What card do I need to be able to play 1920 x 1200

[Ksyder]

Hi guys,

Right now I'm running a super cheap system but looking to upgrade it to be able to game on it.

Right now its:

celeron 430 (conroe single core cpu)
ecs g31t-m board
2 x 1gb ddr2 800
low end ati gpu
enermax 500w liberty psu
4 x 250 gb hdd's

looking to upgrade to p45/higher end s775 cpu and some form of WD Raptor hdd. I want to be able to play games at native res of 1920 x 1200. Will a 4870 be able to handle this? I'd like to be able to play modern games into the future. Not looking to crossfire/sli, but I'll probably get a board with 2 pci-x16's just to have the option if I want. Any performance recommendations? On XP sp3 at this time. Also if you have any cpu advice that would be helpful also. I'm open to Nvidia cards as well, simply interested in best performance for the money.

 

[KIAman]

What's your budget? Your last line implied "as cheap as possible with good performance."

With that in mind, I'd swap out your celeron and get an E8400/8500 or Q6600 (cheaper than 9 series). Buy 2 kits of 2x2GB ram kits (these are dirt cheap). Finally, get yourself a 4870 1GB.

Summary:
CPU - E8400/8500
Ram - 8GB
GPU - 4870 1GB

That should give you a great performance boost for little money.

 

[Ksyder]

Originally posted by: KIAman
What's your budget?

Pretty much piecing it together as I can afford it. I'd like to spend no more than 150 ea. for cpu, mb, and video card.

As far as ram goes, 4 x 2 gb is the way to go? I could possibly see an upgrade to vista 64 in my future unless you think I should wait for win 7.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[crazylegs]

I didnt realise 8GB of RAM was part of a 'value/bang for buck' gaming system these days? I'd stick with 4GB for now.

E8400 CPU + 4870 / 4890 1GB RAM GPU is pretty good advice imo, obviously means u can keep ur MB

From personal experience the E8400 OCs very well and makes a decent value gaming GPU.

IF you are thinking about a new MB, an AMD Phenom II x2 or x3 system would be my advice, very nice gaming performance and if tempted you can try to unlock some free cores (check CPU section for more on this)

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Grab this combo, an AMD P2 940 with a free motherboard.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?ItemList=Combo.209473

 

[apoppin]

Here is a real budget system using AMD
- i used a GTX 280 which is in the same league as HD 4890/GTX 275
[and i also test with 4870-X2]

New AMD build - *budget* high performance gamer for 19x12

i spent $82 on a X2 550 Phenom II and in many ways it is as fast as my Q9550s at the same [3.1GHz]
- it is possible to UNLOCK some dual cores to quad core - as detailed in that thread

the MB is a Gigabyte CrossFire 8x+8xPCIe lanes which is fine. And only $102

Forget more than 4GB RAM for gaming - so unnecessary

if you decide to stick with intel; i guess an e8400-e8600 will allow you to keep your current mobo
- Quad core is not as yet "important" for PC gaming although some games really benefit from it [or Tri Core; which i am getting next for my AMD build; it *may* unlock to a quad and it is currently only $119]

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Ksyder

Originally posted by: KIAman
What's your budget?

Pretty much piecing it together as I can afford it. I'd like to spend no more than 150 ea. for cpu, mb, and video card.

As far as ram goes, 4 x 2 gb is the way to go? I could possibly see an upgrade to vista 64 in my future unless you think I should wait for win 7.

Thanks for the advice!

Are you gonna overclock? It makes a world of difference when picking a cpu,gpu,motherboard combo.

 

[DaveSimmons]

8 GB is silly for a budget system, 4 GB is plenty. Put the extra $50 into the CPU or video card.

For gaming, a fast dual-core will be better than a slow quad for at least another couple of years.

If your existing motherboard will run an E8400 / E8500, that plus 4 GB plus 4870 or 4890 will give you the best power/performance at stock speeds. FYI, the stock heatsinks on the E8400/500 are quite good.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Ksyder
Hi guys,

Right now I'm running a super cheap system but looking to upgrade it to be able to game on it.

Right now its:

celeron 430 (conroe single core cpu)
ecs g31t-m board
2 x 1gb ddr2 800
low end ati gpu
enermax 500w liberty psu
4 x 250 gb hdd's

looking to upgrade to p45/higher end s775 cpu and some form of WD Raptor hdd.

For bang for the buck, the Raptor is a bad way to go. Raptors are fine for eeking out a tad bit more performance from a $3k rig, but a Raptor will affect your cost WAY more than it will your performance.

I want to be able to play games at native res of 1920 x 1200. Will a 4870 be able to handle this? I'd like to be able to play modern games into the future. Not looking to crossfire/sli, but I'll probably get a board with 2 pci-x16's just to have the option if I want.

