To Upgrade or Not to Upgrade

[geokilla]

Hello everyone. With the graphic wars the way it is right now, I'm wondering whether I should upgrade the graphic card for the rig in sig. I'm a moderate gamer and I game at 1280X1024.

Should I get a BFG 9600GT for $104.99 AR, a EVGA 9800GT $139.99 AR, or a Gigabyte 4850 for $161.99 AR? I know that the 9600GT is the slowest out of the 3 and the 4850 would be the fastest. However, I'm worried about the bottlenecking caused by the CPU, monitor, etc.

Ideally, this would be the last upgrade for my computer, and the card has to last for at least 2 years, but knowing me, I'll probably build a new rig next summer.

Thanks.

P.S. I've tried pushing my CPU to something like 2.7Ghz but it simply wouldn't boot, so 2.4Ghz is the max my chip can go to.

Edited topic summary

 

[sandorski]

From what I have read, any of those cards are going to work great at that resolution. I doubt you'll need to worry about CPU bottlenecking.

 

[geokilla]

Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

 

[will889]

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

Even at 1280x1024?

 

[will889]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

Even at 1280x1024?

Generally the lower the res (I know it sounds wrong) the more that the better CPU will show it's speed in pure FPS terms. If you played @ 16*10 the more the burden would shift to the GPU (not totally but moreso). For example, the E6850 has an astounding FPS speed difference against the AMD 6000+ X2 @ the lower resolutions (1024x768-1152x864) but once the resolutions are increased to wide screen 16*10 the gap narrows dramatically to only about a 1-3% advantage with both running the same GPU, but the speed difference between your CPU @ 2.4 and an E6750-8400 at lower resolutions will be quite dramatic, and even against a 6000+ @ 3.0ghz. At 1280x1024 it's a bit better though, but you eventually need to get a faster CPU.

 

[TC91]

grab the 4850 and call it a day.

 

[will889]

^ Now that's not to say that you can't ride a nice GPU with that 3800 X2 for a while, then transfer it to a system with a better CPU - just eventually nab a better processor if you can. However, even if you actually plan on keeping that CPU for a while I see no problem with a 9600GT-8800GT-4850 (even an HD3850-3870) as long as the games you play will get enough FPS for you.

 

[octopus41092]

At that resolution I'd just go with the 9600GT anything else is overkill. Also the HD4850 would be bottlenecked so if thats the last upgrade for that computer theres no point in getting it. Not sure about the 8800GT but I really don't think its necessary to game at 1280x1024.

 

[biostud]

I would get the 4850 as you can turn up the AA, without too much performance hit.

 

[MarcVenice]

You should definately upgrade, you skipped 2 whole generations! I'd say that even if the 4850 is going to be bottlenecked to some extent in some games, I'd still buy it over a 9600gt or 9800gt. Simply because it will last longer, could be transferred to a new rig, and will have better resale value then the previous gen cards from Nvidia.

Then again, if you're not really a hardcore gamer, and more a casual gamer that plays games once in a while, then you would probably be very happy with a 9600gt, which is allready a HUGE step-up from your old videocard. Up to you to decide if the price difference is worth it.

 

[geokilla]

What about a 7900GTX? I found a person selling a 7900GTX for around $65 CAD. I asked for the box and receipt and stuff, but he doesn't have any of that. I also found another person selling a 1950XT for $80 and a 2900 Pro overclocked to XT speeds for $100.

If I get the 4850, I might just take my sister's processor from her comp and switch it with mine. She won't even know the difference....Can the 4850 last till at least I build my next rig next summer?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

Even at 1280x1024?

Generally the lower the res (I know it sounds wrong) the more that the better CPU will show it's speed in pure FPS terms. If you played @ 16*10 the more the burden would shift to the GPU (not totally but moreso). For example, the E6850 has an astounding FPS speed difference against the AMD 6000+ X2 @ the lower resolutions (1024x768-1152x864) but once the resolutions are increased to wide screen 16*10 the gap narrows dramatically to only about a 1-3% advantage with both running the same GPU, but the speed difference between your CPU @ 2.4 and an E6750-8400 at lower resolutions will be quite dramatic, and even against a 6000+ @ 3.0ghz. At 1280x1024 it's a bit better though, but you eventually need to get a faster CPU.

