performance of a 9800GT but most 9800GT (including the 2 posted) are downclocked 550MHz versions so maybe the spread is narrower. I still think the GT250 (when you can find it for $40) is the best bang for the buck card but there isn't a $40 one available right now. The difference might even be smaller with a slower cpu like yours.


Do you know which motherboard you have?
 
Dark4ng3l said:
Also when the choice is between a 720BE with a 5850 or a core i5 750 with a 5770(or even a 5750 when you consider motherboard costs) then your better off with the cheap cpu.
Click to expand...

No one is going to pair a GTX480 with 720? Sure you will when you buy a GTX560/Radeon 6850 in 2 years and pair it with that 720 you purchased now to save the $50. Eventually you will need to upgrade your 5850...

In the short term yes it is better to pair a faster GPU with a slower CPU. But in 2 years when the 5850 and 5770 are both slow and you want a new generation card, Core i5 750 overclocked to 4.0ghz will have no problems keeping up while your 720BE will need upgrading AGAIN.....Sometimes it makes sense to spend an extra $50 on a CPU upfront.

In my honest opinion, our videocard forum has FAR downplayed the importance of CPU dependence. I mean you name any game, and it runs like a dog on Core 2 Duo 2.4ghz (E6600) and even E8400: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...System-Requirements-and-Screenshots/Practice/ Yet, every week you see someone recommending a GTX480 to be paired with a C2D.

I mean a stock Core i7 920 gets higher minimum framerates in Prototype at 1680x1050 4AA than an E8400 gets on average...You can tell me all you want that you can shift the GPU bottleneck by applying 16AA. I don't want 16AA. I want 40fps minimums and an average near 60 fps at 1920x1080. If I wanted 30 fps, I would have purchased a console. You can also throw a GTX480 in there but all you are going to get is 'free' AA. You are still not breaking 30 fps with a slow CPU. So what would you take 60 fps avg / 40 min 1920x1080 0AA or 30 fps / 20 min 16xAA 1920x1080?

How many people with E6600/E6700/E8400/E8500 are upgrading now? Tons. Instead, they could have purchased Q6600 up front 2 years ago and would have easily survived with it until Sandy Bridge. The extra cost was only $100 between the processors i listed and the Q6600 (sometimes $50). Their argument was similar to yours that why spend extra $50 today for performance difference they couldn't tell between a C2D and C2Q 2 years ago. Hindsight 20/20, this strategy was obviously a less cost effective decision as a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz will mop the floor with any Core 2 Duo in today's games.

OP, you can get the Athlon X4 630 for $99 + Free mobo (if you have a Microcenter) and an $85 4850 1GB (Newegg). That would be a major upgrade for not much $$$.
 
Last edited:
So it sounds like you don't want to play games on your comp. In that case do not upgrade your video card its fine. AGP , PCI , no difference in 2D To use Aero with it will probably be slow. I say upgrade but to a great card at a low low price. Pay like 70 to 90 dollars and buy a 8800 or 9800 GT is your current card PCI-E then your set. You don't need more then a 88xx I tell ya. But if you play games like Crysis and Far Cry 2 BF2 FEAR3 Crysis 2 Gears of Wars 3 etc dattle bring your GPU to its knees hehe. That is when you need a 5870 or 5970 . nvidia equivlant 480 490 dual gpu can handle Crysis 2 and GoW 3 and a like.
 
Last edited:
RussianSensation said:
No one is going to pair a GTX480 with 720? Sure you will when you buy a GTX560/Radeon 6850 in 2 years and pair it with that 720 you purchased now to save the $50. Eventually you will need to upgrade your 5850...

In the short term yes it is better to pair a faster GPU with a slower CPU. But in 2 years when the 5850 and 5770 are both slow and you want a new generation card, Core i5 750 overclocked to 4.0ghz will have no problems keeping up while your 720BE will need upgrading AGAIN.....Sometimes it makes sense to spend an extra $50 on a CPU upfront.

In my honest opinion, our videocard forum has FAR downplayed the importance of CPU dependence. I mean you name any game, and it runs like a dog on Core 2 Duo 2.4ghz (E6600) and even E8400: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...System-Requirements-and-Screenshots/Practice/ Yet, every week you see someone recommending a GTX480 to be paired with a C2D.