A 4870 1GB is probably one of the best bang for the buck cards out right now. Nothing is future proof, but at that price range the 4870 is a great choice.

I'd like to spend no more than 150 ea. for cpu, mb, and video card.

some recommendations for you:

XFX Radeon HD 4870 1GB $146.99
GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard $114.99 (AMIR)
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 $44.99 (AMIR) (you simply don't need 8GB RAM)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 $167.99

Newegg is actually offering a combo deal on that motherboard and cpu (save $18): http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?ItemList=Combo.205144

...although, if your current motherboard is working fine and meeting your needs there really is no need to replace it right now.

On XP sp3 at this time

I could possibly see an upgrade to vista 64 in my future unless you think I should wait for win 7.

Pre Order Windows 7 upgrade (works with XP) for $49.99, and run the Win 7 release candidate until that time if you want to upgrade your OS now.

 

[tviceman]

My recommendation:

If you want to game at 1920x1200 @ 60 fps with maxed out/high graphical settings in all current games you should look at either a 4890 or gtx 285. Or, if you want to role the dice a little look at 2 4850's in crossfire (but you'll likely want the 1 gigabyte models).

For CPU, I'd definitely look at AMD as they're significantly cheaper for cpu's, motherboards, and type of ram you'll need (vs. I-7) across the board. A decent after market cpu cooler will allow you to attain & surpass speeds of the fastest amd processor out without having to pay full price, too.

For ram: ddr2 1066 is more than sufficient for Phenom II processors.

 

[jandlecack]

Is there a single-chip card that can run Crysis at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with Maximum/Ultra settings? With 2xAA, or even without?

 

[Tempered81]

I would get a 4890 and an X48 motherboard if you're looking at S775. X58 if you're going i7. Upgrade to the 2nd 4890 down the road.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: jandlecack
Is there a single-chip card that can run Crysis at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with Maximum/Ultra settings? With 2xAA, or even without?

Not really. "Gamer/High" settings in Warhead/Crysis would be your best bet for looking pretty and playing smoothly.

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I would get a 4890 and an X48 motherboard if you're looking at S775. X58 if you're going i7. Upgrade to the 2nd 4890 down the road.

Not a bad recommendation, but not exactly in the OP's price range.

 

[McRhea]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: jandlecack
Is there a single-chip card that can run Crysis at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with Maximum/Ultra settings? With 2xAA, or even without?

Not really. "Gamer/High" settings in Warhead/Crysis would be your best bet for looking pretty and playing smoothly.

On my E8400 overclocked to 4.0Ghz, 4GB of Ram, and a MSI 4890 (for $170 AR) overclocked to 925/1100 (from 880/1000), I can run Crysis and Crysis: Warhead at 1920x1200 at the "ultra" or "enthusiast" settings with 2xAA and it is very smooth. Average FPS is right in the 28 to 30 range. Some maps are higher, some are lower, but it still feels very smooth.

Here's a link about the 4890 (it's the overclocked edition).

Sure it's not at 60 FPS, but the Crysis series doesn't need 60FPS to play smoothly, it's the oddest thing. Any other game that ran at 30FPS would feel jerky and stuttery, but Crysis feels silky smooth. Very weird stuff, but that means an average of 30FPS in Crysis is very playable, and you won't notice that it's at 30FPS.

I'd grab a 4890 at the very least though, you can find some out there for REAL cheap. The Hot Deals forum on this very site had some 4890's for as low as $130 after all the rebates and stuff, that's a hell of a deal.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: McRhea

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: jandlecack
Is there a single-chip card that can run Crysis at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with Maximum/Ultra settings? With 2xAA, or even without?

Not really. "Gamer/High" settings in Warhead/Crysis would be your best bet for looking pretty and playing smoothly.

On my E8400 overclocked to 4.0Ghz, 4GB of Ram, and a MSI 4890 (for $170 AR) overclocked to 925/1100 (from 880/1000), I can run Crysis and Crysis: Warhead at 1920x1200 at the "ultra" or "enthusiast" settings with 2xAA and it is very smooth. Average FPS is right in the 28 to 30 range. Some maps are higher, some are lower, but it still feels very smooth.

Here's a link about the 4890 (it's the overclocked edition).

Sure it's not at 60 FPS, but the Crysis series doesn't need 60FPS to play smoothly, it's the oddest thing. Any other game that ran at 30FPS would feel jerky and stuttery, but Crysis feels silky smooth. Very weird stuff, but that means an average of 30FPS in Crysis is very playable, and you won't notice that it's at 30FPS.

I'd grab a 4890 at the very least though, you can find some out there for REAL cheap. The Hot Deals forum on this very site had some 4890's for as low as $130 after all the rebates and stuff, that's a hell of a deal.

