40
| 528 views | 13 votes
I'm considering upgrading my graphics card for this game... I've currently got a Radeon 4850 PCIE and if I did upgrade I'd be looking to spend less than $200au (USD for arguments sake). You guys think its worth it? yes / no?
Essentially I could get a 6850 or 6800 series card with either Nvidia or Radeon chipsets and by the look of it about a gig of ram...
If yes radeon or Nvidia?
can you run it?. I go with cheapest.
can you run it?
It wont run tits!!!
Buy a new rig ... and GTFO too, don't waist your own and other people's time.
Just remember how much you get per hour, then guess how much time you will be figuring out which card to buy and how long will it last you then look at the range here, see that your choice card series is dated 2004, then just go to the shop and buy the most expensive computer you can afford and be done with it.
Upgrading is for enthusiasts (read: neckbeards), or some people who can't get any more than 200$ in their hands, like poor students or third world people and you are neither.
For best results buy a new computer and sell your old one to some cheap chump (like yourself).
I had a Geforce GTS 250 before this, and I never had a bit of an issue.
Plus NVidia has the better functions for picture tweaking in movies if you're at all interested. You can make those hd mkv's really pop out.
ATI imo is better in gaming if you're doing multi screen. They've always beaten nvidia for multi screen processing, but that's really the only advantage it has.
Buy a new rig ... and GTFO too, don't waist your own and other people's time.
Just remember how much you get per hour, then guess how much time you will be figuring out which card to buy and how long will it last you then look at the range here, see that your choice card series is dated 2004, then just go to the shop and buy the most expensive computer you can afford and be done with it.
Upgrading is for enthusiasts (read: neckbeards), and if you are asking this question you are not one.
The 6800 series is quite old compared to what's coming out, but the problem is, 6800 series cards are still being produced and they are far cheaper than the 7xxx or brand new 8xxx gpu's coming out. But I do agree with you about saving up and just getting something that is actually modern, new rig and all. People can throw a sweet video card in a computer all they want, if they've got a shit processor that can't hold up it's part it's pretty well worthless. When I went from a Geforce 7500 GT to a GTS 250 on a Pentium D 3.4 Ghz, I thought it would make a massive difference in terms of framerate and overall snappiness, it didn't, although the DX10 textures looked a little nicer.
I bet you you have "smart" facial hair all over your mug.
For what I do with my rig, I actually need to continually upgrade. Two of my VM's are taking up 4 of my cores alone, and the other 4 are for my daily routines, gaming, snappy conversions, etc. I don't just throw hardware in for the sake of having it (although I probably don't actually NEED an 8 core system, but they don't sell a 6 core bulldozer now do they?), although I probably will be starting a Linux VM to play with Linux/MS client/host stuff (I might be setting up a few Linux servers in some organizations and it's been a long time since I've played around with Linux in a Directory Services role)
I use computer for porn, videogames and TAN. I only went to college to study IT management to get a better job eventually.
When fellow neckbeard students start saying stuff like you just said, I stand there, nodding with a blank look on my face, feeling very inadequate.
For what I do with my rig, I actually need to continually upgrade. Two of my VM's are taking up 4 of my cores alone, and the other 4 are for my daily routines, gaming, snappy conversions, etc. I don't just throw hardware in for the sake of having it (although I probably don't actually NEED an 8 core system, but they don't sell a 6 core bulldozer now do they?), although I probably will be starting a Linux VM to play with Linux/MS client/host stuff (I might be setting up a few Linux servers in some organizations and it's been a long time since I've played around with Linux in a Directory Services role)
what your vms for?
For what I do with my rig, I actually need to continually upgrade. Two of my VM's are taking up 4 of my cores alone, and the other 4 are for my daily routines, gaming, snappy conversions, etc. I don't just throw hardware in for the sake of having it (although I probably don't actually NEED an 8 core system, but they don't sell a 6 core bulldozer now do they?), although I probably will be starting a Linux VM to play with Linux/MS client/host stuff (I might be setting up a few Linux servers in some organizations and it's been a long time since I've played around with Linux in a Directory Services role)
what your vms for?
1. Windows Server 2008 DNS Role for my mobile accounting and if I need into any of my boxes, also Directory (AD) services for testing business clients and for my home computers. 2 cores dedicated, 1 NIC dedicated, 4 GB RAM dedicated, HDD Dedicated. I need a seperate box clustered in for my DNS Role, AD and DNS shouldn't be on the same box. I'm trying to set up a nice network at home for shits and giggles.
2 Ubuntu, just to play around, plus I have this old awesome webcam that Vista/7 won't support and linux still does so I use that for skype. Also where I do all my HD cloning for clients drives.
