Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Geforce GTX 650 1gb run on 480w Seagate PSU?

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 23, 2014 9:12:49 AM

Title says it all.. also this GPU comes with some type of power chord? My current gpu or any I have ever used never had a power chord.. look here > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... .... so is this a good upgrade from a geforce gt 520?

SYSTEM SPECS!

CPU- AMD A8 5600k
MEM- 6 gb ddr3
MOBO- A55ML2
OS- Win 7
February 23, 2014 11:20:37 AM

The power cord is if your current psu does not have a 6 pin plug. to answer you question yes your power supply should be fine
m
0
l
February 23, 2014 11:21:45 AM

I ended up buying the 750 without even thinking if psu will run it... will 480w be enough for the gtx 750?!
m
0
l
Related resources
February 23, 2014 11:29:48 AM

Yeah your fine its no problem.
m
0
l
February 23, 2014 11:32:14 AM

pfunkmd said:
Yeah your fine its no problem.


ty sir! Im so excited to finally have a good GPU :)  my last 2 computers GPU's could only play my games on low/med Im def expecting to be able to max out the graphics now :)  the games I play are free online stuff so its not SUPER graphic intensive.. so this card should max me out yay :) 
m
0
l
February 23, 2014 11:40:30 AM

Uhmm you do realize that upgrading your GPU on a APU system will NOT improve the gaming because the APU is the problem right? A APU is a low cost, low end, low power combination CPU+GPU to make cheap PCs for the masses (the 90% that just Facebook, Email and Flapping Bird) NOT made for gaming. Further as the APU motherboard ONLY works for APUs, you couldn't even upgrade to a FX CPU, the computer is a dead end cheap quick solution.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Cor...
This is the finding on the 'BETTER' APU than the OP has against the OLD i3-3xxx CPUs, not the current Haswell i3-4xxx CPUs sold.

"that depending on the game, you won’t be able to achieve a good frame rate (i.e., a good gaming experience) even when lowering all image quality settings to their minimums. From the games we ran, we achieved a terrific frame rate on StarCraft II (almost 80 frames
per second), a good frame rate on FarCry 2 (around 40 frames per second), and a playable frame rate on DiRT3 (36 frames per second). However, on Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2 the frame rate was below 20. "
**NOTE THE YEAR on these 'games' tested, they are NOT COD:Ghosts, AC4, BF4, etc !!**

"Similarly to what we learned with the previous generation of AMD APUs, the A10-5800K lags behind its competitors in general processing performance. The Core i3-3220 is faster than the A10-5800K for day-to-day operations."

So you would have to replace all the components except the Hard Drive and DVD player (probably even the case since it MAY not fit parts NOT made by the Manufacturer), which really means a whole new PC. A 'gaming PC' able to play 2013 and forward games, at 'High Settings, 1920x1080 aka 1080p display, 45FPS during 64man maps' is no less then $700, Ultra 50FPS minimum standard is no less then $1000. If these are 'too expensive' then you joining the large number of people buying consoles where a new Game released 10 years (see the PS3/360) after the console was made still works perfectly as advertised with no need to 'upgrade' because the Videocard/whatever can't "achive frame rate" to make it more then a slideshow.
m
0
l
February 23, 2014 1:15:12 PM

Tom Tancredi said:
Uhmm you do realize that upgrading your GPU on a APU system will NOT improve the gaming because the APU is the problem right? A APU is a low cost, low end, low power combination CPU+GPU to make cheap PCs for the masses (the 90% that just Facebook, Email and Flapping Bird) NOT made for gaming. Further as the APU motherboard ONLY works for APUs, you couldn't even upgrade to a FX CPU, the computer is a dead end cheap quick solution.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Cor...
This is the finding on the 'BETTER' APU than the OP has against the OLD i3-3xxx CPUs, not the current Haswell i3-4xxx CPUs sold.

"that depending on the game, you won’t be able to achieve a good frame rate (i.e., a good gaming experience) even when lowering all image quality settings to their minimums. From the games we ran, we achieved a terrific frame rate on StarCraft II (almost 80 frames
per second), a good frame rate on FarCry 2 (around 40 frames per second), and a playable frame rate on DiRT3 (36 frames per second). However, on Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2 the frame rate was below 20. "
**NOTE THE YEAR on these 'games' tested, they are NOT COD:Ghosts, AC4, BF4, etc !!**

"Similarly to what we learned with the previous generation of AMD APUs, the A10-5800K lags behind its competitors in general processing performance. The Core i3-3220 is faster than the A10-5800K for day-to-day operations."

