Upgrade path from an 8600GT?

[toyota]

what an utterly useless comment. Of course it will. Are you daft?

why because you say so? If it would have really been an E6300 1.86 CPU then it would have been almost useless for modern games so who would give a crap about having a little more GPU power when the CPU is too slow to even matter?

 

[Magic Carpet]

why because you say so? If it would have really been an E6300 1.86 CPU then it would have been almost useless for modern games so who would give a crap about having a little more GPU power when the CPU is too slow to even matter?

You know, I tested an X2 4600+ the other day, which has similar performance to E6320/E6300. And in DirectX 11 games GTX 670 was a lot faster than 7870. CPU bottlenecked? hell yes. But still the faster card made a difference. Obviously, Far Cry 4 was not enjoyable, but still playable. But less demanding games such as Sniper Elite III are perfectly playable on older processors. I urge people to upgrade all the time, though.

 

[toyota]

You know, I tested an X2 4600+ the other day, which has similar performance to E6320/E6300. And in DirectX 11 games GTX 670 was a lot faster than 7870. CPU bottlenecked? hell yes. But still the faster card made a difference. Obviously, Far Cry 4 was not very enjoable but still playable. But less demanding games such as Sniper Elite III are perfectly playable on older processors.

I dont believe that for a second. I know darn well there would be no playable difference at all between a 670 and 7870 with a cpu that slow. my 5000 X2 became a playable limitation many years ago and thats with much slower cards and less cpu demanding games. most modern games today would not be playable at all with a 1.86 Core 2 duo. heck you can even see in the cpu review section where cpus 2 to 3 faster are sometimes not even very playable.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I dont believe that for a second. most modern games would not be playable at all with a 1.86 Core 2 duo. heck you can even see in the cpu review section where cpus 2 to 3 faster are sometimes not even very playable.

Of course they would. In fact, I will get a hold of 1.86 Core 2 Duo next week, and maybe do some benches. Like I said earlier, E6320/E6300 isn't much slower X2 4600+.

 

[toyota]

Of course they would. In fact, I will get a hold of 1.86 Core 2 Duo next week, and maybe do some benches. Like I said earlier, E6320/E6300 isn't much slower X2 4600+.

knock yourself out. I guess all these tech sites showing cpus that would blow that old 1.86 core 2 duo away not even getting playable framerates are just lying.

even running just 2 cores of my cpu at 1.0 ghz would match or beat that old cpu and you know it. good luck playing modern games with that much cpu power.

now it could run some games "fine" on lower settings but not at the settings a decent modern video card is capable of.

 

[Magic Carpet]

knock yourself out. I guess all these tech sites showing cpus that would blow that old 1.86 core 2 duo away not even getting playable framerates are just lying.

The tech sites are geared more toward power gamers that demand high settings as well as framerates, but many people are fine playing at lower settings/framerate unless a slideshow begins.

even running just 2 cores of my cpu at 1.0 ghz would match or beat that old cpu and you know it.

Correct. But I don't have a problem with that.

good luck playing modern games with that much cpu power. now it could run some games "fine" on lower settings but not at the settings a decent modern video card is capable of.

Of course, you wouldn't be using GPU to its max, but that's ok. The difference would still be noticable and far from "useless". Some people are okay to make that compromise. I am glad, you don't have to.

 

[toyota]

The tech sites are geared more toward power gamers that demand high settings as well as framerates, but many people are fine playing at lower settings/framerate unless a slideshow begins.


Correct. But I don't have a problem with that.


Of course, you wouldn't be using GPU to its max, but that's ok. The difference would still be noticable and far from "useless". Some people are okay to make that compromise. I am glad, you don't have to.

you are not actually paying attention to what I am saying.

cpus much faster than the 1.86 Core 2 duo cant even stay over 30 fps and in many cases cant even average much more.

its not about you a having problem, its about saying that two cores of my cpu at 1.0 would not play many games. it was just an example of how low my cpu would need to be clocked and still match or beat the old E6300.

and of course its not going to push any gpu to max but the point is that it will not be playable in most modern games. and I still call BS on there being any playable difference between a 7870 and 670 with a cpu like that.

 

[Cerb]

well he may have an an old 1.86 E6300 for all we know. it really would not matter much if the gpu was an upgrade or not if rocking a cpu that cant even deliver playable framerates.

But, it will vary by game, and a R9 260(X) or GTX 750 (Ti) would be a fine lower-end card upon needing to further upgrade. Over an 8600GT, either will be a hefty upgrade, and perform even better with a newer CPU. And, if an 8600GT has served for this long, I don't think the OP would find great value in a high-end card.

A CPU upgrade with the 8600GT or IGP would be rather Pyrrhic, wouldn't it?

 

[toyota]

But, it will vary by game, and a R9 260(X) or GTX 750 (Ti) would be a fine lower-end card upon needing to further upgrade. Over an 8600GT, either will be a hefty upgrade, and perform even better with a newer CPU. And, if an 8600GT has served for this long, I don't think the OP would find great value in a high-end card.

