What video card for a 3.0ghz DUO CORE?

[Kroze]

I have an Intel e2180 (1.8ghz) overclocked to 3.0ghz.

What is the fastest video card I should get that's not going to get slowed down by the CPU since it's not fast enough for the video card?

ATI Radeon 3870? $105
ATI Radeon 4850? $155
Geforce 9800GT? $125
Geforce 9800GTX? $150

 

[nosfe]

depends on your resolution

 

[Kroze]

1680x1050

 

[nosfe]

4850 would be your best bet, cpu bottlenecks tend to happen only at around 1280 or 1440

 

[MarcVenice]

I'd go with a 4870.

To clarify, it won't be bottlenecked by your CPU. So if you think HD4850/9800gtx is the fastest you can get, you're wrong.

 

[nyker96]

I think 4870 especially if you turn up AA/AF settings. 4850 might be a little low for high AA/AF.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: nyker96
I think 4870 especially if you turn up AA/AF settings. 4850 might be a little low for high AA/AF.

I think a GTX260, if you're going to spend that much because:

1. Beats the 512 and 1GB at 8X AA even at 19X12

2. Costs way less than 1GB 4870, yet it goes 4-2 with the 1GB 4870 in the above review at the 16X12 4X16X benches. (and 1 of the 2 it loses it loses by 1.2fps- so you know that is basically a tie)

3. Offers CUDA, PhysX, stereo.

4. Available for $209 shipped at newegg with Rainbow 6 Vegas

5. Derek (AT) has raised some concerns about ATis drivers lately.

Price and performance edge goes to NVIDIA for now.

BTW- I have both a 4850 and a 9800GTX+, and I would find the extra $50 for this card if it were me. Yes, it's a 1/3 more money, but more "future proof". Second choice for me at your res would be the 512 4870.

 

[Creig]

I would have to say a 4850 should be your first choice. Either that or a 9800GTX. Either one is much, MUCH cheaper than a GTX260 (4850 - $135 AR w/free shipping, $150 - 9800GTX w/free shipping GTX260 - $205 w/free shipping). At 1680x1050, you shouldn't need anything more than 512mb of video card memory unless you're running 8x AA. And even then it will only affect certain titles.

Let's compare framerates from this Hardware Secrets review at 1680x1050 dated four days ago (Nov 19):

Call of Duty 4 - Maximum
92 FPS - GTX260 216SP
91 FPS - GTX260
72 FPS - 512MB 4850
69 FPS - 9800GTX

Crysis 1.2.1 - Low
107 FPS - GTX260 216SP
99 FPS - GTX260
84 FPS - 512MB 4850
84 FPS - 9800GTX

Crysis 1.2.1 - High
37 FPS - GTX260 216SP
32 FPS - GTX260
29 FPS - 512MB 4850
29 FPS - 9800GTX

Unreal Tournament 3 - Maximum
109 FPS - GTX260 216SP
106 FPS - GTX260
96 FPS - 512MB 4850
112 FPS - 9800GTX

Half-Life 2:Episode 2 - High
125 FPS - GTX260 216SP
121 FPS - GTX260
116 FPS - 512MB 4850
138 FPS - 9800GTX

FarCry 2 - High
68 FPS - GTX260 216SP
67 FPS - GTX260
54 FPS - 512MB 4850

Fallout 3 - Ultra
74 FPS - GTX260 216SP
74 FPS - GTX260
51 FPS - 512MB 4850

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Kroze
I have an Intel e2180 (1.8ghz) overclocked to 3.0ghz.

What is the fastest video card I should get that's not going to get slowed down by the CPU since it's not fast enough for the video card?

ATI Radeon 3870? $105
ATI Radeon 4850? $155
Geforce 9800GT? $125
Geforce 9800GTX? $150

4850 or a 9800gtx+

 

[Qbah]

If you can spend around 200$ (209$ in this case) I'd say that GTX260 nRollo linked is really hard to beat in Price/Performance (or even impossible right now - the cheapest HD 4870 I could find there is 239$ after rebates). Though from the comments the game isn't included anymore. Otherwise spend 150$ and get a HD4850.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

Creig- run for church or cover your eyes:

I stand corrected and agree with Creig. Sorry OP, been too long since I've thought in terms of 16X10.

I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850. (and think the 8X CSAA of the 9800GTX+ diminishes the 8X MSAA victories of the 4850)

In any case, either will serve you well.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Creig

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

Creig- run for church or cover your eyes:

I stand corrected and agree with Creig. Sorry OP, been too long since I've thought in terms of 16X10.

I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850. (and think the 8X CSAA of the 9800GTX+ diminishes the 8X MSAA victories of the 4850)

In any case, either will serve you well.