So you would have to replace all the components except the Hard Drive and DVD player (probably even the case since it MAY not fit parts NOT made by the Manufacturer), which really means a whole new PC. A 'gaming PC' able to play 2013 and forward games, at 'High Settings, 1920x1080 aka 1080p display, 45FPS during 64man maps' is no less then $700, Ultra 50FPS minimum standard is no less then $1000. If these are 'too expensive' then you joining the large number of people buying consoles where a new Game released 10 years (see the PS3/360) after the console was made still works perfectly as advertised with no need to 'upgrade' because the Videocard/whatever can't "achive frame rate" to make it more then a slideshow.


TY very much for all that info I def learned a couple things BUT I do not use the APU for graphics just processing and tbh it well exceeds any requirments for any game I play.. I already upgraded my video card once and got ALOT better gaming performance from 1 upgrade so Im sure it will definately improve by getting this card.. TBH im kind of doubting that there wont be a FPS improvement hence Ive already upgraded with great results. The MOBO is NOT a APU mobo.. the mobo is a FM2 .. I just got the APU bcuz of the price.. Im able to run recording programs games and internet all at once.. Im using a geforce gt 520 for graphics... THATS the problem
m
0
l
February 23, 2014 1:19:16 PM

Tom Tancredi said:
Uhmm you do realize that upgrading your GPU on a APU system will NOT improve the gaming because the APU is the problem right? A APU is a low cost, low end, low power combination CPU+GPU to make cheap PCs for the masses (the 90% that just Facebook, Email and Flapping Bird) NOT made for gaming. Further as the APU motherboard ONLY works for APUs, you couldn't even upgrade to a FX CPU, the computer is a dead end cheap quick solution.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Cor...
This is the finding on the 'BETTER' APU than the OP has against the OLD i3-3xxx CPUs, not the current Haswell i3-4xxx CPUs sold.

"that depending on the game, you won’t be able to achieve a good frame rate (i.e., a good gaming experience) even when lowering all image quality settings to their minimums. From the games we ran, we achieved a terrific frame rate on StarCraft II (almost 80 frames
per second), a good frame rate on FarCry 2 (around 40 frames per second), and a playable frame rate on DiRT3 (36 frames per second). However, on Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2 the frame rate was below 20. "
**NOTE THE YEAR on these 'games' tested, they are NOT COD:Ghosts, AC4, BF4, etc !!**

"Similarly to what we learned with the previous generation of AMD APUs, the A10-5800K lags behind its competitors in general processing performance. The Core i3-3220 is faster than the A10-5800K for day-to-day operations."

So you would have to replace all the components except the Hard Drive and DVD player (probably even the case since it MAY not fit parts NOT made by the Manufacturer), which really means a whole new PC. A 'gaming PC' able to play 2013 and forward games, at 'High Settings, 1920x1080 aka 1080p display, 45FPS during 64man maps' is no less then $700, Ultra 50FPS minimum standard is no less then $1000. If these are 'too expensive' then you joining the large number of people buying consoles where a new Game released 10 years (see the PS3/360) after the console was made still works perfectly as advertised with no need to 'upgrade' because the Videocard/whatever can't "achive frame rate" to make it more then a slideshow.


the only time a APU will result in "0 performance enhancement" is if your using the APU as the graphics processor trying to play certain games.. or if your using the onboard APU graphics with low system mem (because APU's run mainly from memory and mem speed)
m
0
l
February 23, 2014 9:23:08 PM

I understand about the OnChip GPU being negated by a card, but even with a seperate card, but really that has nothing (rendering) to do with what I am talking about. Older games your right, it was just alot of rendering of graphics, get a bigger card, better rendering pretty much negating the CPU.

With 2013 that changed though and some people aren't seeing it. Let me show you a couple of charts from BF4 for example.
Alpha:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battle...
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battle...
Beta:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-im...
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-im...
FINAL: http://oi42.tinypic.com/66yc7r.jpg

As you can see, as the code was more and more finalized the demands increased more and more on the... CPU.. not GPU. Because the physics and other 'under the hood' code had NOTHING to do with rendering (the GPU only job). It requires DATA PROCESSING, which is solely the CPU job. Now if you look at the IMPACT the game has on much more powerful CPUs you can see "how much" of the CPU is being slammed to do this processing (look at the poor FX-4/6 chips!!OMG). Want more proof? Simply search these forums when BF4 was 'released' and look at all the FX-4/6 owners WHINING "BF3 works perfectly fine on my system but BF4 doesn't work for *&^%". Why? Because, look at how much demand is put on those BETTER CPUs.

