Upgrading from a 7600gt to a 9600gt - Is it a good idea ?

[toyota]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Schmide
For example. COD 4-5 a 4200x2 can render at least 90fps on any map. A 9600gt will never reach this number at 1920x1200, a 4850 maybe, a 4870/90 easily.

He is talking about a game where X2 4200 can't render 30 FPS under any situation.

or you can substitute many different cpus for the point I was trying to make. he keeps thinking that a faster card will always give more benefits and thats not always the case. even at 2560x1600 it is possible to be 100% cpu limited. if you have really slow cpu such as a single core 2.4 P4 and a gtx260 at 2560x1600 then going with a gtx285 will not provide any benefit because it is the cpu thats the limitation. sure the lower the res, the more limitation the cpu will be but running a game at 2560 doesnt magically make a gpu not be constrained by a super slow cpu.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: lopri
He is talking about a game where X2 4200 can't render 30 FPS under any situation.

I understand what he's saying, I don't believe it has anything to do with what I was saying. Sure you can find situations where a rendering system is CPU limited, but that has noting to do with a more powerful card being able to render better at higher resolutions. Especially with regards to the OP 4200x2, there are plenty of cases where a 9600gt will become GPU bottlenecked. Steam Engine, COD series, L4d to name a few.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
He is not CPU limited at this point. It's an X2 4200+.

I've had an ATI 3850 512mb and a Zotac 8800GTS 320mb with my s939 X2 4200+ and they were perfect matches. The 9600gt is right there.

perfect matches? how do you come to that conclusion? with a 9600gt he could get better performance from a faster cpu so saying its a perfect match seems odd. yeah its not really enough to worry about in most games with that level of gpu so if thats what you are saying then it makes sense. the 9600gt is certainly about as high as i would recommend that 4200 X2.

In most games you'll be GPU limited if the game can effectively use two threads. The X2 4200+ is two 3500+'s on one die, which still packs quite a bit of power. In a CPU heavy game such as TF2, I typically got 60-140fps on all high/very high 2xAA with my 8800GTS 320mb @ 1680x1050. When I tested my 4830 (w/OC) on the same setup my fps still rose a bit here and there, but really that was the ceiling for that CPU.

My FPS in crysis went from 15-17 to 24-27 when I went from the 8800GTS to the 4830. 27FPS in Crysis is still fast enough. My Q8200 @ 3ghz doesn't offer hardly a couple FPS increase. This shows that the 4200+ can still hang with the mid-range in most games.

Really, the 4200+ and the G80 core were near/at top of the line when released. The 9600GT is right there and make sense being paired together. However, anything above the 3870/8800(G80)/9600GT/GSO is not a good idea. It's money wasted at that point.

sorry but I dont believe your minimum framerates went up as much as you think they did. in Crysis you certainly still dipped into the low teens with that 4200 X2. I will just skip all the back and forth on this but a 4200 X2 is much weaker than you think it is. at least we do agree that something much faster than a 9600gt would be a waste for the op.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
He is not CPU limited at this point. It's an X2 4200+.

I've had an ATI 3850 512mb and a Zotac 8800GTS 320mb with my s939 X2 4200+ and they were perfect matches. The 9600gt is right there.

perfect matches? how do you come to that conclusion? with a 9600gt he could get better performance from a faster cpu so saying its a perfect match seems odd. yeah its not really enough to worry about in most games with that level of gpu so if thats what you are saying then it makes sense. the 9600gt is certainly about as high as i would recommend that 4200 X2.

In most games you'll be GPU limited if the game can effectively use two threads. The X2 4200+ is two 3500+'s on one die, which still packs quite a bit of power. In a CPU heavy game such as TF2, I typically got 60-140fps on all high/very high 2xAA with my 8800GTS 320mb @ 1680x1050. When I tested my 4830 (w/OC) on the same setup my fps still rose a bit here and there, but really that was the ceiling for that CPU.

My FPS in crysis went from 15-17 to 24-27 when I went from the 8800GTS to the 4830. 27FPS in Crysis is still fast enough. My Q8200 @ 3ghz doesn't offer hardly a couple FPS increase. This shows that the 4200+ can still hang with the mid-range in most games.

Really, the 4200+ and the G80 core were near/at top of the line when released. The 9600GT is right there and make sense being paired together. However, anything above the 3870/8800(G80)/9600GT/GSO is not a good idea. It's money wasted at that point.

sorry but I dont believe your minimum framerates went up as much as you think they did. in Crysis you certainly still dipped into the low teens with that 4200 X2. I will just skip all the back and forth on this but a 4200 X2 is much weaker than you think it is. at least we do agree that something much faster than a 9600gt would be a waste for the op.

