Video Card Decision (**Update**)

[josh6079]

I currently game with the following:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Conroe @ stock 2.33 GHz
MSI P35 Neo2-FR MB
2x1GB Mushkin DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
OCZ StealthXStream 500W EPS12V Active PFC (OCZ500SXS)
NEC 20WMGX2 (1680x1050 max resolution)
X1950XTX @ stock (borrowing from brother)

I just got ETQW last night and am getting used to it. Gonna try and get a benchmark going as a Tom's Hardware review showed the card I currently have getting around 50-some frames in it, which, I haven't been really getting.

The only games I really play are BF2, Dark Messiah, FEAR, and some of the other id games like D3, Q4, and Prey - though a friend is borrowing them, I plan to get them back, and ETQW is very enjoyable thus far.

I'm wanting a GTX 260 because of the IQ benefits and it's ability to handle those games with ease, but I'm wondering if my system will let me see the improvement as ETQW is a multi-threaded app.

Does everything look like a go? Or do you guys think I should wait a little longer till I have enough money to invest in other areas at the same time?

 

[Wreckage]

I'm running ETQW at 1680x1050 using a GTX260 and a E6600.

It runs great and looks great so you should have no problem. It's not that high demanding of a game really.

 

[toyota]

none of the games you listed are very demanding. a 9800gtx+ would be more than plenty at that res with those games. also with your cpu you are likely to see very little benefit in going with something stronger than a 9800gtx+. you really should oc that cpu no matter what new card you decide on.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: toyota
none of the games you listed are very demanding. a 9800gtx+ would be more than plenty at that res with those games. also with your cpu you are likely to see very little benefit in going with something stronger than a 9800gtx+. you really should oc that cpu no matter what new card you decide on.

But for the difference in price, he's far better going with the GTX260.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: toyota
none of the games you listed are very demanding. a 9800gtx+ would be more than plenty at that res with those games. also with your cpu you are likely to see very little benefit in going with something stronger than a 9800gtx+. you really should oc that cpu no matter what new card you decide on.

But for the difference in price, he's far better going with the GTX260.

well I was speaking just from a performance standpoint. I have not even looked at pricing lately.

 

[legcramp]

OC cpu, get GTX 260 and that will last you quite some time.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
I'm running ETQW at 1680x1050 using a GTX260 and a E6600.

Is your E6600 overclocked?

Originally posted by: SunnyD
But for the difference in price, he's far better going with the GTX260.

That was my reasoning exactly.

Originally posted by: RIFLEMAN007
OC cpu, get GTX 260 and that will last you quite some time.

Don't really want to overclock if I don't have to. I know it would be pretty easy even with the stock cooler, but it's just more ease of mind for me and less variables to account for if problems arise.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: josh6079
[

Is your E6600 overclocked?

Nope, stock.

The 260 has a factory overclock on it but it's the old 192sp model

 

[josh6079]

Thanks for the confirmation guys. Hopefully it'll be just a few more weeks before I can get one.

 

[josh6079]

One more thing, what would you say your average in ETQW Wreckage?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: josh6079
One more thing, what would you say your average in ETQW Wreckage?

FPS? Not sure I will fire it up later and check.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: josh6079

One more thing, what would you say your average in ETQW?

With my system I get 58.80 FPS @ 1920x1440x4 and 31.00 FPS @ 1920x1440x8.

However that's with Big Bang so I'll test the new driver as apparently it's faster in Quake Wars. I?m especially keen on seeing if 8xAA performance has improved with 182.06.

 

[josh6079]

@Wreckage, thanks. I'm still trying to get my HoC ETQW benchmark utility working correctly. Something tells me I shouldn't have gotten the Steam version...

@BFG, I rechecked your scores for that test as I saw a Firing Squad article and noticed something surprising: Link

Their 8800 Ultra was getting 60.9 fps on the closest settings to your GTX 260 bench. Could that be because of the current OpenGL drivers for the GTX 200s vs. the ones for the 8800 Ultras at the time? I looked at Xbit later and their 65 nm core 216 review mirrored the problems with 8x AA discussed in your review. The same review did not have 4x AA though, and the other one that did have ETQW with 4xAA was with the 55 nm version, which got around 80ish.

In any case, I'd be very interested in the most recent driver performance in ETQW.

In the mean time I'm going to listen to Pink Floyd's "Money"...

 

[BFG10K]

I use a custom timedemo, hence Firingsquad will not be testing the same thing I am.