We all know PhysicsX is a joke, and it's so easy to turn the 4850 an up now with ATI including fan control in their drivers, thermals are a lol. My 4870 can idle at <30C if I turn the fan to max. (Which is INSANELY low.)

 

[Face2Face]

I play @ 1440X900 and my old 3870 with my current congiq was fine. Now i have a 9800 GTX and i can't tell that big of a differnce, except for AA is more playable. You need a better CPU period. Cache is everything for games.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: nyker96
I think 4870 especially if you turn up AA/AF settings. 4850 might be a little low for high AA/AF.

I think a GTX260, if you're going to spend that much because:

1. Beats the 512 and 1GB at 8X AA even at 19X12

2. Costs way less than 1GB 4870, yet it goes 4-2 with the 1GB 4870 in the above review at the 16X12 4X16X benches. (and 1 of the 2 it loses it loses by 1.2fps- so you know that is basically a tie)

3. Offers CUDA, PhysX, stereo.

4. Available for $209 shipped at newegg with Rainbow 6 Vegas

5. Derek (AT) has raised some concerns about ATis drivers lately.

Price and performance edge goes to NVIDIA for now.

BTW- I have both a 4850 and a 9800GTX+, and I would find the extra $50 for this card if it were me. Yes, it's a 1/3 more money, but more "future proof". Second choice for me at your res would be the 512 4870.

GJ linking to an overclocked Core 216 GTX 260, which from what I've seen is actually more expensive than any HD4870 since the XFX retails at $300 on newegg.

The only concern Derek has about ATI's drivers is with Far Cry 2, and he expects these issues to be fixed with the next driver release which will be in less than a month anyway.

And I agree with Greenhell6. The E2180 @ 3 GHz is going to bottleneck these over-$200 cards. An HD4850 or HD4830 or even a 9800GT would offer the best value - the best performance per price.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: videogames101
We all know PhysicsX is a joke,

We don't all know PhysX is a joke- far from it.

So then, I have to admit to like what I tested today. Overall gaming with PhysX adds a much more immersive experience to gaming.
Guru3d obviously doesn't think it's a "joke".

Well, now we know, and it has to be said that NVIDIA has turned PhysX into a great marketing point for their GeForce series of graphics boards in a quicker time than any of us would have thought possible.
Elitebastards don't think it's a "joke".

This shall surely help Nvidia get even further in front of the opposition.
Overclock3d doesn'[t think it's a "joke".

Looking at the benchmarks, it?s hard not to be impressed by the performance of NVIDIA?s GeForce PhysX solution.
Firing Squad doesn't think it's a "joke".

With a list of soon upcoming ("Mirror's Edge" in January) games like:# Aliens: Colonial Marines
# Backbreaker
# Bionic Commando
# Borderlands
# Cryostasis
# Empire: Total War
# Mirror?s Edge
# MKZ
# Nurien
plus the current UT3, GRAW2, and Warmonger, I doubt even ATi thinks it's a "joke".

Originally posted by: videogames101
and it's so easy to turn the 4850 an up now with ATI including fan control in their drivers, thermals are a lol. My 4870 can idle at <30C if I turn the fan to max. (Which is INSANELY low.)

1. The 4850 is a very hot card
90C vs 71C for the 9800GTX+ at load is a HUGE difference.
2. 4870s are not 4850s, as evidenced above they run cooler.
3. Cooler on almost all 4850s doesn't touch RAM, and dumps all this massive heat into your case. 9800GTX+ reference cooler cools RAM and dumps all air out of case.
4. Running fan at 100% is for sure louder, and still just dumps the heat into your case faster.

 

[chizow]

I posted these links in a diff thread but the same applies here. I'd get the fastest GPU in your budget, then look to upgrade your CPU when you can.

Newer games will certainly benefit from faster CPUs and more cores, but the others are probably correct diagnosing the problem as the small L2 cache on that E2180.

COD4 + GRiD - Intel CPU Clock for Clock Comparison @ 2GHz

COD5 - 12 Intel and AMD CPUs

Far Cry 2 - various speeds

Left 4 Dead - various speeds massive differences here.

So ya, modern games require faster CPUs just as much as faster GPUs. I'd expect this trend to continue until better multi-threaded/hyperthreading support is implemented and/or hardware physics acceleration becomes the standard.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

GJ linking to an overclocked Core 216 GTX 260, which from what I've seen is actually more expensive than any HD4870 since the XFX retails at $300 on newegg.

The only concern Derek has about ATI's drivers is with Far Cry 2, and he expects these issues to be fixed with the next driver release which will be in less than a month anyway.