Your theory that you saw barely any performance increase going from a 7600GT to a 9800GT with whatever CPU you had is completely FUBAR'd. More people will see a huge increase in performance, meanwhile you keep clamoring on that the difference is wasted.

Just shut up already and stop spreading bullshit. Your analogies are just horrible and have no bearing on the conversation at hand.

 

[distinctively]

How about this. I have a 9600gt in one of my machines. It plays Bioshock at 1080p just fine as long as AA is off. I believe that in game settings are all on high. I'm pretty sure it's a Galaxy OCed to 675Mhz. I can't check right now because one of my kids are playing Batman on it right now. (at 1080p). I'm guessing that you found a good deal on it somewhere. Having stated all of this, the household HD 4850 is absolutely loved around here for its performance/price.

 

[distinctively]

How about this. I have a 9600gt in one of my machines. It plays Bioshock at 1080p just fine as long as AA is off. I believe that in game settings are all on high. I'm pretty sure it's a Galaxy OCed to 675Mhz. I can't check right now because one of my kids are playing Batman on it right now. (at 1080p). I'm guessing that you found a good deal on it somewhere. Having stated all of this, the household HD 4850 is absolutely loved around here for its performance/price.

Oops, double post. Sorry.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: crazylegs
9600GT is an awesome value for money card, been using one myself up until very recently.

Managed to play all my games at 1920x1200, with medium to high settings.

yes, but you were certainly cpu limited there, just ask toyota.

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
He is not CPU limited at this point. It's an X2 4200+.

I've had an ATI 3850 512mb and a Zotac 8800GTS 320mb with my s939 X2 4200+ and they were perfect matches. The 9600gt is right there.

perfect matches? how do you come to that conclusion? with a 9600gt he could get better performance from a faster cpu so saying its a perfect match seems odd. yeah its not really enough to worry about in most games with that level of gpu so if thats what you are saying then it makes sense. the 9600gt is certainly about as high as i would recommend that 4200 X2.

In most games you'll be GPU limited if the game can effectively use two threads. The X2 4200+ is two 3500+'s on one die, which still packs quite a bit of power. In a CPU heavy game such as TF2, I typically got 60-140fps on all high/very high 2xAA with my 8800GTS 320mb @ 1680x1050. When I tested my 4830 (w/OC) on the same setup my fps still rose a bit here and there, but really that was the ceiling for that CPU.

My FPS in crysis went from 15-17 to 24-27 when I went from the 8800GTS to the 4830. 27FPS in Crysis is still fast enough. My Q8200 @ 3ghz doesn't offer hardly a couple FPS increase. This shows that the 4200+ can still hang with the mid-range in most games.

Really, the 4200+ and the G80 core were near/at top of the line when released. The 9600GT is right there and make sense being paired together. However, anything above the 3870/8800(G80)/9600GT/GSO is not a good idea. It's money wasted at that point.

sorry but I dont believe your minimum framerates went up as much as you think they did. in Crysis you certainly still dipped into the low teens with that 4200 X2. I will just skip all the back and forth on this but a 4200 X2 is much weaker than you think it is. at least we do agree that something much faster than a 9600gt would be a waste for the op.

Your theory that you saw barely any performance increase going from a 7600GT to a 9800GT with whatever CPU you had is completely FUBAR'd. More people will see a huge increase in performance, meanwhile you keep clamoring on that the difference is wasted.

Just shut up already and stop spreading bullshit. Your analogies are just horrible and have no bearing on the conversation at hand.

Don't waste your time arguing with the "cpu limited nazi". Let's just call him CLN from now on. Or does CPULN sound better? himmmm, maybe we should take a poll...


btw, CPULN, I have now seen you accuse somebody lying on several different occasions because his personal experience with his video did not agree with some benchmarks that you saw on fs, hardocp, AT, etc. Seriously, how hard is it to just test them and then throw out your accusations? If BFG looks at a benchmark and calls shens on it he KNOWS it's bullshit because he tested it and probably still has the data lying around somewhere. Build some credibility before passing yourself off as an expert.

 

[wanderer27]

I'm running a 9600GT myself, it works well with anything I run.

Upgraded from a 7800GTX, it's definitely a much cooler and lower power (Watts) card - a good deal in my book.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
He is not CPU limited at this point. It's an X2 4200+.

