Video Upgrade Advice

[djtech2k]

Ok, so my system now is in my sig. I am in the middle of "upgrading" it with the following parts:

AMD FX62
8GB OCZ DDR2-800
ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wireless Edition
HP 22" LCD
Video: ???

My current 7800GTX on 19" monitor is dropping frame rates too low for my gaming and video. So I have been thinking of upgrading to one of the following configs:

(2) 8800GT 512mb
(2) 8800GTS G92 512mb
(1) 8800GTS G92 512mb
(1) 9800GTX G92 512mb

Now I want good performance with the lowest price. I want to be able to have high-end settings on most or all games/video and not get lag or low FPS (below 125fps). So cost, performance, and power are my concerns. I want the best performance for the money. I also need to be sure that my PSU in my sig will power it with no problems.

BTW, I am using the Antec P180, so I need to keep heat in mind but I do not know if that could/would be an issue.

Thanks!

 

[sgrinavi]

Single 8800 GTS (g92) will probably be CPU bottle-necked on your system -- maybe not.. but in any case you can start with a single and add another if you think its worthwhile.

125 FPS? that may be a bit agressive ... well... maybe at 800x600 LOL

 

[djtech2k]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
Single 8800 GTS (g92) will probably be CPU bottle-necked on your system -- maybe not.. but in any case you can start with a single and add another if you think its worthwhile.

125 FPS? that may be a bit agressive ... well... maybe at 800x600 LOL

I get almost 125 constant on cod4 with my 7800GTX. It is oc'd and cod4 is optimized for performance.

I need HIGH FPS to make many shots and jumps possible. Thats why I want to take a big step up in grafx and memory.

 

[taltamir]

Any of those cards will be bottlenecked on your CPU...

Get an E8400 minimum for any of those GPUs...

125 FPS? what kind of monitor are you using? any modern LCD is limited to 60FPS...

 

[djtech2k]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Any of those cards will be bottlenecked on your CPU...

Get an E8400 minimum for any of those GPUs...

125 FPS? what kind of monitor are you using? any modern LCD is limited to 60FPS...

The only reason I am goign to use the FX62 is because I am getting the FX62 and the Asus board for very cheap. If I were buying it new from a store I would probably get a Quad core Intel. Since I am getting it VERY cheap, thats why I am considerign doing all this and buying the older DDR2-800, etc.

I am using a 19" sony LCD. The in-game FPS reading is around 125 all the time and drops when textures get complex, like smoke.

How do you mean the CPU will be a bottleneck for the GPU?

 

[v8envy]

Exactly what it sounds like. When I downclock my core2 to 2.66 ghz my frame rates drop from an average of 140 in HL2's lost coast demo test to 120. If I downclock to 1.8 ghz the average frame rate goes down to 96.

A video card upgrade lets you run at higher resolution and with more eye candy. It won't necessarily improve your minimum frame rates. Try the same game on your video card at 640x480. It is unlikely upgrading to even 2 9800GX2s will help with a minimum frame rate if it's still low on your current card at 640x480 (and in fact may get worse).

Remember that heavy action, particle and physics are all things your CPU has to take time out for in between serving geometry data to your video card to process.

That said that FX62 CPU is a dual core at 2.8 ghz. While it won't be close to the performance of a $65 E2xxx with a typical overclock it won't bottleneck a single 8800GT either -- at least not significantly. Go for an 8800GTS or 8800GTX. Add another and upgrade your CPU if it doesn't meet your needs.

BTW, an E2XXX series overclock to 3.2 ghz doens't require DDR2-1066. Or DDR2-800. It's just fine with DDR2-533.

 

[djtech2k]

So you are saying a $65 Intel E2xxx will outperform an fx62?

I think the 8800gtx is too $$$, since I can get an 8800gts or 8800gt so much cheaper.

I know of several guys that have similar cpu's that I have now (x2 4400) with 8800GTS or even 2 of them and get MUCH higher FPS than me. In fact, the guy I am buying the fx62 from runs it with 2-8800gts g92 and he gets over 300fps constant in COD4.

 

[Denithor]

e8400 + 8800GTS FTW

 

[Jephph]

You'll be fine with the FX62. Get 2X 8800GTS 512MB (G92). If you want no lower than 60FPS min at the native res on that monitor, you're going to need the SLI setup. You're going to be getting close to maxing out that PSU, but you should be fine. Just don't add too many extras to the setup

 

[djtech2k]

I am going to start adding up the price diffs. I would prefer to stay in the $300 and less category, but who knows.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: djtech2k
So you are saying a $65 Intel E2xxx will outperform an fx62?