And I agree with Greenhell6. The E2180 @ 3 GHz is going to bottleneck these over-$200 cards. An HD4850 or HD4830 or even a 9800GT would offer the best value - the best performance per price.

1. There's a standard Core216 there, beats the 4870 for the OPs settings as well.

2. You're misquoting Derek. He lambasted ATi's drivers in general, not just for FC2:

[Q=DerekWilson]So the trade off for going forward with best-case scenario numbers is this page explaining the problems and a plea to AMD to change their approach to driver development for the good of the consumer.

Maintaining a monthly driver release schedule is detrimental to AMD's ability to release quality drivers. This is not the first or only issue we've seen that could have been solved (or at least noticed) by expanded testing that isn't possible with such tight release deadlines.

We've been mentioning this as an issue in passing when it pops up and causes us problems, but this is starting to get ridiculous. It is one thing when previous fixes are broken or when older games fall off the grid and are neglected.

Though we tend to see problems a lot more frequently than end users, we do see a lot more issues with AMD drivers than NVIDIA. Even though not all those issues are things that we need to bother end users with, the probability of hitting a bug that will affect end users is much higher when you've got a higher number of bugs to worry about in general.[/quote]

It would be a disservice to the readers of this forum to imply Derek only mentioned FC2 issues, he said "more issues with AMD than NVIDIA".

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: nRollo
I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850.
In any case, either will serve you well.

Originally posted by: nRollo
1. The 4850 is a very hot card
90C vs 71C for the 9800GTX+ at load is a HUGE difference.
2. 4870s are not 4850s, as evidenced above they run cooler.
3. Cooler on almost all 4850s doesn't touch RAM, and dumps all this massive heat into your case. 9800GTX+ reference cooler cools RAM and dumps all air out of case.
4. Running fan at 100% is for sure louder, and still just dumps the heat into your case faster.

I'd say a 4850 and 9800GTX+ are about dead even in terms of performance and features. It makes more sense to get the cheaper of the two. On Newegg, the 4850 seems to be about $30 cheaper than the 9800GTX+.

As for thermals, that 90C temp is with the stock cooler and fan profile. There are plenty of 4850s that come with aftermarket coolers (the one Creig linked to has one). My Palit 4850 hits about 60C on full Furmark load, and around 55C in games. That's cooler than a stock 9800GTX+.

You talk about the 4850 dumping "massive heat" into the case as if it generates more heat than a 9800GTX+. You can't conclude that one card generates more heat than another by looking at their temperatures if the cards have different cooling systems. For instance, My 4850's temperatures are far lower than those of a stock cooled 4850, but that doesn't mean it generates less heat. The heat is just dissipated more efficiently by my cooler.
At any rate, the 4850 doesn't seem to generate much heat at all - my 4850 cooler dumps its air into my case, and I have only a single 120mm Tricool case fan running at medium. I've had zero issues with case heat.

 

[Leyawiin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Creig

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

Creig- run for church or cover your eyes:

I stand corrected and agree with Creig. Sorry OP, been too long since I've thought in terms of 16X10.

I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850. (and think the 8X CSAA of the 9800GTX+ diminishes the 8X MSAA victories of the 4850)

In any case, either will serve you well.

You should have stuck to your guns on the GTX 260. I play at 1680x1050 with an Athlon X2 6400+ @ 3.2 Ghz. Late last summer I upgrade from an 8800 GTX to an EVGA GTx 260 "FTW" Edition. There was a very noticeable difference in my FPS and smoothness of games (LotRO, WoW, Oblivion, Two Worlds).

The 8800 GTX is only marginally slower than an HD 4850 or GTX 9800, so I believe the O.P. would see a pretty good boost with the MSI GTX 260 over either of those - and I do think its a great buy at $209.99 (and no rebate to mess with).

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Leyawiin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Creig

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

Creig- run for church or cover your eyes:

I stand corrected and agree with Creig. Sorry OP, been too long since I've thought in terms of 16X10.

I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850. (and think the 8X CSAA of the 9800GTX+ diminishes the 8X MSAA victories of the 4850)

In any case, either will serve you well.

You should have stuck to your guns on the GTX 260. I play at 1680x1050 with an Athlon X2 6400+ @ 3.2 Ghz. Late last summer I upgrade from an 8800 GTX to an EVGA GTx 260 "FTW" Edition. There was a very noticeable difference in my FPS and smoothness of games (LotRO, WoW, Oblivion, Two Worlds).

The 8800 GTX is only marginally slower than an HD 4580 or GTX 9800, so I believe the O.P. would see a pretty good boost with the MSI GTX 260 over either of those - and I do think its a great buy at $209.99 (and no rebate to mess with).