I've had an ATI 3850 512mb and a Zotac 8800GTS 320mb with my s939 X2 4200+ and they were perfect matches. The 9600gt is right there.

perfect matches? how do you come to that conclusion? with a 9600gt he could get better performance from a faster cpu so saying its a perfect match seems odd. yeah its not really enough to worry about in most games with that level of gpu so if thats what you are saying then it makes sense. the 9600gt is certainly about as high as i would recommend that 4200 X2.

In most games you'll be GPU limited if the game can effectively use two threads. The X2 4200+ is two 3500+'s on one die, which still packs quite a bit of power. In a CPU heavy game such as TF2, I typically got 60-140fps on all high/very high 2xAA with my 8800GTS 320mb @ 1680x1050. When I tested my 4830 (w/OC) on the same setup my fps still rose a bit here and there, but really that was the ceiling for that CPU.

My FPS in crysis went from 15-17 to 24-27 when I went from the 8800GTS to the 4830. 27FPS in Crysis is still fast enough. My Q8200 @ 3ghz doesn't offer hardly a couple FPS increase. This shows that the 4200+ can still hang with the mid-range in most games.

Really, the 4200+ and the G80 core were near/at top of the line when released. The 9600GT is right there and make sense being paired together. However, anything above the 3870/8800(G80)/9600GT/GSO is not a good idea. It's money wasted at that point.

sorry but I dont believe your minimum framerates went up as much as you think they did. in Crysis you certainly still dipped into the low teens with that 4200 X2. I will just skip all the back and forth on this but a 4200 X2 is much weaker than you think it is. at least we do agree that something much faster than a 9600gt would be a waste for the op.

Your theory that you saw barely any performance increase going from a 7600GT to a 9800GT with whatever CPU you had is completely FUBAR'd. More people will see a huge increase in performance, meanwhile you keep clamoring on that the difference is wasted.

Just shut up already and stop spreading bullshit. Your analogies are just horrible and have no bearing on the conversation at hand.

I didnt even say that at all so how about you not spreading the bs?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: crazylegs
9600GT is an awesome value for money card, been using one myself up until very recently.

Managed to play all my games at 1920x1200, with medium to high settings.

yes, but you were certainly cpu limited there, just ask toyota.

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
He is not CPU limited at this point. It's an X2 4200+.

I've had an ATI 3850 512mb and a Zotac 8800GTS 320mb with my s939 X2 4200+ and they were perfect matches. The 9600gt is right there.

perfect matches? how do you come to that conclusion? with a 9600gt he could get better performance from a faster cpu so saying its a perfect match seems odd. yeah its not really enough to worry about in most games with that level of gpu so if thats what you are saying then it makes sense. the 9600gt is certainly about as high as i would recommend that 4200 X2.

In most games you'll be GPU limited if the game can effectively use two threads. The X2 4200+ is two 3500+'s on one die, which still packs quite a bit of power. In a CPU heavy game such as TF2, I typically got 60-140fps on all high/very high 2xAA with my 8800GTS 320mb @ 1680x1050. When I tested my 4830 (w/OC) on the same setup my fps still rose a bit here and there, but really that was the ceiling for that CPU.

My FPS in crysis went from 15-17 to 24-27 when I went from the 8800GTS to the 4830. 27FPS in Crysis is still fast enough. My Q8200 @ 3ghz doesn't offer hardly a couple FPS increase. This shows that the 4200+ can still hang with the mid-range in most games.

Really, the 4200+ and the G80 core were near/at top of the line when released. The 9600GT is right there and make sense being paired together. However, anything above the 3870/8800(G80)/9600GT/GSO is not a good idea. It's money wasted at that point.

sorry but I dont believe your minimum framerates went up as much as you think they did. in Crysis you certainly still dipped into the low teens with that 4200 X2. I will just skip all the back and forth on this but a 4200 X2 is much weaker than you think it is. at least we do agree that something much faster than a 9600gt would be a waste for the op.

Your theory that you saw barely any performance increase going from a 7600GT to a 9800GT with whatever CPU you had is completely FUBAR'd. More people will see a huge increase in performance, meanwhile you keep clamoring on that the difference is wasted.

Just shut up already and stop spreading bullshit. Your analogies are just horrible and have no bearing on the conversation at hand.