3. Still looking at which Linux would be best for a Directory Server Role, I've done it back in 06 with Mandriva. I have a few clients that can't afford Server 2011 or even 2008 Licenses w/ 5 CALs, all I have are two SBS 2003 licenses that isn't optimal for windows 7 in terms of domain services. I know it's openLDAP but I haven't played with it in a while and if it's even worth nitpicking over which linux to use.
Upgrading is for enthusiasts (read: neckbeards), or some people who can't get any more than 200$ in their hands, like poor students or third world people and you are neither.
I'm an accountant. Think of a little hunch back jew sitting on a pot of gold who's constipated at the thought of spending money.
The 6800 series is quite old compared to what's coming out, but the problem is, 6800 series cards are still being produced and they are far cheaper than the 7xxx or brand new 8xxx gpu's coming out. But I do agree with you about saving up and just getting something that is actually modern, new rig and all. People can throw a sweet video card in a computer all they want, if they've got a shit processor that can't hold up it's part it's pretty well worthless. When I went from a Geforce 7500 GT to a GTS 250 on a Pentium D 3.4 Ghz, I thought it would make a massive difference in terms of framerate and overall snappiness, it didn't, although the DX10 textures looked a little nicer.
Yeah they are pretty old - kind of my point as to whether the performance increase is worth the few $. It still runs fine and I guess the only upgrade would be graphics would look a little nicer? I do run multi screens at home by default but I've kind of always gone with not having the newest parts when it comes to computers and upgrading more often as opposed to a big spend every few years. CPU should be alright for now its a E8500 but thats on the list for this/next year too at which point pretty much the whole computer will need to be updated for obvious reasons.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
There does appear to be a fairly large difference in performance between the 4850 and 6850 on this chart. If thats anything to go by I'll do a 6850 this year and rest of the computer some time next year unless someone else has a better idea.
Upgrading is for enthusiasts (read: neckbeards), or some people who can't get any more than 200$ in their hands, like poor students or third world people and you are neither.
I'm an accountant. Think of a little hunch back jew sitting on a pot of gold who's constipated at the thought of spending money.
The 6800 series is quite old compared to what's coming out, but the problem is, 6800 series cards are still being produced and they are far cheaper than the 7xxx or brand new 8xxx gpu's coming out. But I do agree with you about saving up and just getting something that is actually modern, new rig and all. People can throw a sweet video card in a computer all they want, if they've got a shit processor that can't hold up it's part it's pretty well worthless. When I went from a Geforce 7500 GT to a GTS 250 on a Pentium D 3.4 Ghz, I thought it would make a massive difference in terms of framerate and overall snappiness, it didn't, although the DX10 textures looked a little nicer.
Yeah they are pretty old - kind of my point as to whether the performance increase is worth the few $. It still runs fine and I guess the only upgrade would be graphics would look a little nicer? I do run multi screens at home by default but I've kind of always gone with not having the newest parts when it comes to computers and upgrading more often as opposed to a big spend every few years. CPU should be alright for now its a E8500 but thats on the list for this/next year too at which point pretty much the whole computer will need to be updated for obvious reasons.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
There does appear to be a fairly large difference in performance between the 4850 and 6850 on this chart. If thats anything to go by I'll do a 6850 this year and rest of the computer some time next year unless someone else has a better idea.
The core2duo will do you for a year or so, after that with games coming out and modern applications, you'd best think about moving up to i7 2500k system or a bulldozer 8 core system like mine (although the i7 pumps out more raw power and is 350-400 dollars more expensive). Unless anything more than quad core is necessary for every game that comes out, I wouldn't worry about an i7 being overshadowed anytime soon (unless it's a Xeon, which is still King of processors). I moved off my e8300 in May to this AMD system (bought the board when AM3+ sockets first came out, plopped my x4 that I took out a junked system on it [yes people are stupid enough to throw out brand new computers, the psu died], then bought the bulldozer when it came out on the shelves), only because the price was immensely lower than even an i3 system at the same frequency and specs.
I would just recommend moving to a DDR3 based system as soon as you can. You CAN get boards that are DDR3 compatible for your processor. You can always ebay a Core 2 Extreme in a years time and have a smoking quad core. DDR3 memory is so much cheaper than ddr2 it's ridiculous. I buy my memory in kits, and I got a 16GB kit of Corsair Vengeance for 159.97, it was 10 bucks off, but who cares, that's still a sweet deal. 4 GB of DDR2 can run as high as 80 bucks alone. Make sure you slap an 80+ Certified PSU if you really want to game hard, that will ensure the highest efficiency on all rails and your video card won't get hit by small spikes that all non 80+ PSU's generate, unless they are hooked up to a UPS (Battery Backup) or super awesome power filtration unit like a Monster Power Protection.
Winner. I have one.