A CPU upgrade with the 8600GT or IGP would be rather Pyrrhic, wouldn't it?

of course it will vary but most games will not even be able to sustain 30 fps. again do we really need to look at reviews to see cpus over twice as fast struggling to keep framerates up?

 

[tential]

of course it will vary but most games will not even be able to sustain 30 fps. again do we really need to look at reviews to see cpus over twice as fast struggling to keep framerates up?

I didn't know review sites test 720p/low settings. Most don't test that low. That's what a LOT of people play at though.

 

[Cerb]

of course it will vary but most games will not even be able to sustain 30 fps. again do we really need to look at reviews to see cpus over twice as fast struggling to keep framerates up?

No, but even a slower Core 2 Duo should be hitting the limits of a 8600GT on regular basis. Afterburner can confirm, I think, and GPU-Z, probably, if the OP wants to check, but hasn't.

I don't think getting a decent GPU now, with a lower budget, and then a good CPU upgrade later, is a bad way to go, especially considering that the OP is not too concerned with IQ. Upgrading the CPU but not GPU, or using IGP (with AMD), would still be more expensive, even selling old parts, unless the OP is using a retail Windows, and would still result in quite a compromise, v. having a 6-moth-old, say, GTX 750-ish card, with a better CPU. At lower settings, GPU-limited cases should remain fairly rare, for at least a couple years, in the kinds of games the OP is mentioning, with something in the performance range of a GTX 750 (Ti).

 

[toyota]

I didn't know review sites test 720p/low settings. Most don't test that low. That's what a LOT of people play at though.

what does that have to do with anything? if a cpu can only deliver 20-30 fps then who cares what resolution someone is playing at?

 

[toyota]

No, but even a slower Core 2 Duo should be hitting the limits of a 8600GT on regular basis. Afterburner can confirm, I think, and GPU-Z, probably, if the OP wants to check, but hasn't.

I don't think getting a decent GPU now, with a lower budget, and then a good CPU upgrade later, is a bad way to go. Upgrading the CPU but not GPU, or using IGP (with AMD), would still be more expensive, even selling old parts, unless the OP is using a retail Windows, and would still result in quite a compromise, v. having a 6-moth-old, say, GTX 750-ish card, with a better CPU.

op has a much better cpu than the old E6300 though. this was just hypothetical before we knew what cpu he had but really anyone claiming the old 1.86 E6300 can play modern games smoothly is living in fantasyland. Wolfenstein, Thief, Hitman and many others would be a stuttery slideshow and not the least bit playable.

 

[Cerb]

op has a much better cpu than the old E6300 though. this was just hypothetical before we knew what cpu he had but really anyone claiming the old 1.86 E6300 can play modern games smoothly is living in fantasyland. Wolfenstein, Thief, Hitman and many others would be a stuttery slideshow and not the least bit playable.

Even on low settings, most of them will remain a stuttery mess with IGP or the 8600GT, too (that said, Wolfenstein is a bit stuttery on my E3-1230V3, so I'm not sure if there's a complete cure for that one ).

A GTX 750 Ti, or R9 260X, would be fine video cards to move to a better CPU rig, later, if IQ is secondary. I like my GTX 970 and all, but the VRAM limitations were my main gripe with a GTX 460, with a slightly faster CPU than the OP's, which would be right about the same level of performance.

 

[toyota]

Even on low settings, most of them will remain a stuttery mess with IGP or the 8600GT, too (that said, Wolfenstein is a bit stuttery on my E3-1230V3, so I'm not sure if there's a complete cure for that one ).

A GTX 750 Ti, or R9 260X, would be fine video cards to move to a better CPU rig, later, if IQ is secondary. I like my GTX 970 and all, but the VRAM limitations were my main gripe with a GTX 460, with a slightly faster CPU than the OP's, which would be right about the same level of performance.

and AGAIN it would not matter having a faster gpu if nearly every game was unplayable because of the cpu. are you really not comprehending the concept of sub 30 fps? heck it would be sub 20 fps in some cases especially the minimum framerate.

even the cpu the OP has will still be mean 30 fps or below in some cases but at least its way better than the old E6300.

 

[Cerb]

and AGAIN it would not matter having a faster gpu if nearly every game was unplayable because of the cpu.

But, nearly every game won't be. Only a handful of very new ones will be. Having run a 3.2GHz Conroe until 11 months ago, running at 1680x1050, with a factory-OCed GTX 460 1GB (go 2GB!), I know well how that works out. I am not going to deny some new games will be unplayable at any settings; but WoT, Civs, and most games that are light on fast action (WoT, and MWO, are nothing like FPSes, in that regard, and 20-30FPS is quite playable, if less than ideal), will do just fine, within reason. Plus, the driver overhead is enough that the CPU upgrade will effectively result in a perceived GPU upgrade.