Don't waste your time arguing with the "cpu limited nazi". Let's just call him CLN from now on. Or does CPULN sound better? himmmm, maybe we should take a poll...


btw, CPULN, I have now seen you accuse somebody lying on several different occasions because his personal experience with his video did not agree with some benchmarks that you saw on fs, hardocp, AT, etc. Seriously, how hard is it to just test them and then throw out your accusations? If BFG looks at a benchmark and calls shens on it he KNOWS it's bullshit because he tested it and probably still has the data lying around somewhere. Build some credibility before passing yourself off as an expert.

that asshat that claimed to get a 170% increase in Risen going from a 9600gt to a 4850 was full of shit. the Risen benchmarks i linked to clearly showed that kind of performance increase between those cards is impossible even when using high end cpu. if you really believe that guy got that big of an increase then you are a fucking fool.

hell theres an idiot in a thread yesterday claiming he saw a significant increase going from a 2900xt to a 3870 when they actually deliver almost identical performance. yeah i guess i am wrong there too? you can say whatever you want about me but i am full of a lot less shit then the people you are actually thinking are telling you the truth. :roll:

 

[MarcVenice]

Either way, even though a HD 4850 or a GTS 250 might be a out of balance regarding his cpu, he would still get FAR higher framerates then with a 9600GT, regardless of his cpu being a bit of a bottleneck.

Also, if he decides to upgrade his pc a little more, he'd have a decent videocard to re-use. If he goes with a 9600gt, he's going to be stuck with the most budget-card you could possibly get for gaming.

The whole cpu thing is blown up out of proportions. Back in the X2 4200+ days, people ran a 8800GTX alongside it. Maybe you don't remember, but 8800GTX = GTS 250 ~ish.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Either way, even though a HD 4850 or a GTS 250 might be a out of balance regarding his cpu, he would still get FAR higher framerates then with a 9600GT, regardless of his cpu being a bit of a bottleneck.

Also, if he decides to upgrade his pc a little more, he'd have a decent videocard to re-use. If he goes with a 9600gt, he's going to be stuck with the most budget-card you could possibly get for gaming.

The whole cpu thing is blown up out of proportions. Back in the X2 4200+ days, people ran a 8800GTX alongside it. Maybe you don't remember, but 8800GTX = GTS 250 ~ish.

yeah but it really is a lot of performance wasted. in these threads everyone seems to forget what the person currently has which in this case is a freaking 7600. a 9600gt would be a massive jump over what he has now and even that card would be noticeably held back by a 4200 X2 in some newer games like Far Cry 2. you give the 4200 X2 too much credit. that 2.2 cpu is about like me putting my E8500 at 1.4-1.5 which will completely tank many modern games. Fallout 3 is one of the few games that still feels okay with my cpu at those speeds.

a 4670 at 50-60 bucks is a good deal for him coming from a 7600. a 9600gt if only a few bucks more would be an even better card. a 4850 would be pretty wasted on that cpu but if the price isnt much more than a 9600gt then of course go with it. I really would stick to a 4670 for him though if he doesnt want to spend much money and still see a huge jump over his current card.

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Either way, even though a HD 4850 or a GTS 250 might be a out of balance regarding his cpu, he would still get FAR higher framerates then with a 9600GT, regardless of his cpu being a bit of a bottleneck.

Also, if he decides to upgrade his pc a little more, he'd have a decent videocard to re-use. If he goes with a 9600gt, he's going to be stuck with the most budget-card you could possibly get for gaming.

The whole cpu thing is blown up out of proportions. Back in the X2 4200+ days, people ran a 8800GTX alongside it. Maybe you don't remember, but 8800GTX = GTS 250 ~ish.

yeah but it really is a lot of performance wasted. in these threads everyone seems to forget what the person currently has which in this case is a freaking 7600. a 9600gt would be a massive jump over what he has now and even that card would be noticeably held back by a 4200 X2 in some newer games like Far Cry 2. you give the 4200 X2 too much credit. that 2.2 cpu is about like me putting my E8500 at 1.4-1.5 which will completely tank many modern games. Fallout 3 is one of the few games that still feels okay with my cpu at those speeds.

a 4670 at 50-60 bucks is a good deal for him coming from a 7600. a 9600gt if only a few bucks more would be an even better card. a 4850 would be pretty wasted on that cpu but if the price isnt much more than a 9600gt then of course go with it. I really would stick to a 4670 for him though if he doesnt want to spend much money and still see a huge jump over his current card.