In summary, casual (Angry Birds/Plants vs Zombies) you really dont' need much for GPU, so upgrading won't do 'alot' for those sorts of games. Old games can benefit from a GPU increase, but depending on how much of a GPU (say a Titan or R9) your going to have this overly expensive card sitting there twiddling its thumb much of the time because the APU is too underpowered to keep up with the HIGHER performance demand of the GPU (aka bottleneck or "why does my GPU only show 30% utilization but my A8/A10 shows 80-90% utilization?").
Looking at 2013 games forward (that means COD Ghosts2 when it is made, or BF5, AC5, etc.) the demands on the CPU is necessary, to make the game 'work', and can't be 'bypassed' with a 'bigger GPU' to solve the issue. More cores are being used, and unfortunately / fortunately the iCore HyperThreading does the best job of 'threading' or acting as traffic cop to the data processing to maximize performance, something AMD refuses / can't seem to resolve. Many many tests show the AMD with more 'real cores' basically stumble over each other because there is no solid 'thread management' like Hyperthreading, so the 'more cores' causes 'more confusion' rather than 'more performance' LIKE IT SHOULD over the less 'real cores' Intel CPUs use (i7 has only 4 'real' cores, a FX-8xxx has actually 8).
m
0
l
February 24, 2014 11:17:33 AM

Tom Tancredi said:
I understand about the OnChip GPU being negated by a card, but even with a seperate card, but really that has nothing (rendering) to do with what I am talking about. Older games your right, it was just alot of rendering of graphics, get a bigger card, better rendering pretty much negating the CPU.

With 2013 that changed though and some people aren't seeing it. Let me show you a couple of charts from BF4 for example.
Alpha:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battle...
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battle...
Beta:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-im...
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-im...
FINAL: http://oi42.tinypic.com/66yc7r.jpg

As you can see, as the code was more and more finalized the demands increased more and more on the... CPU.. not GPU. Because the physics and other 'under the hood' code had NOTHING to do with rendering (the GPU only job). It requires DATA PROCESSING, which is solely the CPU job. Now if you look at the IMPACT the game has on much more powerful CPUs you can see "how much" of the CPU is being slammed to do this processing (look at the poor FX-4/6 chips!!OMG). Want more proof? Simply search these forums when BF4 was 'released' and look at all the FX-4/6 owners WHINING "BF3 works perfectly fine on my system but BF4 doesn't work for *&^%". Why? Because, look at how much demand is put on those BETTER CPUs.

In summary, casual (Angry Birds/Plants vs Zombies) you really dont' need much for GPU, so upgrading won't do 'alot' for those sorts of games. Old games can benefit from a GPU increase, but depending on how much of a GPU (say a Titan or R9) your going to have this overly expensive card sitting there twiddling its thumb much of the time because the APU is too underpowered to keep up with the HIGHER performance demand of the GPU (aka bottleneck or "why does my GPU only show 30% utilization but my A8/A10 shows 80-90% utilization?").
Looking at 2013 games forward (that means COD Ghosts2 when it is made, or BF5, AC5, etc.) the demands on the CPU is necessary, to make the game 'work', and can't be 'bypassed' with a 'bigger GPU' to solve the issue. More cores are being used, and unfortunately / fortunately the iCore HyperThreading does the best job of 'threading' or acting as traffic cop to the data processing to maximize performance, something AMD refuses / can't seem to resolve. Many many tests show the AMD with more 'real cores' basically stumble over each other because there is no solid 'thread management' like Hyperthreading, so the 'more cores' causes 'more confusion' rather than 'more performance' LIKE IT SHOULD over the less 'real cores' Intel CPUs use (i7 has only 4 'real' cores, a FX-8xxx has actually 8).


I DO know that amd quad cores run like intel duo cores because intel will always make superior processors but I dont play super graphic intensive games I mean on skyrim... alllll low settings I got about 15 fps... then I upgraded from a AMD Athlon DUAL core (and MOBO intergrated graphics) to the A8 and the Geforce gt 520.. and it brought me up to about 35-40 fps (outside in skyrim) inside Im getting anywhere from 80-100fps ... so with this new card I expect to still see a improvement in fps .. I also pla a F2P FPS called "Soldier Front 2" on med settings I get anywhere from 54-120 fps (depending on map) and the game isnt that graphic intensive so I definately expect to also see a raise there... My system specs have been tested to see if my rig is compatible with COD:Ghosts and I dont pass right now.. but thats because of my GPU with this new GPU I will be "Ghosts Ready" I appreciate all your info I will definately take all these things into count while testing the new GPU should be here tomorrow Ill let you know!
m
0
l
February 26, 2014 3:26:58 PM

GOT A 40 FPS IMPROVEMENT ON SKYRIM.. AND A 70 FPS IMPROVEMENT ON OTHER GAMES!!! WITH THE GTX 750. THANKS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION!
m
0
l
!