That is true and I understand that, but that's not Bottle Necking the Video Card. That's just plain Bottle Necking.

 

[will889]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

Even at 1280x1024?

Generally the lower the res (I know it sounds wrong) the more that the better CPU will show it's speed in pure FPS terms. If you played @ 16*10 the more the burden would shift to the GPU (not totally but moreso). For example, the E6850 has an astounding FPS speed difference against the AMD 6000+ X2 @ the lower resolutions (1024x768-1152x864) but once the resolutions are increased to wide screen 16*10 the gap narrows dramatically to only about a 1-3% advantage with both running the same GPU, but the speed difference between your CPU @ 2.4 and an E6750-8400 at lower resolutions will be quite dramatic, and even against a 6000+ @ 3.0ghz. At 1280x1024 it's a bit better though, but you eventually need to get a faster CPU.

That is true and I understand that, but that's not Bottle Necking the Video Card. That's just plain Bottle Necking.

The bottle-necking has to have variable. The variable most affected would be the GPU via the CPU - comparatively against the gain that a better CPU would get with the same card. That said, there's nothing wrong with slapping and 8800GT on that system regardless of the % of any bottleneck - the gains you get from overall performance benefit outway any miniscule misbalance on way or the other.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

Even at 1280x1024?

Generally the lower the res (I know it sounds wrong) the more that the better CPU will show it's speed in pure FPS terms. If you played @ 16*10 the more the burden would shift to the GPU (not totally but moreso). For example, the E6850 has an astounding FPS speed difference against the AMD 6000+ X2 @ the lower resolutions (1024x768-1152x864) but once the resolutions are increased to wide screen 16*10 the gap narrows dramatically to only about a 1-3% advantage with both running the same GPU, but the speed difference between your CPU @ 2.4 and an E6750-8400 at lower resolutions will be quite dramatic, and even against a 6000+ @ 3.0ghz. At 1280x1024 it's a bit better though, but you eventually need to get a faster CPU.

That is true and I understand that, but that's not Bottle Necking the Video Card. That's just plain Bottle Necking.

The bottle-necking has to have variable. The variable most affected would be the GPU via the CPU - comparatively against the gain that a better CPU would get with the same card. That said, there's nothing wrong with slapping and 8800GT on that system regardless of the % of any bottleneck - the gains you get from overall performance benefit outway any miniscule misbalance on way or the other.

The variable is Performance. The GPU is not being held back by the CPU resulting in the end performance in this case. The end result is merely due to the CPU being unable to keep up with the demands of the Software, not the demands of the GPU.

 

[will889]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

Even at 1280x1024?

Generally the lower the res (I know it sounds wrong) the more that the better CPU will show it's speed in pure FPS terms. If you played @ 16*10 the more the burden would shift to the GPU (not totally but moreso). For example, the E6850 has an astounding FPS speed difference against the AMD 6000+ X2 @ the lower resolutions (1024x768-1152x864) but once the resolutions are increased to wide screen 16*10 the gap narrows dramatically to only about a 1-3% advantage with both running the same GPU, but the speed difference between your CPU @ 2.4 and an E6750-8400 at lower resolutions will be quite dramatic, and even against a 6000+ @ 3.0ghz. At 1280x1024 it's a bit better though, but you eventually need to get a faster CPU.

That is true and I understand that, but that's not Bottle Necking the Video Card. That's just plain Bottle Necking.

The bottle-necking has to have variable. The variable most affected would be the GPU via the CPU - comparatively against the gain that a better CPU would get with the same card. That said, there's nothing wrong with slapping and 8800GT on that system regardless of the % of any bottleneck - the gains you get from overall performance benefit outway any miniscule misbalance on way or the other.