And yes, I do play on revisiting 8xAA performance with the newest driver.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota
none of the games you listed are very demanding. a 9800gtx+ would be more than plenty at that res with those games. also with your cpu you are likely to see very little benefit in going with something stronger than a 9800gtx+. you really should oc that cpu no matter what new card you decide on.

What's wrong with his CPU?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
none of the games you listed are very demanding. a 9800gtx+ would be more than plenty at that res with those games. also with your cpu you are likely to see very little benefit in going with something stronger than a 9800gtx+. you really should oc that cpu no matter what new card you decide on.

What's wrong with his CPU?

based on what I just said it should be self explanatory. a 4850 and especially a 4870 or gtx260 would need more than an older core 2 at 2.33 to push them fully. overclocking that cpu a bit would keep his system balanced with those level of cards.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
none of the games you listed are very demanding. a 9800gtx+ would be more than plenty at that res with those games. also with your cpu you are likely to see very little benefit in going with something stronger than a 9800gtx+. you really should oc that cpu no matter what new card you decide on.

What's wrong with his CPU?

based on what I just said it should be self explanatory. a 4850 and especially a 4870 or gtx260 would need more than an older core 2 at 2.33 to push them fully. overclocking that cpu a bit would keep his system balanced with those level of cards.

So a game that is GPU limited for the most part can't fully utilize a 4850 or 4870 just because his CPU is 2.33ghz core 2 duo? Depending on the resolution he would be maxing out his GPU with AA and what not and CPU will not help you there. Core 2 duo is plenty for 99% of the games out there.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
none of the games you listed are very demanding. a 9800gtx+ would be more than plenty at that res with those games. also with your cpu you are likely to see very little benefit in going with something stronger than a 9800gtx+. you really should oc that cpu no matter what new card you decide on.

What's wrong with his CPU?

based on what I just said it should be self explanatory. a 4850 and especially a 4870 or gtx260 would need more than an older core 2 at 2.33 to push them fully. overclocking that cpu a bit would keep his system balanced with those level of cards.

So a game that is GPU limited for the most part can't fully utilize a 4850 or 4870 just because his CPU is 2.33ghz core 2 duo? Depending on the resolution he would be maxing out his GPU with AA and what not and CPU will not help you there. Core 2 duo is plenty for 99% of the games out there.

his cpu at 2.33 is pretty weak compared to current cpus so yes it would help in many games to oc it bit IF using a high end video card like a gtx260 or 4870. my cpu is good but if I went with something like a gtx285 sli setup then I would need a little more cpu power to fully realize the potential of those graphics cards too. you are smart enough to know this stuff so Im perplexed by the question.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

You might want to invest in a Quad. I believe most of those games benefit from the extra cores and it'll make your GPU out to be the weaker (and upgradable in the future) component. Even upgrading to a Q82/500, Q6600 or a Q9xxx processor will give you performance that you desire.

OTOH, a C2D @ 2.33 and a 4850 are a pretty good match.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota
his cpu at 2.33 is pretty weak compared to current cpus so yes it would help in many games to oc it bit IF using a high end video card like a gtx260 or 4870. my cpu is good but if I went with something like a gtx285 sli setup then I would need a little more cpu power to fully realize the potential of those graphics cards too. you are smart enough to know this stuff so Im perplexed by the question.

All GPU's need something faster feeding it doesn't mean a core 2 duo @ 2.33ghz will not feed enough for a 4870 or 4850. In reality your E8500 is only faster when the constraint is less on the GPU and isn't much faster as you up the resolution compared to E6550 to a point where it becomes GPU limited. People do not play 1280x1024 with no AA. If anything people play in highest resolution their monitor supports with all the AA the card can handle. In reality your 33% better clock speeds is probably 0-10% faster at the settings you play over E6550.

As for your GTX 285 SLI well that kind of setup you put put more constraint on CPU considering GPU limitations have been lifted in most of the games out there. So CPU matters in those situations.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota
his cpu at 2.33 is pretty weak compared to current cpus so yes it would help in many games to oc it bit IF using a high end video card like a gtx260 or 4870. my cpu is good but if I went with something like a gtx285 sli setup then I would need a little more cpu power to fully realize the potential of those graphics cards too. you are smart enough to know this stuff so Im perplexed by the question.

All GPU's need something faster feeding it doesn't mean a core 2 duo @ 2.33ghz will not feed enough for a 4870 or 4850. In reality your E8500 is only faster when the constraint is less on the GPU and isn't much faster as you up the resolution compared to E6550 to a point where it becomes GPU limited. People do not play 1280x1024 with no AA. If anything people play in highest resolution their monitor supports with all the AA the card can handle. In reality your 33% better clock speeds is probably 0-10% faster at the settings you play over E6550.

