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

[Schmide]

Again what I'm saying, you pick your benchmarks to prove your point. You know darn well there are benches that are less CPU dependent, yet you discount them and continue on your tirade.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Again what I'm saying, you pick your benchmarks to prove your point. You know darn well there are benches that are less CPU dependent, yet you discount them and continue on your tirade.

thats complete BS. I tested 6 games and 3 of them...Crysis, Fallout 3, and Batman AA are absolutely not known to be cpu limited games. these are poplular modern games so what the heck do you want me to test? Far Cry 1 and Doom 3?

 

[yh125d]

Jesus will you two give it a rest?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: toyota
nice name calling. those 3 site links had a 5000 X2 and they showed similar min framerates to what I got in Far Cry 2. after that maybe you should learn to read because I clearly said lets get back to the OPs 4200 X2. btw I could put the E8500 st 1.8 which is the equivalent of the 2.6 5000 X2 and test all over again but how much difference would that make? anyway, again just to be clear the tests I ran were because the OP has a 4200 X2. you would be the very person to tell someone to stick a 4870 or 4890 with a 4200 X2 but as you can see it would be a waste of money for many modern games. that person would get the same playable results with a slower and cheaper card because that cpu is too slow to even keep up with a higher end card. you somehow seem to think that only your tests, opinions and theories seem to matter. those are REAL GAMEPLAY results that I spent a lot of time going through just to show people like you how important the cpu is even at 1920x1080 under gpu dependent conditions and how silly recommending a high end card to somebody with a 4200 X2 cpu is.

Name calling may be out of line, but you are dumb. Stick to the argument at hand. You keep switching shit. READ MY "FIRST" DAMN POST AGAIN. I was clearly addressing what you said in another thread and not in this thread. Hence why I linked and quoted you.

Also, LOL @ this:

those are REAL GAMEPLAY results that I spent a lot of time going through just to show people like you how important the cpu is even at 1920x1080 under gpu dependent conditions and how silly recommending a high end card to somebody with a 4200 X2 cpu is.

Do you EVEN READ WHAT I AM FUCKING WRITING? Let me break it down to you yet again, because you are EXTREMELY FUCKING DENSE:

1. I spent a lot of time on my benchmarks, too, asshole. Stop descrediting me.

2. I am not descrediting the important of the CPU. I am merely showing the importance of the GPU; the importance is much greater than the CPU in the vast majority of games.

3. I actually said #2 in my last post, but you keep ignoring it for some dumbass reason:

cusideabelincoln posted:
Read this line carefully, because it is what I've been trying to say, but you somehow keep putting words into my mouth like a dumbfuck: With an Athlon 5000+, if a person were to upgrade from the HD3850 to a card like the HD4870, performance would increase in most of their games on the mins, avgs, and maxs.

4. I'll repeat this again: I am not concerned with the 4200X2. It was not the focus of my tests and it is not the focus of the argument I started and am interested in. So I chose to ignore it, like I said, but you want to go back to it. Why? STICK TO THE ARGUMENT AT HAND. Fuck you're so annoying.

5. Nobody is recommending a high end card to this dude. I believe (not re-reading the entire thread) no one has even mentioned a card that costs over $150. So why you are making a huge deal about these mid-range card is beyond me. Just shut the fuck up already. The amount of money spent here is pretty small, and I will stand by my (and MarcVenice's) argument that a card like the HD4850 would be well worth the extra money over a card like the HD4670, just for the improved AA performance alone and "regardless" of what processor he is using.

6. Do you understand now? You blow CPU requirements way out of proportion, and you put too much stock in these review sites which don't properly test low-end and mid-range hardware.

7. And I actually don't care if you underclock your E8500. It is not directly comparable to what we are talking about: Athlon 64 X2s. Get a damn Athlon 64 and test your shit. You introduce way too many variables by testing with completely different hardware from different vendors.

8. Don't even bother replying. I already understand what you are saying, but from your posts you still don't understand what I'm saying. So just save yourself the time and shut up. If it makes you feel better, I do believe you when you say a card akin to a GTX260 wouldn't show its full potential with a CPU like an 5000+. I know this, so stop trying to prove this damn point.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota
nice name calling. those 3 site links had a 5000 X2 and they showed similar min framerates to what I got in Far Cry 2. after that maybe you should learn to read because I clearly said lets get back to the OPs 4200 X2. btw I could put the E8500 st 1.8 which is the equivalent of the 2.6 5000 X2 and test all over again but how much difference would that make? anyway, again just to be clear the tests I ran were because the OP has a 4200 X2. you would be the very person to tell someone to stick a 4870 or 4890 with a 4200 X2 but as you can see it would be a waste of money for many modern games. that person would get the same playable results with a slower and cheaper card because that cpu is too slow to even keep up with a higher end card. you somehow seem to think that only your tests, opinions and theories seem to matter. those are REAL GAMEPLAY results that I spent a lot of time going through just to show people like you how important the cpu is even at 1920x1080 under gpu dependent conditions and how silly recommending a high end card to somebody with a 4200 X2 cpu is.