Going to have to disagree with you. I put a 8800GTS 320mb in my X2 rig back then, with a X2 3800+, oc-ed to 2,5GHz or there about. I could play a lot of games pretty nicely (loved that card) but when I upgraded my pc, I got myself a HD 4850 and put it in my X2 3800 rig before my other components came in. It outperformed my 8800GTS 320mb big time at 1680*1050. Sure, my q6700 worked even better with it, but considering I play mostly gpu-limited games, the HD 4850 did just fine with that X2 3800+.

-edit, checked newegg, and the 9600gt costs 65 with a 20 dollar rebate, or roughly 80 dollars without. The HD 4850 costs $99 without rebate. I'd say it's worth the 20 bucks, unless he doesn't minder dealing with the rebates, but even then 35 bucks would still be worth it considering he can enjoy it a lot longer.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Either way, even though a HD 4850 or a GTS 250 might be a out of balance regarding his cpu, he would still get FAR higher framerates then with a 9600GT, regardless of his cpu being a bit of a bottleneck.

Also, if he decides to upgrade his pc a little more, he'd have a decent videocard to re-use. If he goes with a 9600gt, he's going to be stuck with the most budget-card you could possibly get for gaming.

The whole cpu thing is blown up out of proportions. Back in the X2 4200+ days, people ran a 8800GTX alongside it. Maybe you don't remember, but 8800GTX = GTS 250 ~ish.

yeah but it really is a lot of performance wasted. in these threads everyone seems to forget what the person currently has which in this case is a freaking 7600. a 9600gt would be a massive jump over what he has now and even that card would be noticeably held back by a 4200 X2 in some newer games like Far Cry 2. you give the 4200 X2 too much credit. that 2.2 cpu is about like me putting my E8500 at 1.4-1.5 which will completely tank many modern games. Fallout 3 is one of the few games that still feels okay with my cpu at those speeds.

a 4670 at 50-60 bucks is a good deal for him coming from a 7600. a 9600gt if only a few bucks more would be an even better card. a 4850 would be pretty wasted on that cpu but if the price isnt much more than a 9600gt then of course go with it. I really would stick to a 4670 for him though if he doesnt want to spend much money and still see a huge jump over his current card.

Going to have to disagree with you. I put a 8800GTS 320mb in my X2 rig back then, with a X2 3800+, oc-ed to 2,5GHz or there about. I could play a lot of games pretty nicely (loved that card) but when I upgraded my pc, I got myself a HD 4850 and put it in my X2 3800 rig before my other components came in. It outperformed my 8800GTS 320mb big time at 1680*1050. Sure, my q6700 worked even better with it, but considering I play mostly gpu-limited games, the HD 4850 did just fine with that X2 3800+.

-edit, checked newegg, and the 9600gt costs 65 with a 20 dollar rebate, or roughly 80 dollars without. The HD 4850 costs $99 without rebate. I'd say it's worth the 20 bucks, unless he doesn't minder dealing with the rebates, but even then 35 bucks would still be worth it considering he can enjoy it a lot longer.

thast great that you felt there was a big improvement and at 1680 there probably was especially in max framerates. I bet your minimums were still about the same if you actually checked them though. also now plenty of games need a decent cpu to just to be playable in many cases. I still think the 4670 is good and cheap deal for him. again he currently has a 7600 so that will massive jump for very little money. if he wants to spend twice as much and doesnt mind having a chunk of performance wasted in many newer games then sure get the 4850. if he is at 1680 then yeah i can see that being worthwhile. if he can oc that cpu a bit the 4850 would certainly make more sense. I dont think he has even said what res he is at though.

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Either way, even though a HD 4850 or a GTS 250 might be a out of balance regarding his cpu, he would still get FAR higher framerates then with a 9600GT, regardless of his cpu being a bit of a bottleneck.

Also, if he decides to upgrade his pc a little more, he'd have a decent videocard to re-use. If he goes with a 9600gt, he's going to be stuck with the most budget-card you could possibly get for gaming.

The whole cpu thing is blown up out of proportions. Back in the X2 4200+ days, people ran a 8800GTX alongside it. Maybe you don't remember, but 8800GTX = GTS 250 ~ish.

yeah but it really is a lot of performance wasted. in these threads everyone seems to forget what the person currently has which in this case is a freaking 7600. a 9600gt would be a massive jump over what he has now and even that card would be noticeably held back by a 4200 X2 in some newer games like Far Cry 2. you give the 4200 X2 too much credit. that 2.2 cpu is about like me putting my E8500 at 1.4-1.5 which will completely tank many modern games. Fallout 3 is one of the few games that still feels okay with my cpu at those speeds.

a 4670 at 50-60 bucks is a good deal for him coming from a 7600. a 9600gt if only a few bucks more would be an even better card. a 4850 would be pretty wasted on that cpu but if the price isnt much more than a 9600gt then of course go with it. I really would stick to a 4670 for him though if he doesnt want to spend much money and still see a huge jump over his current card.