...but your minimums are in the teens (or lower). Even HardOCP in the link you provided got 11fps min, and they aren't running everything on Enthusiast or any AA at all.

http://www.hardocp.com/article...w3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[McRhea]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: McRhea

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: jandlecack
Is there a single-chip card that can run Crysis at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with Maximum/Ultra settings? With 2xAA, or even without?

Not really. "Gamer/High" settings in Warhead/Crysis would be your best bet for looking pretty and playing smoothly.

On my E8400 overclocked to 4.0Ghz, 4GB of Ram, and a MSI 4890 (for $170 AR) overclocked to 925/1100 (from 880/1000), I can run Crysis and Crysis: Warhead at 1920x1200 at the "ultra" or "enthusiast" settings with 2xAA and it is very smooth. Average FPS is right in the 28 to 30 range. Some maps are higher, some are lower, but it still feels very smooth.

Here's a link about the 4890 (it's the overclocked edition).

Sure it's not at 60 FPS, but the Crysis series doesn't need 60FPS to play smoothly, it's the oddest thing. Any other game that ran at 30FPS would feel jerky and stuttery, but Crysis feels silky smooth. Very weird stuff, but that means an average of 30FPS in Crysis is very playable, and you won't notice that it's at 30FPS.

I'd grab a 4890 at the very least though, you can find some out there for REAL cheap. The Hot Deals forum on this very site had some 4890's for as low as $130 after all the rebates and stuff, that's a hell of a deal.

...but your minimums are in the teens (or lower). Even HardOCP in the link you provided got 11fps min, and they aren't running everything on Enthusiast or any AA at all.

http://www.hardocp.com/article...w3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Those dips down into the teens are the auto save points in Crysis and Warhead. It creates artificially low FPS for a second while it saves your game at certain checkpoints. Check the graph out on that page for a better idea of the actual gameplay minimums, and notice the valleys where the game is saving.

It's true that they're not running everything at enthusiast, but the settings they are running at enthusiast have the biggest hits on performance, so enabling everything else isn't going to negatively affect FPS that much more (probably 1 to 3 frames less than those settings), as I've experienced. Enabling 2Xaa on my system gets me an average of 28 to 30FPS (with my OC'd card mind you), and it's still VERY playable. As long as frames are in the 30FPS area, you can play Crysis and have a great time. It's not laggy or unplayable at all. Very smooth and enjoyable has been my experience.

 

[nitromullet]

Well... we seem to disagree on this point. I've played Crysis on quite a few different setups, and IMO I don't think that any single gpu offers a truly enjoyable experience throughout the entire game on Ultra/Enthusiast w/ 2xAA @ 1920x1200. If you are satisfied with the frames you get with your 4890, that's cool.

 

[McRhea]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Well... we seem to disagree on this point. I've played Crysis on quite a few different setups, and IMO I don't think that any single gpu offers a truly enjoyable experience throughout the entire game on Ultra/Enthusiast w/ 2xAA @ 1920x1200. If you are satisfied with the frames you get with your 4890, that's cool.

Yes, it all comes down to preference and opinion, as most everything does. However, the point I'm trying to make is that 30 FPS in Crysis really isn't the same as 30 FPS in a game like Far Cry 2, FEAR2, COD4 & 5, etc. 30FPS in any other game would be unplayable, however Crysis is somehow able to make it seem super smooth at just 30FPS. It's very odd, like I mentioned in my first post up above.

Here's a quote from the HardOCP guys in the guide linked above:

In Crysis: Warhead, once again the three video cards share the same highest playable settings. Once again the PowerColor PCS+ HD4890 1GB has taken first place with 33.3 average FPS. The second spot this time is a tie however with both Radeon HD 4890 and the GeForce GTX 275 averaging 31.6FPS. Regardless of the small difference in FPS we had a great gameplay experience on all three video cards.

That was my experience as well. 30 FPS made my Crysis and C:Warhead experience very enjoyable and I thought everything was smooth while playing, even at 30 FPS. :beer:

 

[Udgnim]

high recommend getting a quadcore

with the PC gaming industry becoming more dominated by console ports or PC/console simultaneous release, games that support 4 cores are going to be much much more common if not standard by now

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Udgnim
high recommend getting a quadcore

with the PC gaming industry becoming more dominated by console ports or PC/console simultaneous release, games that support 4 cores are going to be much much more common if not standard by now

they command a premium

that said, i just went for the TRI-core Phenom II 720 X3 - for $119 shipped, i could not resist trying it out
- i am running benches with my q9550s against Phenom II 550 X2 and the Phenom is doing well against the Intel CPU which is priced about 3 times what i paid for the 550

i am thinking a tri-core might go head to head with a quad core and beat a dual where a game is optimized for multi-core beyond dual - perhaps in games like World in Conflict and Far Cry 2

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Grab this combo, an AMD P2 940 with a free motherboard.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?ItemList=Combo.209473

Yeah, this deal is so hot for what OP wants, I'd get it right this second if I were him before it goes away.