The variable is Performance. The GPU is not being held back by the CPU resulting in the end performance in this case. The end result is merely due to the CPU being unable to keep up with the demands of the Software, not the demands of the GPU.

The result of the variables I mentioned are cause / effect and the effect of the combined variable is the overall performance, the primarily variable/s is the hardware mentioned not the software. It takes hardware to run software, so your primary variable is the hardware. The GPU is held back "comparatively" - key word "comparatively". It isn't so much about the demands of the GPU, but rather the CPU bottle-necking the GPU to an "extent". Take the same GPU and sit it on an E6850 - test from 800x600 through 1280x1024. Massive FPS differences you will see. Raise that res to 1680x1050 up through 19*12 and you will still see a fairly sizable difference though getting smaller from 16*10 then to 19*12. That gap would be further closed at higher resolutions if he had a better CPU.

That said - no reason he can't use even an HD4850 for a while with the 3800X2. The gains would still be worth it despite any bottle-necking.

 

[thilanliyan]

For that resolution any of those cards would be fine. However, the 9800GT is just a 8800GT so the 4850 would definitely be faster and you can turn up some of the settings.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: geokilla
Uhh....Really? I was sure the 8800GTS would be a bottleneck for my system, so the 4850 would definitely be held back by my CPU and gaming resolution.

You're correct - you need to move up to about the 2.8- 3.0GHZ level (or close) with AMD to get better FPS, otherwise you'll likely have about a 10-15-20 % ( game situational and res depending) performance level bottleneck comparatively.

Even at 1280x1024?

Generally the lower the res (I know it sounds wrong) the more that the better CPU will show it's speed in pure FPS terms. If you played @ 16*10 the more the burden would shift to the GPU (not totally but moreso). For example, the E6850 has an astounding FPS speed difference against the AMD 6000+ X2 @ the lower resolutions (1024x768-1152x864) but once the resolutions are increased to wide screen 16*10 the gap narrows dramatically to only about a 1-3% advantage with both running the same GPU, but the speed difference between your CPU @ 2.4 and an E6750-8400 at lower resolutions will be quite dramatic, and even against a 6000+ @ 3.0ghz. At 1280x1024 it's a bit better though, but you eventually need to get a faster CPU.

That is true and I understand that, but that's not Bottle Necking the Video Card. That's just plain Bottle Necking.

The bottle-necking has to have variable. The variable most affected would be the GPU via the CPU - comparatively against the gain that a better CPU would get with the same card. That said, there's nothing wrong with slapping and 8800GT on that system regardless of the % of any bottleneck - the gains you get from overall performance benefit outway any miniscule misbalance on way or the other.

The variable is Performance. The GPU is not being held back by the CPU resulting in the end performance in this case. The end result is merely due to the CPU being unable to keep up with the demands of the Software, not the demands of the GPU.

The result of the variables I mentioned are cause / effect and the effect of the combined variable is the overall performance, the primarily variable/s is the hardware mentioned not the software. It takes hardware to run software, so your primary variable is the hardware. The GPU is held back "comparatively" - key word "comparatively". It isn't so much about the demands of the GPU, but rather the CPU bottle-necking the GPU to an "extent". Take the same GPU and sit it on an E6850 - test from 800x600 through 1280x1024. Massive FPS differences you will see. Raise that res to 1680x1050 up through 19*12 and you will still see a fairly sizable difference though getting smaller from 16*10 then to 19*12. That gap would be further closed at higher resolutions if he had a better CPU.

That said - no reason he can't use even an HD4850 for a while with the 3800X2. The gains would still be worth it despite any bottle-necking.

Ultimately we agree in that there's no reason not to get one of the cards in the list, but I still disagree on the CPU/GPU Bottlenecking issue. If he were using a higher Resolution, then the CPU would be Bottlenecking the GPU, because Performance Losses would be caused by the CPU being unable to feed the GPU. At the lower Resolution the GPU is fine and getting everything it wants, thus the CPU is not bottlenecking the GPU.