Plays BF3 and Skyrim on Ultra @1680x1050, though I'm pushing it a little on both.
I have a XFX 6870 BE. I run Skyrim, BF3, and anything else on max settings with no stutter. The rest of my rig is below:
AMD Phenom II x4 Black edition OC'd to 3.8GHz
6GB DDR3
2x320GB Sata II in a raid O
Win 7 64bit
and I stuffed all of that in this case :
I have a XFX 6870 BE. I run Skyrim, BF3, and anything else on max settings with no stutter. The rest of my rig is below:
AMD Phenom II x4 Black edition OC'd to 3.8GHz
6GB DDR3
2x320GB Sata II in a raid O
Win 7 64bit
and I stuffed all of that in this case :
I've used that case for a Small Business Server. I took out the red LED fans and replaced them with cooler master 140mm flat blacks. All the RAID drives stay nice and chilly.
I use the Coolermaster Storm Enforcer now for most of my non 1U/2U server builds. It's half the price and feels a lot more sturdy. Plus, for a server that will never use the DVD tray, the front door is nice (tough sucker too).
It looks really nice with all the badges on the front door.
This is my current case, but I'm thinking of going to a different case in a few months :
Lockable front door and pop off case door, a shit load of HDD racks and a nice little spot for my SSD's.
HUGE AS FUCK, looked small in the pictures, didn't know it was so damned tall, but it's a sexy case with some red fans thrown in the front. Had all the mount points needed to do anything i wanted with a water cooler, my H70 mounted in the top with some thermaltake excalibre 120mm's in push-pull fits nicely.
I'd stay the hell away from Sandy Bridge unless you've got anything about x6x chipset (H67 or P67, the two most popular, are the problem).
6 Series Sandy Bridge degradation of SATA performance over time
Get a Socket 1366 and an i7 to go with that. A little more money, but it uses the X58 Triple Channel controller.
1. This is not a CPU problem. Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 processors remain fine; only currently shipping P67 and H67 motherboards on which the 6 Series chipset is located are affected by the glitch.
they are the old first release series of sandy bridge, they are currently selling p68 series MB's in the stores so he shouldn't have a problem with getting sandy bridge.Socket 1366 is expensive and the range of products is very limited, you will be hard pressed to get a socket 1366 MB for under $400 in Aust. With MB and i7 cpu socket 1366 will set you back over $700 alone.
I have a Asus p8z68v - pro MB. No complaints from me.
@ cone: GTX460 is a bit faster than a 4850 already. Even if you kept your card mine is significantly worse... Also I think a E8500 is a pretty quick processor already even if it only has 2 cores - it was pretty much the best out there for games of its time and even if its a bit dated now I think it should hold up well enough.
@ cone: GTX460 is a bit faster than a 4850 already. Even if you kept your card mine is significantly worse... Also I think a E8500 is a pretty quick processor already even if it only has 2 cores - it was pretty much the best out there for games of its time and even if its a bit dated now I think it should hold up well enough.
The main differences between a core2 and an i3 is power consumption (95w vs 45w, much more powerful for the amount of power it consumes) and the fact that Hyperthreading is being used on the i3 and not on the core2. On the i3, it has the ability to have 4 threads on 2 cores running, where as the core2 can only have 2 threads on 2 cores.
Ati = bang for buck
I'd stay the hell away from Sandy Bridge unless you've got anything about x6x chipset (H67 or P67, the two most popular, are the problem).
6 Series Sandy Bridge degradation of SATA performance over time
Get a Socket 1366 and an i7 to go with that. A little more money, but it uses the X58 Triple Channel controller.
What utter bullshit, mate!
The date of your article: February 3, 2011 09:46am EST
Old news. This is fucking November.
Intel put aside something like $3bn to issue new boards to anyone affected and they began making exchanges in April with manufacturers handling the exchanges completely free to all affected users.
The annoying thing is you've said that shit before and I've corrected you before!
Furthermore, the i7-970 LGA1366, costs £420, the i5-2500k costs £169 and blows it out of the water.
Prices: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6
Review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested
I have a XFX 6870 BE. I run Skyrim, BF3, and anything else on max settings with no stutter. The rest of my rig is below:
AMD Phenom II x4 Black edition OC'd to 3.8GHz
6GB DDR3
2x320GB Sata II in a raid O
Win 7 64bit
and I stuffed all of that in this case :
I have a XFX 6870 BE. I run Skyrim, BF3, and anything else on max settings with no stutter. The rest of my rig is below:
AMD Phenom II x4 Black edition OC'd to 3.8GHz
6GB DDR3
2x320GB Sata II in a raid O
Win 7 64bit
and I stuffed all of that in this case :
Waste of your money. Bang for buck? Utter twaddle. GTX560ti costs about £10 more than that card you have yet performs way better!