Going to have to disagree with you. I put a 8800GTS 320mb in my X2 rig back then, with a X2 3800+, oc-ed to 2,5GHz or there about. I could play a lot of games pretty nicely (loved that card) but when I upgraded my pc, I got myself a HD 4850 and put it in my X2 3800 rig before my other components came in. It outperformed my 8800GTS 320mb big time at 1680*1050. Sure, my q6700 worked even better with it, but considering I play mostly gpu-limited games, the HD 4850 did just fine with that X2 3800+.

-edit, checked newegg, and the 9600gt costs 65 with a 20 dollar rebate, or roughly 80 dollars without. The HD 4850 costs $99 without rebate. I'd say it's worth the 20 bucks, unless he doesn't minder dealing with the rebates, but even then 35 bucks would still be worth it considering he can enjoy it a lot longer.

thast great that you felt there was a big improvement and at 1680 there probably was especially in max framerates. I bet your minimums were still about the same if you actually checked them though. I still think the 4670 is good and cheap deal for him. again he currently has a 7600 so that will massive jump for very little money.

I'm a professional reviewer/benchmarker. I've both reviewed games (and still play plenty) and for some time now I've been testing videocards, among other things. I'd like to think I can make out a difference between two videocards. (Fraps does help with that). The HD 4850 is equal value for money and will last longer, even though he might be bottlenecked a little in some games ( I doubt he will be dipping below 30 very often because of his cpu).

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Either way, even though a HD 4850 or a GTS 250 might be a out of balance regarding his cpu, he would still get FAR higher framerates then with a 9600GT, regardless of his cpu being a bit of a bottleneck.

Also, if he decides to upgrade his pc a little more, he'd have a decent videocard to re-use. If he goes with a 9600gt, he's going to be stuck with the most budget-card you could possibly get for gaming.

The whole cpu thing is blown up out of proportions. Back in the X2 4200+ days, people ran a 8800GTX alongside it. Maybe you don't remember, but 8800GTX = GTS 250 ~ish.

yeah but it really is a lot of performance wasted. in these threads everyone seems to forget what the person currently has which in this case is a freaking 7600. a 9600gt would be a massive jump over what he has now and even that card would be noticeably held back by a 4200 X2 in some newer games like Far Cry 2. you give the 4200 X2 too much credit. that 2.2 cpu is about like me putting my E8500 at 1.4-1.5 which will completely tank many modern games. Fallout 3 is one of the few games that still feels okay with my cpu at those speeds.

a 4670 at 50-60 bucks is a good deal for him coming from a 7600. a 9600gt if only a few bucks more would be an even better card. a 4850 would be pretty wasted on that cpu but if the price isnt much more than a 9600gt then of course go with it. I really would stick to a 4670 for him though if he doesnt want to spend much money and still see a huge jump over his current card.

Going to have to disagree with you. I put a 8800GTS 320mb in my X2 rig back then, with a X2 3800+, oc-ed to 2,5GHz or there about. I could play a lot of games pretty nicely (loved that card) but when I upgraded my pc, I got myself a HD 4850 and put it in my X2 3800 rig before my other components came in. It outperformed my 8800GTS 320mb big time at 1680*1050. Sure, my q6700 worked even better with it, but considering I play mostly gpu-limited games, the HD 4850 did just fine with that X2 3800+.

-edit, checked newegg, and the 9600gt costs 65 with a 20 dollar rebate, or roughly 80 dollars without. The HD 4850 costs $99 without rebate. I'd say it's worth the 20 bucks, unless he doesn't minder dealing with the rebates, but even then 35 bucks would still be worth it considering he can enjoy it a lot longer.

thast great that you felt there was a big improvement and at 1680 there probably was especially in max framerates. I bet your minimums were still about the same if you actually checked them though. I still think the 4670 is good and cheap deal for him. again he currently has a 7600 so that will massive jump for very little money.