I mean a stock Core i7 920 gets higher minimum framerates in Prototype at 1680x1050 4AA than an E8400 gets on average...You can tell me all you want that you can shift the GPU bottleneck by applying 16AA. I don't want 16AA. I want 40fps minimums and an average near 60 fps at 1920x1080. If I wanted 30 fps, I would have purchased a console. You can also throw a GTX480 in there but all you are going to get is 'free' AA. You are still not breaking 30 fps with a slow CPU. So what would you take 60 fps avg / 40 min 1920x1080 0AA or 30 fps / 20 min 16xAA 1920x1080?

How many people with E6600/E6700/E8400/E8500 are upgrading now? Tons. Instead, they could have purchased Q6600 up front 2 years ago and would have easily survived with it until Sandy Bridge. The extra cost was only $100 between the processors i listed and the Q6600 (sometimes $50). Their argument was similar to yours that why spend extra $50 today for performance difference they couldn't tell between a C2D and C2Q 2 years ago. Hindsight 20/20, this strategy was obviously a less cost effective decision as a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz will mop the floor with any Core 2 Duo in today's games.

OP, you can get the Athlon X4 630 for $99 + Free mobo (if you have a Microcenter) and an $85 4850 1GB (Newegg). That would be a major upgrade for not much $$$.
Click to expand...

You can just use the reverse logic with the cpu. The truth is some of os don't have that much money to blow on our systems. Maybe everyone should buy a 5970 so we won't have to upgrade our video card next year and just upgrade to sandy bridge instead!
 
Dark4ng3l said:
You can just use the reverse logic with the cpu. The truth is some of os don't have that much money to blow on our systems. Maybe everyone should buy a 5970 so we won't have to upgrade our video card next year and just upgrade to sandy bridge instead!
Click to expand...
the difference in price between a mediocre cpu and one that can push high end gpus for the foreseeable future is about 100 bucks. that makes much more sense than to buy a cpu that is already behind the curve to begin with. gpus are easily upgradable and usually have very large performance gains in each new generation. in other words a high gpu next year will be even more bottlenecked by that mediocre cpu than it is now.
 
Last edited:
RussianSensation said:
How many people with E6600/E6700/E8400/E8500 are upgrading now? Tons. Instead, they could have purchased Q6600 up front 2 years ago and would have easily survived with it until Sandy Bridge. The extra cost was only $100 between the processors i listed and the Q6600 (sometimes $50). Their argument was similar to yours that why spend extra $50 today for performance difference they couldn't tell between a C2D and C2Q 2 years ago. Hindsight 20/20, this strategy was obviously a less cost effective decision as a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz will mop the floor with any Core 2 Duo in today's games.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you're assuming a successful overclock. Many people don't get so lucky, or can't be bothered to try. When paired with a 2-year old GTX 260, a C2D holds it's own against a stock clocked C2Q at the lower resolutions many people with two year old systems still use**.

That would probably change if a newer video card or higher resolution were used. But people who upgrade an entire system at a time are unlikely to care that a 2-year old CPU would bottleneck a 2010 video card.

**It's imperfect data I know, but only 16% of steam users run above 1680x1050.
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
the difference in price between a mediocre cpu and one that can push high end gpus for the foreseeable future is about 100 bucks. that makes much more sense than to buy a cpu that is already behind the curve to begin with. gpus are easily upgradable and usually have very large performance gains in each new generation. in other words a high gpu next year will be even more bottlenecked by that mediocre cpu than it is now.
Click to expand...

And all that does not matter at all if you system sucks now. Most of my friends never even upgrade their systems they just use it then throw it out and buy a new one 3 years later. For 99.999999% of users thinking about their video card upgrade in 8 months is a complete non factor. And unless you buy into a dead end platform you can always upgrade the cpu anyways but really its a non issue. Toms had an article a couple of weeks ago that concluded that anything above an Athlon II x3 was a waste for gaming. Typical users will never see the difference between using a Phenom2 955 or a core i7 980x outside of the 15 seconds they save every time they unzip something or whatever.
 