I'd prefer the GTX260 as well, and personally think it will see the OP further into the future, but Creig has a point in that the two much cheaper cards are good solutions now for that res.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Creig

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

Creig- run for church or cover your eyes:

I stand corrected and agree with Creig. Sorry OP, been too long since I've thought in terms of 16X10.

I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850. (and think the 8X CSAA of the 9800GTX+ diminishes the 8X MSAA victories of the 4850)

In any case, either will serve you well.

Show me a game where physix changes the entire gameplay so that you are playing an inferior version on a card that cannot run it. It sounds good on paper, but it's usefulness in games that have that option isn't very convincing to me.

 

[Leyawiin]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Creig

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

Creig- run for church or cover your eyes:

I stand corrected and agree with Creig. Sorry OP, been too long since I've thought in terms of 16X10.

I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850. (and think the 8X CSAA of the 9800GTX+ diminishes the 8X MSAA victories of the 4850)

In any case, either will serve you well.

Show me a game where physix changes the entire gameplay so that you are playing an inferior version on a card that cannot run it. It sounds good on paper, but it's usefulness in games that have that option isn't very convincing to me.

Well, in games that use PhysX this comparison seems to show a pretty good FPS boost by running it on the Nvidia GPU vs. CPU or dedicated PPU. I do have a few games that make use of PhysX, so any extra performance (in the form of FPS) I can get "for free" is fine by me.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...sx_performance_update/

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Leyawiin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Creig

You get playable framerates with either the 4850 or 9800GTX on all these games with the exception of Crysis on High setting. There's simply not much reason to pick up a GTX260 for gaming at 1680x1050. Not when the cheapest 260 is $70 more ($205) than the cheapest 4850 ($135) or $55 more than the cheapest 9800GTX ($150).

Creig- run for church or cover your eyes:

I stand corrected and agree with Creig. Sorry OP, been too long since I've thought in terms of 16X10.

I disagree with Creig on 4850 as first choice of the two, I like the thermals and Physx aspect of the 9800GTX+ over the DX10.1/8X AA advantages of the 4850. (and think the 8X CSAA of the 9800GTX+ diminishes the 8X MSAA victories of the 4850)

In any case, either will serve you well.

Show me a game where physix changes the entire gameplay so that you are playing an inferior version on a card that cannot run it. It sounds good on paper, but it's usefulness in games that have that option isn't very convincing to me.

Well, in games that use PhysX this comparison seems to show a pretty good FPS boost by running it on the Nvidia GPU vs. CPU or dedicated PPU. I do have a few games that make use of PhysX, so any extra performance (in the form of FPS) I can get "for free" is fine by me.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...sx_performance_update/

That entirely avoided my question.

Where is the benefit to the gameplay? FPS means little when you're already at playable and enjoyable levels. Physix doesn't make me say "wow I gotta have that for the new game" because there is nothing it does to the core gameplay that makes me have to have it. You see where I'm going? Developers are not dumb and won't make a game unplayable on ATI cards just because Nvidia is the only one who uses physix. Right now it's just about getting more FPS when you enable it, the gameplay is not affected by physix at all. Meaning the game is the same on both cards, just losing a few FPS if you choose to enable physix.

 

[Leyawiin]

I didn't avoid your question at all. Why do people choose one GPU over another? Usually for better performance. Better "Gameplay" generally means better FPS to most folks. If it doesn't to you I can't help that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

At the bottom of the article it lists a good number of popular titles that use PhysX. If there's a possible benefit to performance by using an Nvidia GPU (and all other things being equal), it would tend to help sway my purchase choice. Then again, that is just one test from one source (the linked article in my previous post). I would place more credence in their results if I could find more sources coming to the same conclusion.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That entirely avoided my question.

Where is the benefit to the gameplay? FPS means little when you're already at playable and enjoyable levels. Physix doesn't make me say "wow I gotta have that for the new game" because there is nothing it does to the core gameplay that makes me have to have it. You see where I'm going? Developers are not dumb and won't make a game unplayable on ATI cards just because Nvidia is the only one who uses physix. Right now it's just about getting more FPS when you enable it, the gameplay is not affected by physix at all. Meaning the game is the same on both cards, just losing a few FPS if you choose to enable physix.

I don't know if I understand the question.

UT3 performance with and without PhysX in the PhysX levels

So on the Physx levels with their added effects a GTX280 is getting 41.9 fps at 16X12 0X0X with PhysX enabled, and 14.5 fps using the CPU as an ATi card would.

14.5 fps to 41.9 fps isn't a few frames, it's the difference between playable and and not even close.

The question will be in upcoming PhysX titles how much difference it will make, and whether their will basically be two versions of the game like UT3.