I don't know why people are saying a dual will be just as fast for at least several years. This could not be further from the truth-- in all seriousness, it must be the Intel fanboys. DX11 is just around the corner and with it much better multi-core optimization.

People said "Games are still single threaded, no point in getting a dual core" and people dumped a lot of money on Athlon 64 4000+'s. They regretted it the second Oblivion came out.

Even at 3.9Ghz my e8400 was CPU limited in some games. Upgrading to current rig fixed that. I'd highly recommend the 940+Mobo deal to the OP. There simply isn't any dual core Intel competition at this price point. OP will give up approx 0.3 FPS right now to gain a boatload of FPS down the road, when that e8400 will be crying. It'll be expensive to upgrade that e8400 too-- Intel never drops prices on old gen processors once they've moved to a new socket.

Quads are a lot better for avoiding minimum framerates, too. General smoothness of the game-- a quad system would feel more fluid than a dual. Fluidity is very important for general feel of and immersion in the game.

The AMD combo is hands down the best deal given OP's price range (feats any dual core OC'd Intel system by far); and is what the OP should get.

 

[nitromullet]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14

Fallout 3:
PII 940 82.8
E8200 83.9

L4D:
PII 940 116.2
E8200 108.2

FC2:
PII 940 48.2
E8200 42.3

Crysis Warhead:
PII 940 76
E8200 74.4

This seems to back up the claim regarding Phenom II X4 9xx vs. the dual core E8xxx in terms of performance. Although, the difference certainly isn't huge by any means.

You can get an E8400 + mobo cheaper than the combo I posted: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?ItemList=Combo.205144 The OP said he wanted the option of Crossfire, so I found him a dual PCIe X16 board. Although, in his shoes, I'd seriously consider the Phenom option. That's a lot of computer for $200.

 

[kmmatney]

If you want to be inexpensive about it, you can keep your motherboard and just upgrade the CPU. Your motherboard supports modern CPUs and up to a 1066 Mhz bus speed. The Wolfdale E5200 is a great CPU for $69, and easily overclocks to 3.3 Ghz+ speeds, just by changing the BUS from 200 Mhz to 266 Mhz (no special overclocking required). This one here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819116072

Your existing motherboard won't support the 1333Mhz bus speed of the E8400, btw, so you'd have to upgrade the motherboard for that.

I owned an earlier revision of your motherboard - it has virtually no overclocking features, but if you buy a 200 Mhz based cpu, you can raise the FSB to 266 and get an instant overlock with no effort.

The HD4870 is a good video card for the money, and probably about the minimum for 1920 X 1200. The HD4890 is better is you can get a deal on that.

The raptor won't help you much for gaming, so if you want bang-for-the-buck, leave that out.

 

[Lonyo]

I have an E5200 at 3.4GHz with P45 mobo, 4GB RAM (PC6400) and an HD4850. Easy to overclock the CPU because of the low bus speed, can buy cheap ram and an inexpensive mobo.
It manages pretty much everything I've played at 1920x1200 without any major issues.
Mass Effect, TF2, Crysis, Fallout 3, GRiD etc.
Obviously not everything is maxxed out, but for the money the performance is solid, and I have no complaints (except for the fact that the HD4850 is now half what I paid for it a year ago).

Anything around that level should be fine for a minimum, and anything above it should be enough for a pleasant experience.

Oh, and please don't waste money on a Raptor.

 

[alcoholbob]

Originally posted by: jandlecack
Is there a single-chip card that can run Crysis at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with Maximum/Ultra settings? With 2xAA, or even without?

A single chip can probably achieve an average of ~25fps without AA.

Originally posted by: McRhea
Those dips down into the teens are the auto save points in Crysis and Warhead. It creates artificially low FPS for a second while it saves your game at certain checkpoints. Check the graph out on that page for a better idea of the actual gameplay minimums, and notice the valleys where the game is saving.

Shouldn't the auto-save point just be 0 fps? Also, while this lies outside the scope of the conversation, Crysis seems to scale very well with both hard drive and CPU speed which seems to indicate the game stresses just about every piece of hardware. If anything, in terms of playable framerate (minimum framerate), an SSD gives a bigger performance boost to Crysis than going SLI (the benefits vary although its not uncommon for only a small percentage boost to the minimum framerate).

http://images.anandtech.com/gr...090808151933/17331.png

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...2008/06/CPU_Crysis.png