Worthwhile upgrade from 4670

[notposting]

Update:

4870 1GB works great. Avg frame rate with high settings in FSX at 1920x1080 is only around 30, but much smoother, the 4670 would have a noticeable hiccup when I looked around using the TrackIR. I'm scared to plug in my Kill A Watt and see the damage, heh. But it is running on the Earthwatts 430 (complete with Nexus fanswap) no problem.

Went from ~13 to ~33 fps in the Heaven benchmark at DX10, 1080p etc. Thanks everyone...


****************

Hey, hoping for some advice on whether some ideas I have would be worthwhile upgrades from a 1GB 4670.

Base machine is running an Intel Xeon e3110 (equivalent to C2D e8400). 4GB DDR2, 640GB Blue WD. Driving a 21.5" monitor at 1920x1080.

The 4670 is definitely running out of gas at this resolution. I don't play too many brand new games, mostly playing RTS (which it handles fine even at this res), a few FPS (mostly still playing COD2 ctf in DX7 mode ) and then getting into flight sims again. This is where the system starts to fall apart.

FSX even on some mid-range and low settings I'm lucky to get 30-40fps, but some definite jerkiness and dips when looking around. Will probably get ARMA 2 at some point here, and it's okay but some hesitation at times in the choppers as well (running the demo). Might get Wings of Prey if I can forget about the DRM long enough to buy it.

Have the full throttle/joystick/rudder and TrackIR setup (just got it all over the holidays) for the flight sims and they are running the worst on the current system. Would one of the <$100 9800GT low power or 4850's (and 1GB at that I would guess) be a big enough jump up to be worth it?

Looks like the 9800GT green models all have the same specs pretty much, and I know the 4850's would smoke the 4670 (more than 2x the horses) would those 9800's compare to the 4850's performance wise (seems they would draw less power without an additional plug which is a bonus)?

Thanks for any advice or performance comparison stories you might have! :thumbsup:

edit: plus from poking around FSX runs better on Nvidia stuff so that's a bonus going that way. Been all AMD for years though so not sure of performance on that side...

 

[happy medium]

FSX brings even a 8800gtx to it's knees @ 1900x1080 at high detail.
So a 4850 1gb is cutting it close.

I'd go all out and at least get a 48701gb.

Here is a used one for 115$+shipping.
Offer the guy 120$ shipped. Thats a good price.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2058090

 

[Leyawiin]

The 9800 GT EE type card would be a good bit stronger than an HD 4670. If you are considering the HD 4850, why not a 9800 GTX+? This one's a pretty good deal after MIR:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814133246

 

[happy medium]

The 9800 GT EE type card would be a good bit stronger than an HD 4670. If you are considering the HD 4850, why not a 9800 GTX+? This one's a pretty good deal after MIR:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814133246

+1 nice!

 

[notposting]

Is there a consensus on how much video memory you need at these resolutions nowadays? I mean, I know half the time the low end cards get some ridiculous amounts compared to what they can actually use (and it's usually slow memory too) but what about at this level of performance?

Would that 9800GTX+ be running into memory limits at 1080p? *off looking at benchmarks* Looks like a 4870 comes out a bit ahead of the 9800GTX+/GTS250?

Looks like the 9800GT's are definitely a bit slower than 4850's as well. Hrmmmm....

Sorry, haven't really even looked at high end cards for quite awhile and now some of them are actually down where I could I buy them

 

[blanketyblank]

Is there some reason you're looking at 9800GT green models? Is your PSU very weak or are you concerned about sound/heat? 9800GT EEs are basically g92s which have been downclocked a fair amount so performance might be about 9600 level. Thus I don't consider them much of an upgrade for a 4670.

What's your budget? I've seen 5770 or 4890 for around 130 which will play almost any game currently available at high settings with adequate fps. 4850 or the 9800GTX+ listed are cheaper and still good, but not quite as fast I'd say about 30-40&#37; slower than the 5770 and 60-70% slower than a 4890.

About video memory it really all depends on the game and settings.
Higher AA, resolution, and details require more video memory though 1 GB is enough for almost everything. Some of the really high end systems start running into problems though since they are using multiple monitors or a 30" monitor with AA. I have found the 512 MB on my 4850 was limiting at times which is one of the reasons I upgraded to a 5770 1 GB.

 

[happy medium]

old benches but relevent...

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/13/ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt/11

I would say 512mb is good with a 4850 or above card with this game. They are using massive aa/af.

 

[Leyawiin]

+1 nice!

I'm unfamilar with FSX and was just going by what the O.P. said about it being more Nvidia friendly. After reading your post, do you think that card would be strong enough to do the job at 1920x1080?

(I am tempted to grab one of those though - putting together a gaming PC from old parts for my nephew and it would do nicely!).

 

[RussianSensation]

IIRC, Nvidia has generally dominated in flight sims such as Pacific Fighters (other than in Lock on Modern Air Combat).

If you are considering 4850, then I would rather get GTS 250 1GB for $110:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-062-_-Product

Otherwise, try to get a used GTX260.

 

[blanketyblank]

IIRC, Nvidia has generally dominated in flight sims such as Pacific Fighters (other than in Lock on Modern Air Combat).

If you are considering 4850, then I would rather get GTS 250 1GB for $110:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-062-_-Product

Otherwise, try to get a used GTX260.

Considering FSX is quite an old title that's hardly a fair comparison since all the reviews are comparing cards like the 8800GTX which is faster than the the GTS 250 now to ATI's cards back then the 2900XT. I'm sure a modern comparison will give you much different results since the 2900 was considered a failure on ATIs part.