Dark4ng3l said:
And all that does not matter at all if you system sucks now. Most of my friends never even upgrade their systems they just use it then throw it out and buy a new one 3 years later. For 99.999999% of users thinking about their video card upgrade in 8 months is a complete non factor. And unless you buy into a dead end platform you can always upgrade the cpu anyways but really its a non issue. Toms had an article a couple of weeks ago that concluded that anything above an Athlon II x3 was a waste for gaming. Typical users will never see the difference between using a Phenom2 955 or a core i7 980x outside of the 15 seconds they save every time they unzip something or whatever.
Click to expand...
cherry pick whatever results you want because they also have different conclusions in different articles right there on their site. you are talking about a $1000 cpu compared to a sub $200 cpu which has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying that IF building new to spend 100 bucks more and get a cpu thats better now and even more so in the future when you do upgrade the gpu again. somebody buying an i5 750 now has no need to upgrade their cpu for the next 3 years where as some of the lower end AMD X3 cpus already cant keep fully keep up with a current high end gpu.
 
toyota said:
cherry pick whatever results you want because they also have different conclusions in different articles right there on their site. you are talking about a $1000 cpu compared to a sub $200 cpu which has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying that IF building new to spend 100 bucks more and get a cpu thats better now and even more so in the future when you do upgrade the gpu again. somebody buying an i5 750 now has no need to upgrade their cpu for the next 3 years where as some of the lower end AMD X3 cpus already cant keep fully keep up with a current high end gpu.
Click to expand...

Glad that you have a crystal ball because I don't. But really if you have that extra 100$ to spend by all means spend it. If you don't then he's better off spending on video. But the 100$ is deceiving because p55 or x58 motherboards are much more expensive than am3 for similar feature sets. That and AM3 is probably not going to be a dead platform at this time next year unlike intel sockets. Now the main disadvantage is lack of sli but unless you listen to the FG marketing drones its no big deal at all.
 
Dark4ng3l said:
You can just use the reverse logic with the cpu.
Click to expand...

Obsolescence and Depreciation

The thing is though CPUs far outlast GPUs. You can generally survive at least 2 generations of GPUs on a decent CPU. Also CPUs don't drop in price as quickly. Finally, a new generation of CPUs tends to be 20% faster per clock (C2Q --> Nehalem). However, when a new generation of graphics cards comes out, you are looking at a 50-75%+ performance increase. This means that buying a $200 CPU (Core i5 750) over a $100 CPU ensures that the system is fast enough for the next 2-3 years. Your total cost difference per year is just $33.33 (if you keep the system for 3 years). It is actually slightly less though because a $200 CPU will have a higher resale value than a $100 CPU as well. However, a 5870 @ $400 isn't going to be fast in 3 years from now. Plus in 3 years, its residual value is likely to be $75, if not less.

The Financial Implications Of Upgrading vs. Initial Higher "Investment"

As to your point about always having the option to upgrade the CPU down the line, well it may or may not make sense. Let's use your logic for a second of saving $100 today on a CPU. Suppose you purchased an E6550 for $163 at launch in the summer of 2007 as opposed to a $266 Q6600 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2303). Today you would either need a new platform (new ram, mobo + cpu + cooler) or you have to buy a used Q6600/6700 or Q9400/9550, etc. You can probably find any these processors used for $120-130. That means even after selling your E6550, you'll have to part with $60-70 or more to upgrade. Instead, you could have purchased the Q6600 for $100 more 3 years ago and enjoyed faster performance in a lot of tasks for 3 years!

The individual with a Q6600 today can still sell it for $120+. This means the total cost of ownership over 3 years was $146 for the Q6600 ($266 - $120 sale price = $146) and $93 ($163 - $70 sale price = $93) for the E6550. So the annual cost of ownership between the 2 processors over 3 years is minimal, i.e. ($146 - $93) / 3 = $18 (of course there is the power consumption difference...but who is counting in the era of the GTX480!!! 🙂)

I wouldn't advise spending $500 on a CPU to 'future proof'. At the same time buying a $100 CPU + $400 GPU is also unwise imo based on the factors I listed above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top