It is true that Hardware is ultimately responsible for Performance, but due to the numerous demands of the Software it is not simply a case where CPUGPU Bottlenecks are the only concern. Many of the demands made by Software has no direct bearing on the GPU or Graphics at all. These demands are purely demands on the CPU. The CPU can Bottleneck on these particular demands, yet not be bottlenecking the GPU, as like I said earlier, the GPU is getting all the CPU resources it needs. The end result is lesser Performance, the difference is in the Cause of that lesser Performance.

I think the bigger issue for the OP here is in how much more Performance he will see by making such an Upgrade. I suspect it will be geatly improved(I could be wrong though) in most situations. I just don't think that CPU/GPU Bottlenecking issue should be a Purchase decision maker/breaker at all in this situation.

 

[will889]

Yes his gaming situation will still be greatly improved. No argument there. Any of the cards listed would work great. Each card successively a moderate percentile faster than the next ~ HD4850 @ 15-25% over an 8800GT (game depending sometimes 30% faster), 8800GT about 5-7% faster than a 9600GT sometimes only 1-2% in a few games.

 

[bryanW1995]

you can get a 4850 for $140AR shipped right now in hot deals section and an 8800gt with an accelero s1 preinstalled for $110AR shipped. If you're only gaming at 1280x1024 then just get the 8800gt and call it a day.

 

[SolMiester]

I use a 9600GT @ 16x10, so for 12x10 will scream.....

 

[spdfreak]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
I use a 9600GT @ 16x10, so for 12x10 will scream.....

ditto- I use a 9600GT on my 16x10 LCD and I haven't played anything that slows it down to anything near unplayable rates. I think crysis will, but I don't play it and it really doesn't run good on anything. I think you are safe for the next year with the 9600.

 

[geokilla]

I believe the 9600GT has 512MB, so if everything's fine on 16X10, 12X10 will definitely scream, like what SolMiester said.

However, I found a BFG 7900Gt 256MB for $20 on RFD. Should I jump on that?

 

[HumblePie]

This CPU to GPU bottlenecking bullshyte is absolute BULLSHYTE!!! in this case.

Why? Who cares a rat flying fudge if at the low low low low resolution of 1280x1024 (this is low in todays standards) that all the video cards in question are going to give basically the exact same performance. 120+ FPS is basically what he is going to get.

The only card that will make any difference to what he is most likely to play at that resolution is the 4850. Why? Because at that resolution he can actually crank the AA up to 24x CFAA with every eye candy for any game turned up and still have more than abundant FPS. The other cards might start chugging a tiny bit doing that even at that low a resolution.

Turn up the resolution and the 4850 is still going to out do the other cards.

Now, if he's worried about price and doesn't care about having the absolutely best visual quality he can possibly get out of every stinking game available and in years into the future (so long as he keeps exactly the same setup and resolution) then yah. If he's willing to deal with low AA go with the cheapest of the cards available. They all perform the same since at the low resolution without maxed AA and AF they aren't going to be burdened.


As stated this back and forth argument to CPU bottlenecking and blah blah blah in his case is moot. Who cares between getting 120 and 135 FPS? Really?


My personal opinion. Get at least the 4850. It's cheap and will last bit longer than the other two cards. If you decide to get a better system AND monitor for higher resolutions later, it will provide better performance then as well.

If you only care about not spending too much right now and are planning in a year or so to finally do a complete new system from scratch and get rid of everything, find the cheapest "recent" card you can. That would either be a 3870, 9600 GT, or 8800 GTS. Can find these for under $100 and in most cases close to $50 after rebates. All 3 would perform about the same for your system and that resolution without the AA turned on.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: geokilla
P.S. I've tried pushing my CPU to something like 2.7Ghz but it simply wouldn't boot, so 2.4Ghz is the max my chip can go to.

Have you tried lowering the HT multiplier as well as memory multiplier?

Originally posted by: geokilla
However, I found a BFG 7900Gt 256MB for $20 on RFD. Should I jump on that?

No. It is around the same generation as your x850XT and will be comparable in performance (just run cooler and draw less power).