As for your GTX 285 SLI well that kind of setup you put put more constraint on CPU considering GPU limitations have been lifted in most of the games out there. So CPU matters in those situations.

well heres a few quick benchmarks to illustrate my point. the ops cpu at 2.33 is about like mine at 2.13. the op plays at 1680 so thats what I used.

look at the results in Crysis as the minimum framerate goes from 34.69 with my cpu at 3.16 to 16.56 with my cpu at 2.13. thats why average framerate is not the only important number.

in Far Cry 2 all the numbers speak for themselves and the difference is HUGE. cpus DO matter especially when it comes to minimum framerates.


Crysis DX9 all high settings 1680x1050

my cpu at 3.16

Play Time: 41.65s, Average FPS: 48.01
Min FPS: 34.69 at frame 138, Max FPS: 61.00 at frame 70
Average Tri/Sec: -46108356, Tri/Frame: -960319
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.95

my cpu at 2.13

Play Time: 44.62s, Average FPS: 44.82
Min FPS: 16.56 at frame 153, Max FPS: 60.23 at frame 75
Average Tri/Sec: -43070804, Tri/Frame: -961008
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.95



Far Cry 2 all very high DX10 settings 1680x1050

my cpu at 3.16

Total Frames: 2882, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 56.51
Max. Framerate: 90.05 (Frame:469, 7.13s)
Min. Framerate: 39.96 (Frame:1944, 34.66s)


my cpu at 2.13

Total Frames: 2085, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 40.88
Max. Framerate: 66.81 (Frame:384, 7.39s)
Min. Framerate: 23.77 (Frame:1552, 39.26s)

 

[josh6079]

The only games that made me concerned about the CPU and its number of cores is Quake 4 and ETQW since they are both multithreaded applications. BF2 and the like will be fine.

As far as the GPUs are concerned, gaming with the highest playable AA @ 1680x1050 is what I'm aiming for. That's why I'm very interested in the most recent driver's performance in ETQW as it's the most demanding title I'll be playing.

That said, the prices I've been seeing 4850s go for has made it very hard to concentrate on the GTX 260, especially when performance with AA higher than 4x is currently lacking and Adaptive AA works in OpenGL.

Hopefully Wreckage posts some of those numbers up soon since his rig is a little closer to my build.

BFG - your build is too, albeit, a better CPU, but I wonder if we could exchange time demos or have you run the HoC benchmark utility. I'm assuming the demo you did your tests in must be about as demanding as the game can get, and therefore the most accurate. Your numbers just seem lower than what I've been reading those cards get in ETQW.

Thanks again for the responses.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: josh6079
The only games that made me concerned about the CPU and its number of cores is Quake 4 and ETQW since they are both multithreaded applications. BF2 and the like will be fine.

As far as the GPUs are concerned, gaming with the highest playable AA @ 1680x1050 is what I'm aiming for. That's why I'm very interested in the most recent driver's performance in ETQW as it's the most demanding title I'll be playing.

That said, the prices I've been seeing 4850s go for has made it very hard to concentrate on the GTX 260, especially when performance with AA higher than 4x is currently lacking and Adaptive AA works in OpenGL.

Hopefully Wreckage posts some of those numbers up soon since his rig is a little closer to my build.

BFG - your build is too, albeit, a better CPU, but I wonder if we could exchange time demos or have you run the HoC benchmark utility. I'm assuming the demo you did your tests in must be about as demanding as the game can get, and therefore the most accurate. Your numbers just seem lower than what I've been reading those cards get in ETQW.

Thanks again for the responses.

Quake 4 may be multi thread but is not a demanding game and any modern dual core cpu can handle that with ease.

 

[AzN]

Your results in Crysis show less than 10% performance difference between 2.13ghz vs 3.16ghz. Your minimum frames in Crysis looks like an error than anything else.

Far Cry 2 is one of those games that is Quad optimized and benefit from faster CPU performance. Might as well benchmark GTA 4 while you are it.

 

[josh6079]

@ toyota - Those are interesting results, but considering that ETQW is the worst my rig is going to see (rather than Crysis or FC2) would overclocking my CPU still be as important?

I just hate to go through the process of overclocking only to have some applications' failures be due to their "sensitivity" to those overclocks. But, if it could double my minimum frame rate...that might be worth looking into. Problem is I haven't done anything of the sort in over two years and when I did it it was on an AMD.