The best value for the dollar right now is on a 5770 or 4890 which will be a good deal faster than a GTS 250 across the board for only about $20-30 more. GTX 260 is just ridiculously priced right now so even used it will likely cost more than the 5770 or 4890 without offering greater performance.

That 9800GTX+ 512 MB is a nice price though and will have almost equal performance to the GTS 250. It's really only missing the 1 GB of RAM and that hardly justifies the price difference in this case.

 

[notposting]

Probably going for that 4870 in the FS/FT forum. Will see if PSU holds up...

edit: Yeah, kinda hoping that nvidia/ati won't matter with a newer card anyway. Brute force ftw. Quiet and (lower) power are bonuses but I wear headphones when gaming anyway, and at this point want to use my flight sim stuff. Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it.

 

[RussianSensation]

the 8800GTX which is faster than the the GTS 250

GTS 250 is faster than 8800GTX. Check Tom's VGA Charts.

GTS 250 = 128 SPs @ 1836mhz vs. 128 SPs @ 1350mhz 8800GTX
GTS 250 = GPU core @ 736mhz vs. 575 for 8800GTX
GTS 250 = 64 texture units vs. 32 for 8800GTX

8800GTX has slightly higher memory bandwidth and 24 ROPs vs. 16 for GTS250 though.

The best value for the dollar right now is on a 5770 or 4890 which will be a good deal faster than a GTS 250 across the board for only about $20-30 more.

I agree that 5770 is better than GTS 250 but it's about $140+. If he is playing basic games, for $100 GTS 250 would be better than 4850. But for $140-150, I would recommend 5770 as you said. I cant seem to find 4890 at a good price. It's $210 on Newegg.

 

[crisium]

Well keep in mind that this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3332167&amp;SID=

Is factory UNDERclocked. A 4850 will gladly spank it around. And a 9800GTX+ is exactly the same as a GTS 250, so it is equal to 4850 performance. Not sure why you'd want to pay more money for one.

 

[blanketyblank]

GTS 250 is faster than 8800GTX. Check Tom's VGA Charts.

GTS 250 = 128 SPs @ 1836mhz vs. 128 SPs @ 1350mhz 8800GTX
GTS 250 = GPU core @ 736mhz vs. 575 for 8800GTX
GTS 250 = 64 texture units vs. 32 for 8800GTX

8800GTX has slightly higher memory bandwidth and 24 ROPs vs. 16 for GTS250 though.



I agree that 5770 is better than GTS 250 but it's about $140+. If he is playing basic games, for $100 GTS 250 would be better than 4850. But for $140-150, I would recommend 5770 as you said. I cant seem to find 4890 at a good price. It's $210 on Newegg.

I guess you're right about the GTS 250 being slightly faster thanks to the OC.
I remembered the 8800 GTX was faster than an 8800 GTS 512 which uses the same chip as the 9800s and 250. Overall the performance hasn't changed much between the cards though so I'd say a review with an 8800GTX is pretty much a review with a 250 give or take about 10&#37;. According to Toms the 9800GTX+ and 8800GTX offer fairly similar performance, and the 8800GTX actually beats the 9800GTX+ at FSX by .8 fps from 2008 benchmark.
Looks like they stopped using FSX in their newer 2009 benchmarks though so not sure how GTS 250 would perform.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...tml?prod[2252]=on&prod[2077]=on&prod[2078]=on

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...tml?prod[3210]=on&prod[3216]=on&prod[3239]=on

Also I've seen 5770s go as low as 130 something before so it's not impossible to get one. It was a 1 GB powercolor I believe.

 

[happy medium]

An 8800gtx ULTRA is ~= to a gts 250.
A 8800gtx is only clocked at 575 core and a gts 250/9800gtx+ is at 740 core.

9800gtx vs 8800gtx......

9800gtx wins

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338&p=6

A 9800gtx+ which is faster then a 9800gtx is = to a gts 250

 

[tweakboy]

You should consider a nVidia GTX 260 896mb 216 core. Fry's has rebates or sites you can get this for 150 to 200 bones. Or you can get the 5770 which is sorta the equivalent. Your CPU is powerful enough to even take the 5890 or Fermi 480. Yes he might lose some frames per second, but not too much... gl

 

[betasub]

But tweakboy, you've been telling everybody that switching Nvidia <-> ATI requires an OS re-install. And you are still recommending that old GTX 260 - get with the times!

 

[Shmee]

hey i have a GTX 260! but ya, times are changing, and it may not be easy/best to get a 260 at a low price.

Also, if the proc which is basically an E8400 is not oced, it will probably bottleneck higher end cards like the 5850 and above in modern games. I would get a Quad if I were buying one of those, tweak. At least if I were teh OP, cuz i have a hexcore xD

 

[notposting]

Yeah and the motherboard I have = no overclocking at all. Some Foxconn G31 cheapo special.

 

[betasub]

Interesting that Schmee was the first to mention quad-core. After all, this is FSX that OP is trying to play. CPU multi-core heavy, also huge textures transferring across the PCIe bus between system RAM and video memory (see Tom's for how FSX loves high PCIe bandwidth).

 

[notposting]

Update:

4870 1GB works great. Avg frame rate with high settings in FSX at 1920x1080 is only around 30, but much smoother, the 4670 would have a noticeable hiccup when I looked around using the TrackIR. I'm scared to plug in my Kill A Watt and see the damage, heh. But it is running on the Earthwatts 430 (complete with Nexus fanswap) no problem.

Went from ~13 to ~33 fps in the Heaven benchmark at DX10, 1080p etc. Thanks everyone...

 

[betasub]

Nice result. Thanks for updating with your outcome, notposting.