Name calling may be out of line, but you are dumb. Stick to the argument at hand. You keep switching shit. READ MY "FIRST" DAMN POST AGAIN. I was clearly addressing what you said in another thread and not in this thread. Hence why I linked and quoted you.

Also, LOL @ this:

those are REAL GAMEPLAY results that I spent a lot of time going through just to show people like you how important the cpu is even at 1920x1080 under gpu dependent conditions and how silly recommending a high end card to somebody with a 4200 X2 cpu is.

Do you EVEN READ WHAT I AM FUCKING WRITING? Let me break it down to you yet again, because you are EXTREMELY FUCKING DENSE:

1. I spent a lot of time on my benchmarks, too, asshole. Stop descrediting me.

2. I am not descrediting the important of the CPU. I am merely showing the importance of the GPU; the importance is much greater than the CPU in the vast majority of games.

3. I actually said #2 in my last post, but you keep ignoring it for some dumbass reason:

cusideabelincoln posted:
Read this line carefully, because it is what I've been trying to say, but you somehow keep putting words into my mouth like a dumbfuck: With an Athlon 5000+, if a person were to upgrade from the HD3850 to a card like the HD4870, performance would increase in most of their games on the mins, avgs, and maxs.

4. I'll repeat this again: I am not concerned with the 4200X2. It was not the focus of my tests and it is not the focus of the argument I started and am interested in. So I chose to ignore it, like I said, but you want to go back to it. Why? STICK TO THE ARGUMENT AT HAND. Fuck you're so annoying.

5. Nobody is recommending a high end card to this dude. I believe (not re-reading the entire thread) no one has even mentioned a card that costs over $150. So why you are making a huge deal about these mid-range card is beyond me. Just shut the fuck up already. The amount of money spent here is pretty small, and I will stand by my (and MarcVenice's) argument that a card like the HD4850 would be well worth the extra money over a card like the HD4670, just for the improved AA performance alone and "regardless" of what processor he is using.

6. Do you understand now? You blow CPU requirements way out of proportion, and you put too much stock in these review sites which don't properly test low-end and mid-range hardware.

7. And I actually don't care if you underclock your E8500. It is not directly comparable to what we are talking about: Athlon 64 X2s. Get a damn Athlon 64 and test your shit. You introduce way too many variables by testing with completely different hardware from different vendors.

8. Don't even bother replying. I already understand what you are saying, but from your posts you still don't understand what I'm saying. So just save yourself the time and shut up. If it makes you feel better, I do believe you when you say a card akin to a GTX260 wouldn't show its full potential with a CPU like an 5000+. I know this, so stop trying to prove this damn point.

I understand everything you say in every thread you say it in. you routinely tell people on the forums with with very old and slow cpus to go and get the fastest card that can because they will get more AA and such. I make it point to tell someone to get a gpu that their system can at least come close(60-70% or more) to actually utilizing. it doesnt matter if you get free AA by spending more on faster card when because of the slow cpu itself many modern games wont even be very smooth in the first place. hell there are at least a few games out now and more coming soon that a 4200 X2 cant even be considered very playable in at all. also the people you recommend these cards too usually have very old and outdated gpus so even cards like a 4670 or 9600gt will be a massive upgrade for them.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I understand everything you say in every thread you say it in. you routinely tell people on the forums with with very old and slow cpus to go and get the fastest card that can because they will get more AA and such. I make it point to tell someone to get a gpu that their system can at least come close(60-70% or more) to actually utilizing. it doesnt matter if you get free AA by spending more on faster card when because of the slow cpu itself many modern games wont even be very smooth in the first place. hell there are at least a few games out now and more coming soon that a 4200 X2 cant even be considered very playable in at all. also the people you recommend these cards too usually have very old and outdated gpus so even cards like a 4670 or 9600gt will be a massive upgrade for them.

LOL. Wow dude. Your memory is completely fucked up. I suggest you go through my post history and look at all the things I've said, because you are jumbling everything together. God damn you're fucking annoying, and terribly wrong.

Wait. I'll do all the work for you just so you can shut the hell up already:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...eadid=2339620#31830117

This dude had a nice system with a Phenom II X4. I recommended the HD5850, and I stand by that statement. You bitched about his monitor resolution, and I said it didn't matter as much as you think it does. The HD5850's benefits beyond performance (DX11, Eyefinity, SSAA, power consumption, etc) make it a worthwhile investment over cheaper cards like the HD5770 (which offers the same features, but just slower performance). Even at his resolution, he would notice a difference between the HD5770 and the HD5850 when using high quality settings.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...eadid=2342278#31853961

You bitched about me saying he could pair the 5870 with his overclocked C2D. I never actually recommend he get one.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2337355&enterthread=y

Here is one of the few times I told a person to get the fastest he could afford. But stop to think to yourself... why did I say that? I'll tell you why: Because we're talking about sub-$100 video cards. Unless someone has an extremely strict budget, they might as well go for the best card they can afford. The only time I would change this opinion is if the user had a single core system and didn't plan to upgrade it for a long time, but that wasn't the case here, now was it? Otherwise, there is a huge difference between the HD4670 and the HD4850 such that I would recommend someone get the faster card if they can afford it. If they can't, then so be it. If a user doesn't explicity list a budget, I'll usually recommend a card that is one or two performance steps above the rest of their system. If... and if... I could list so many ifs, and you take a single "if" and think it is what I do all the time. So just... STOP IT.