I'm a professional reviewer/benchmarker. I've both reviewed games (and still play plenty) and for some time now I've been testing videocards, among other things. I'd like to think I can make out a difference between two videocards. (Fraps does help with that). The HD 4850 is equal value for money and will last longer, even though he might be bottlenecked a little in some games ( I doubt he will be dipping below 30 very often because of his cpu).

so you really doubt he will be dipping below 30fps with a 4200 X2? lol. you might want to check some other reviews because if that is your professional opinion then you need a new profession. just kidding but really he would go well below 30fps quite often in some newer games. hell he might not even average much more than 30fps in some games.

he would certainly be in the teens for Far Cry 2 and would likely not even average 30fps. http://www.pcgameshardware.com...hmarks/Reviews/?page=2

even the faster 5000 X2 would be in low 20s for Resident Evil 5. http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ield-results/Practice/

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Either way, even though a HD 4850 or a GTS 250 might be a out of balance regarding his cpu, he would still get FAR higher framerates then with a 9600GT, regardless of his cpu being a bit of a bottleneck.

Also, if he decides to upgrade his pc a little more, he'd have a decent videocard to re-use. If he goes with a 9600gt, he's going to be stuck with the most budget-card you could possibly get for gaming.

The whole cpu thing is blown up out of proportions. Back in the X2 4200+ days, people ran a 8800GTX alongside it. Maybe you don't remember, but 8800GTX = GTS 250 ~ish.

yeah but it really is a lot of performance wasted. in these threads everyone seems to forget what the person currently has which in this case is a freaking 7600. a 9600gt would be a massive jump over what he has now and even that card would be noticeably held back by a 4200 X2 in some newer games like Far Cry 2. you give the 4200 X2 too much credit. that 2.2 cpu is about like me putting my E8500 at 1.4-1.5 which will completely tank many modern games. Fallout 3 is one of the few games that still feels okay with my cpu at those speeds.

a 4670 at 50-60 bucks is a good deal for him coming from a 7600. a 9600gt if only a few bucks more would be an even better card. a 4850 would be pretty wasted on that cpu but if the price isnt much more than a 9600gt then of course go with it. I really would stick to a 4670 for him though if he doesnt want to spend much money and still see a huge jump over his current card.

Going to have to disagree with you. I put a 8800GTS 320mb in my X2 rig back then, with a X2 3800+, oc-ed to 2,5GHz or there about. I could play a lot of games pretty nicely (loved that card) but when I upgraded my pc, I got myself a HD 4850 and put it in my X2 3800 rig before my other components came in. It outperformed my 8800GTS 320mb big time at 1680*1050. Sure, my q6700 worked even better with it, but considering I play mostly gpu-limited games, the HD 4850 did just fine with that X2 3800+.

-edit, checked newegg, and the 9600gt costs 65 with a 20 dollar rebate, or roughly 80 dollars without. The HD 4850 costs $99 without rebate. I'd say it's worth the 20 bucks, unless he doesn't minder dealing with the rebates, but even then 35 bucks would still be worth it considering he can enjoy it a lot longer.

thast great that you felt there was a big improvement and at 1680 there probably was especially in max framerates. I bet your minimums were still about the same if you actually checked them though. I still think the 4670 is good and cheap deal for him. again he currently has a 7600 so that will massive jump for very little money.

I'm a professional reviewer/benchmarker. I've both reviewed games (and still play plenty) and for some time now I've been testing videocards, among other things. I'd like to think I can make out a difference between two videocards. (Fraps does help with that). The HD 4850 is equal value for money and will last longer, even though he might be bottlenecked a little in some games ( I doubt he will be dipping below 30 very often because of his cpu).

so you really doubt he will be dipping below 30fps with a 4200 X2? lol. you might want to check some other reviews because if that is your professional opinion then you need a new profession.

So now all you can do is make fun of me, instead of adressing the issue at hand? If he's going to play Crysis at 1680*1050 at it's highest, he's going to dip below 30 even with a 5870 and a core i7 975. Meaning, his gpu will be the bottleneck. So it all depends on the games he plays. But like I said, the HD 4850 offers equal bang for buck at $100 then a $65 videocard (which needs a rebate), and it will last longer and will overall give a more enjoyable experience, because in cases where the 9600GT might be gpu limited, the HD 4850 hopefully won't be. In cases where he is cpu limited, he'll be fucked just as bad with a 9600GT as with a HD 4850.

-Edit: You edited a wee bit to late

First link: they use a HD 4870, at 1680, none of the cpu's has minima > 30, save for the 4GHz C2Q. Also, published at 16 oct 2008, not with the latest patches. I'm not denying he will be cpu bottleneck, I'm saying his experience will be worse with a 9600GT. The same thing applys to RE5. All we are achieving now is, that we established that he needs to upgrade his cpu too.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: toyota
in fact why dont you just fuck off?