NV for performance, drivers
ATI because you're cheap and probably run AMD.
http://www.msy.com.au/default.jsp?category=21&page=1 this is one of the places I buy stuff from
I'd stay the hell away from Sandy Bridge unless you've got anything about x6x chipset (H67 or P67, the two most popular, are the problem).
6 Series Sandy Bridge degradation of SATA performance over time
Get a Socket 1366 and an i7 to go with that. A little more money, but it uses the X58 Triple Channel controller.
What utter bullshit, mate!
The date of your article: February 3, 2011 09:46am EST
Old news. This is fucking November.
Intel put aside something like $3bn to issue new boards to anyone affected and they began making exchanges in April with manufacturers handling the exchanges completely free to all affected users.
The annoying thing is you've said that shit before and I've corrected you before!
Furthermore, the i7-970 LGA1366, costs £420, the i5-2500k costs £169 and blows it out of the water.
Prices: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6
Review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested
I have a XFX 6870 BE. I run Skyrim, BF3, and anything else on max settings with no stutter. The rest of my rig is below:
AMD Phenom II x4 Black edition OC'd to 3.8GHz
6GB DDR3
2x320GB Sata II in a raid O
Win 7 64bit
and I stuffed all of that in this case :
I have a XFX 6870 BE. I run Skyrim, BF3, and anything else on max settings with no stutter. The rest of my rig is below:
AMD Phenom II x4 Black edition OC'd to 3.8GHz
6GB DDR3
2x320GB Sata II in a raid O
Win 7 64bit
and I stuffed all of that in this case :
Waste of your money. Bang for buck? Utter twaddle. GTX560ti costs about £10 more than that card you have yet performs way better!
NV for performance, drivers
ATI because you're cheap and probably run AMD.
Name me anything intel does where the CPU is directly tied into graphics via onchip vpu cores, and 3 way crossfire with one video card.
Socket A APUs by AMD
And to a lesser extent, Phenom's and Athlons can also do it through Fusion (Vision Black) approved boards (such as mine) by sharing CPU cores wih the GPU for more graphics when you need it, if necessary. Bulldozer's, I'm honestly not sure, but I don't care, i've got 8 cores of slack to play anything with.
To this day Intel has nothing that does that, and can only rely on raw power, not ingenious engineering.
Don't get me wrong, i like Intel CPUs and I love Nvidia GPUs, but AMD definitely has the advantage when it comes to parallel processing.
The graphics cards handle everything that is drawn on the screen. All the polygons, rectangles, pixels, shading, etc. The CPU performs almost everything else, Updating (the program state), the physics (in the instance Physx isn't installed, even then the CPU still handles the Physx tasks to the GPU. It says "Hey GPU, here's another Physx request".), input devices, your desktop.
I'm vendor agnostic when it comes to CPU's, but Sandy Bridge is the bomb at the moment. It is not hot, power hungry, or likely to burn out and destroy equipment at all.
The graphics cards handle everything that is drawn on the screen. All the polygons, rectangles, pixels, shading, etc. The CPU performs almost everything else, Updating (the program state), the physics (in the instance Physx isn't installed, even then the CPU still handles the Physx tasks to the GPU. It says "Hey GPU, here's another Physx request".), input devices, your desktop.
I'm vendor agnostic when it comes to CPU's, but Sandy Bridge is the bomb at the moment. It is not hot, power hungry, or likely to burn out and destroy equipment at all.
Wrong. All logic on the processor, all texture related mathematical equations are done on the processor, all rendering done through DirectX or OpenGl is sent through memory (your RAM, not the VRAM) controlled by the CPU, and all loading of textures from the hard drive are, again, controlled by the CPU. The slower the CPU you have, the slower all these tasks become and your video card gets bottlenecked.
That's why hardcore gaming rigs have the fastest processors with the most cores, multiple disks in RAID, and very high end chipsets.
If everything was biased and done independently, a base $500 dollar computer with a Quad Core PC and 8 GB RAM and a GTS 250 would be able to compete with a $2000 Base PC with a newer, far larger core count processor and amount of RAM and same video card.
If what you said was correct, when I put my new 8 Core system together in March when I only had 8 GB of RAM, I should have seen ABSOLUTELY no improvement in video performance and lag over my Core2duo system with the same amount of RAM, considering before I got my 6870 I had my GTS 250 in both machines, and I can tell you, there was a HUGE difference in quality and playability from the exact same card powered the exact same way (until I got my XFX Modular PSU), my framerates in WoW went from 80-90 ish to 120 - 140ish. I should not have seen that improvement by your logic.
Thats a lie. Fapping cant give you rsi!!!
Shit................