AAAAAAAAAAAAnd that's it! I have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say " you routinely tell people on the forums with with very old and slow cpus to go and get the fastest card that can because they will get more AA and such". I DON'T DO THIS ALL THE TIME YOU DOLT! And the situation is ALWAYS different, so for you to make general statements like this is flat out stupid. Get your facts straight.

Now do you want me to read you? This is exactly what you are and what you say all the time: "well I already assumed he wasnt at a low res. still that stock Q6600 would most certainly hold back a 5850 at realistic playable settings no matter what res. its just the lower his res then the more performance he his missing out on. no point in going with a card that fast if you arent going to at least attempt to fully utilize it by simply overclocking the cpu a bit."

I completely disagree when you say there is "no point in going with a card that fast". There can ALWAYS be a point, as things aren't always about performance. But besides those things, more GPU power is always (90% of the time) better than less.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

I understand everything you say in every thread you say it in. you routinely tell people on the forums with with very old and slow cpus to go and get the fastest card that can because they will get more AA and such. I make it point to tell someone to get a gpu that their system can at least come close(60-70% or more) to actually utilizing. it doesnt matter if you get free AA by spending more on faster card when because of the slow cpu itself many modern games wont even be very smooth in the first place. hell there are at least a few games out now and more coming soon that a 4200 X2 cant even be considered very playable in at all. also the people you recommend these cards too usually have very old and outdated gpus so even cards like a 4670 or 9600gt will be a massive upgrade for them.

LOL. Wow dude. Your memory is completely fucked up. I suggest you go through my post history and look at all the things I've said, because you are jumbling everything together. God damn you're fucking annoying, and terribly wrong.

Wait. I'll do all the work for you just so you can shut the hell up already:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...eadid=2339620#31830117

This dude had a nice system with a Phenom II X4. I recommended the HD5850, and I stand by that statement. You bitched about his monitor resolution, and I said it didn't matter as much as you think it does. The HD5850's benefits beyond performance (DX11, Eyefinity, SSAA, power consumption, etc) make it a worthwhile investment over cheaper cards like the HD5770 (which offers the same features, but just slower performance). Even at his resolution, he would notice a difference between the HD5770 and the HD5850 when using high quality settings.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...eadid=2342278#31853961

You bitched about me saying he could pair the 5870 with his overclocked C2D. I never actually recommend he get one.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2337355&enterthread=y

Here is one of the few times I told a person to get the fastest he could afford. But stop to think to yourself... why did I say that? I'll tell you why: Because we're talking about sub-$100 video cards. Unless someone has an extremely strict budget, they might as well go for the best card they can afford. The only time I would change this opinion is if the user had a single core system and didn't plan to upgrade it for a long time, but that wasn't the case here, now was it? Otherwise, there is a huge difference between the HD4670 and the HD4850 such that I would recommend someone get the faster card if they can afford it. If they can't, then so be it. If a user doesn't explicity list a budget, I'll usually recommend a card that is one or two performance steps above the rest of their system. If... and if... I could list so many ifs, and you take a single "if" and think it is what I do all the time. So just... STOP IT.


AAAAAAAAAAAAnd that's it! I have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say " you routinely tell people on the forums with with very old and slow cpus to go and get the fastest card that can because they will get more AA and such". I DON'T DO THIS ALL THE TIME YOU DOLT! And the situation is ALWAYS different, so for you to make general statements like this is flat out stupid. Get your facts straight.

Now do you want me to read you? This is exactly what you are and what you say all the time: "well I already assumed he wasnt at a low res. still that stock Q6600 would most certainly hold back a 5850 at realistic playable settings no matter what res. its just the lower his res then the more performance he his missing out on. no point in going with a card that fast if you arent going to at least attempt to fully utilize it by simply overclocking the cpu a bit."

I completely disagree when you say there is "no point in going with a card that fast". There can ALWAYS be a point, as things aren't always about performance. But besides those things, more GPU power is always (90% of the time) better than less.

do you really want to go through every thread because I dont? the threads I was mainly referring to were the ones that involved really slow cpus but yes I think in general that many of your suggestions are way overkill just like you think what I suggest is wrong. as for the guy with the Phenom2 yes I still think a 5850 is almost silly at that very low res but you can also see in that thread that I did see the point since there was nothing between the 5770 or 5850 for now. if you actually look through those threads I am sort of agreeing with you in some cases and others I am trying to suggest getting the best card for the money. like the person I told to get the 5850 instead of the 5870 because it was a better value. you twist and turn my words and take things out of context way more than I do. you have your opinions and I have mine get over it and move on.

 

[mindless1]

A system whose owner does upgrades instead of being replaced as a whole is an evolving thing.

There should never be a question of "is my CPU a bottleneck" in that case, only how long the type of bus it uses would be viable and what the budget supports.

PCIe isn't going away soon, and unless you're a pirate games arent' usually free so it's worth a few dozen dollars more to go with the midrange cards at least.