The OP basically needs to upgrade everything, but a faster C2D is certainly good enough to push a much better video card than a 8600GT, the value around $100 is fairly good, right now, and a 750 Ti or 260X would be perfectly suitable lower-end cards to put into a budget gaming rig in some months down the road.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No, but even a slower Core 2 Duo should be hitting the limits of a 8600GT on regular basis. Afterburner can confirm, I think, and GPU-Z, probably, if the OP wants to check, but hasn't.

I don't think getting a decent GPU now, with a lower budget, and then a good CPU upgrade later, is a bad way to go, especially considering that the OP is not too concerned with IQ. Upgrading the CPU but not GPU, or using IGP (with AMD), would still be more expensive, even selling old parts, unless the OP is using a retail Windows, and would still result in quite a compromise, v. having a 6-moth-old, say, GTX 750-ish card, with a better CPU. At lower settings, GPU-limited cases should remain fairly rare, for at least a couple years, in the kinds of games the OP is mentioning, with something in the performance range of a GTX 750 (Ti).

As I said, I recently had a system with an E4500, which is slower than the op's cpu. I upgraded from an 8600GT to a 9800GT, and it was noticeably faster. I did not upgrade further than the 9800GT because I felt like I was starting to see cpu limits. But I am sure there will be an improvement from an 8600GT to a modern card, even with the op's cpu. I am not saying it will play the most recent games well, but there will be an improvement.

 

[Headfoot]

knock yourself out. I guess all these tech sites showing cpus that would blow that old 1.86 core 2 duo away not even getting playable framerates are just lying.

even running just 2 cores of my cpu at 1.0 ghz would match or beat that old cpu and you know it. good luck playing modern games with that much cpu power.

now it could run some games "fine" on lower settings but not at the settings a decent modern video card is capable of.

Stop moving the goalposts. The discussion isn't whether its playable. It's whether he will see any increase in frames per second, which he obviously will. Changing a piece of hardware, such change resulting in more frames per second is known as an "upgrade." OP is seeking an upgrade path for $100.

 

[toyota]

Stop moving the goalposts. The discussion isn't whether its playable. It's whether he will see any increase in frames per second, which he obviously will. Changing hardware which results in more frames per second is known as an "upgrade."

no goal post were moved at all as MY point this whole time was about games being playable. lol who the heck would give a rats behind about an increase in performance if it was still not playable? some of you guys are just a joke and twist and turn everything just to keep making an argument no matter how illogical.

 

[Headfoot]

no goal post were moved at all as MY point this whole time was about games being playable. lol who the heck would give a rats behind about an increase in performance if it was still not playable? some of you guys are just a joke and twist and turn everything just to keep making an argument no matter how illogical.

Will replacing a 8600gt with a 750 Ti be an upgrade? Yes or no.

 

[toyota]

Will replacing a 8600gt with a 750 Ti be an upgrade? Yes or no.

READ AGAIN what I said from the very beginning and stop being ridiculous. no one with an ounce of sense would consider something a worthwhile "upgrade" if it was still not playable.

well he may have an an old 1.86 E6300 for all we know. it really would not matter much if the gpu was an upgrade or not if rocking a cpu that cant even deliver playable framerates.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Get a GTX 750ti or upgrade platform.

 

[skipsneeky2]

repost,sorry

 

[skipsneeky2]

WOT runs like crap on my x4 9150e which clocks in at 1.8Ghz.Theres a little bit of a difference between it and a C2D on a clock per clock basis as its a first generation phenom but i know even matched up with a gtx650 it was pretty much useless. My cousins 9500gt was bottlenecked when i was even using that card and this was all bare minimum settings at 768p.

My x4 9150e should be a bit better then your e6300 in WOT with its 4 threads but not by much,i was getting in the ballpark of 25-55 or so fps and pretty much it would tank constantly.

I know a Core i3 would do miles of difference,i got my cousin a rig built around a i3 3225 and well even with the 9500gt in WOT he occasionally sees frames upwards of 100.Do bare in mind he was playing this at 768p with bare minimum settings.My gtx650 pretty much dominated once paired with the i3 at low.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Thanks for all the help. Now I remember why I stopped following hardware, the choices are dizzying. I went ahead and ordered the GTX 750 Ti.

I have an E7400 and 8Gb. So far WoT runs fine. I know this C2D is getting long in the teeth and i'll upgrade it later. At least I can take this vid card and move it to the next system. What would a CPU bottleneck look like in a game?

You certainly will be bottlenecked,check my above post when you get a chance.

I run WOT with medium settings with the advanced settings set to standard instead of advanced. Anything higher usually tanks the fps for no apparent reason. Can say it happened with my i3/the i5 and even my current i7 with my current 770 in all resolutions up to 1080p.

Luckily WOT is lightly thread and a i3 4000 series should be more then plenty for this game as i saw no noticeable fps difference between the i3/i5 and i7.