Originally posted by: toyota
that asshat

Originally posted by: toyota
lol. you might want to check some other reviews because if that is your professional opinion then you need a new profession. just kidding.

You need to start checking your emotions and veiled insults. Just because you say kidding or edit it out, doesn't mean you didn't say it!

You're taking extreme examples and making them ubiquitous, yes we all agree that there are games that have extreme CPU bias. There are also games that do fine on that class of CPU. Is it worth all this effort to talk the original poster out of a $10-20 difference in price regardless of the diminishing returns limited by is CPU?

 

[toyota]

never mind

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota
in fact why dont you just fuck off?

Originally posted by: toyota
that asshat

Originally posted by: toyota
lol. you might want to check some other reviews because if that is your professional opinion then you need a new profession. just kidding.

You need to start checking your emotions and veiled insults. Just because you say kidding or edit it out, doesn't mean you didn't say it!

You're taking extreme examples and making them ubiquitous, yes we all agree that there are games that have extreme CPU bias. There are also games that do fine on that class of CPU. Is it worth all this effort to talk the original poster out of a $10-20 difference in price regardless of the diminishing returns limited by is CPU?

I said a 4850 was fine if wasnt much more than 9600gt and he was at 1680 or higher. i still think a $50-$60 4670 is good if he is looking for a cheap and good upgrade to his 7600. you guys act like people always need the fastest gpu and never think twice about what someone is actually upgrading from. going to a 4670 from his 7600 would be a massive jump. if he is below 1680 then that should make him plenty happy.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: toyota
I said a 4850 was fine if wasnt much more than 9600gt and he was at 1680 or higher. i still think a $50-$60 4670 is good if he is looking for a cheap and good upgrade to his 7600. you guys act like people always need the fastest gpu and never think twice about what someone is currently using. going to a 4670 from a 7600 would be a massive jump. if he is below 1680 then that should make him happy.

That's all fine and good, but there is a whole lot more drama going on here. With regards to needing the fastest GPU, you don't necessary need it and you can't always afford it, but you can often see some returns from it. Discounting it and giving extreme example of P4 systems, is generally detrimental to the discussion at hand.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota
I said a 4850 was fine if wasnt much more than 9600gt and he was at 1680 or higher. i still think a $50-$60 4670 is good if he is looking for a cheap and good upgrade to his 7600. you guys act like people always need the fastest gpu and never think twice about what someone is currently using. going to a 4670 from a 7600 would be a massive jump. if he is below 1680 then that should make him happy.

That's all fine and good, but there is a whole lot more drama going on here. With regards to needing the fastest GPU, you don't necessary need it and you can't always afford it, but you can often see some returns from it. Discounting it and giving extreme example of P4 systems, is generally detrimental to the discussion at hand.

its funny how it all comes back to me. your comment about about the cpu not even mattering at higher res started that little discussion.

 

[bryanW1995]

marc, it doesn't matter that you're a PROFESSIONAL REVIEWER because, as we all know, the internet works differently in europe than it does in the US. Just ask toyota, he'll tell you all about it. He read it on pcgameshardware.com while desperately looking for a benchmark to support his theories.

btw, too bad you were able to mention that you were a pro. I was really hoping I could enlighten him first Watching him continue to argue with you is making my weekend.

edit: oh, and toyota, you would do more for your case if you were pushing the 96sp 9600gso that is on newegg right now. it's just a cutdown 9600gt with less mem, lower clocks, but 32 more sp's. In fact, it's actually a cutdown 8800/9800 gt. $40 AR is a smokin' deal for one of those, and a $60 delta even after a MIR could probably be enough to at least have a discussion about it.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: toyota
its funny how it all comes back to me. your comment about about the cpu not even mattering at higher res started that little discussion.

I stand by my statement. You took it way out of context and to an extreme to make some obscure point. A more powerful card will always have the ability to run at higher resolutions with more eyecandy regardless of the CPU it runs with.

I mean seriously. It was a one sentence statement that you turned into a 3 paragraph rebuttal.

 

[bryanW1995]

schmide, you need to realize something: toyota is person who reads stuff written by PROFESSIONALS. dont' question him like this or he'll go ape shit on you, too. Shit, I'd better take down my system specs, he's about to tell me that my q6600 is bottlenecking my fanless 7300gt.