I think the 8800gtx is too $$$, since I can get an 8800gts or 8800gt so much cheaper.

I know of several guys that have similar cpu's that I have now (x2 4400) with 8800GTS or even 2 of them and get MUCH higher FPS than me. In fact, the guy I am buying the fx62 from runs it with 2-8800gts g92 and he gets over 300fps constant in COD4.

Yup, by a significant margin. An E2XXX with a typical 3.0 to 3.2 ghz overclock would be perceptibly faster than a 2.8 ghz AMD dual core. One of the users who has both (2.8ish amd and 3.2 ghz core2) described the performance difference as 'breathtaking.' =)

But you have your answer. That FX-62 paired with 2x g92 will get you the performance you want. Get one, and if it's not enough get another.

 

[JPB]

Originally posted by: djtech2k
So you are saying a $65 Intel E2xxx will outperform an fx62?

I think the 8800gtx is too $$$, since I can get an 8800gts or 8800gt so much cheaper.

I know of several guys that have similar cpu's that I have now (x2 4400) with 8800GTS or even 2 of them and get MUCH higher FPS than me. In fact, the guy I am buying the fx62 from runs it with 2-8800gts g92 and he gets over 300fps constant in COD4.

:laugh:

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: djtech2k
he gets over 300fps constant in COD4.

Some ppl should stop staring at walls close-up

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: betasub

Originally posted by: djtech2k
he gets over 300fps constant in COD4.

Some ppl should stop staring at walls close-up

probably playing at 800x600. Apparently, lots of competitive gamers run resolutions lower than you'd imagine so they can get lower fps. I don't see the point. At some point it's no longer "fun" and just becomes another "job" except essentially unpaid.

 

[djtech2k]

Originally posted by: v8envy

Originally posted by: djtech2k
So you are saying a $65 Intel E2xxx will outperform an fx62?

I think the 8800gtx is too $$$, since I can get an 8800gts or 8800gt so much cheaper.

I know of several guys that have similar cpu's that I have now (x2 4400) with 8800GTS or even 2 of them and get MUCH higher FPS than me. In fact, the guy I am buying the fx62 from runs it with 2-8800gts g92 and he gets over 300fps constant in COD4.

Yup, by a significant margin. An E2XXX with a typical 3.0 to 3.2 ghz overclock would be perceptibly faster than a 2.8 ghz AMD dual core. One of the users who has both (2.8ish amd and 3.2 ghz core2) described the performance difference as 'breathtaking.' =)

But you have your answer. That FX-62 paired with 2x g92 will get you the performance you want. Get one, and if it's not enough get another.

Wow thats surprising. I thought the FX would be more competitive. I am just not sure that I want to make more of an investment since I can get the FX and the board for $80.

I am guessing that the Intel and a decent board are going to cost me a couple hundred.

 

[idiotekniQues]

not dipping below 60fps is all you need. 125fps is just psychological.

 

[djtech2k]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
not dipping below 60fps is all you need. 125fps is just psychological.

For visual, you are correct. For performance you are not correct. In many FPS games there are things that are not possible unless you have a high FPS level, much higher than 125. There are shots, jumps, and other things that are not possible at lower FPS levels.

 

[panfist]

Originally posted by: djtech2k

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
not dipping below 60fps is all you need. 125fps is just psychological.

For visual, you are correct. For performance you are not correct. In many FPS games there are things that are not possible unless you have a high FPS level, much higher than 125. There are shots, jumps, and other things that are not possible at lower FPS levels.

Can you post some videos? I've always wanted to see some of these mythical 125 fps moves.

You can always just drop the detail to "shit" and your resolution to "tiny" and I'm sure you could pull out a behind-the-pack-triple-mctwist-headshot.

 

[djtech2k]

I cannot because my FPS jumps around too much, but I know of some jumps on certain maps that I cannot do, but people I play with can because they have muhc higher FPS.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: djtech2k

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
not dipping below 60fps is all you need. 125fps is just psychological.

For visual, you are correct. For performance you are not correct. In many FPS games there are things that are not possible unless you have a high FPS level, much higher than 125. There are shots, jumps, and other things that are not possible at lower FPS levels.

that is all in your head, as i stated, psychological.

 

[djtech2k]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: djtech2k

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
not dipping below 60fps is all you need. 125fps is just psychological.

For visual, you are correct. For performance you are not correct. In many FPS games there are things that are not possible unless you have a high FPS level, much higher than 125. There are shots, jumps, and other things that are not possible at lower FPS levels.

that is all in your head, as i stated, psychological.

Sorry, but it is proven over and over again. It is the same in COD2 and COD4.