Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Buying video card pls help

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 6, 2006 5:54:08 PM

I have a n AMD 3500+, 1gig ram comp with integrated video and I want to buy a videocard. What would be the best videocard for my system? Is is ok to get the most expensive available, or will it be overkill for my CPU? Thanks.

:wink:

More about : buying video card pls

May 6, 2006 6:18:29 PM

Your CPU should be fine for quite a while. It's not going to bottleneck your system for any game currently on the market. Also, if you find that it begins to bottleneck your future games, you can always upgrade it. You shouldn't really have to worry for about a year. (Opinions on this will vary!) So, go ahead and get a top-of-the-line GPU if you want to. The x1900xt is my personal favorite right now, but if you have money to burn you can go with the x1900xtx. Of course, the 7900gtx is a darn good card, too.

Check this link if you don't want to go whole-hog just yet:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Short-List-GAMI...


Hope this helps.
May 6, 2006 6:36:53 PM

Quote:
I have a n AMD 3500+, 1gig ram comp with integrated video and I want to buy a videocard. What would be the best videocard for my system? Is is ok to get the most expensive available, or will it be overkill for my CPU? Thanks.

:wink:


What is your budget for the upgrade, and what games do you play?

EDIT: AGP or PCI-Express? What is your motherboard manufacturer and model?
Related resources
May 6, 2006 7:32:39 PM

Well, it depends on ur budget. With a 3500+ you have sufficient options (assuming you have PCIxpress), but don't go for the best card yet. Your CPU will limit most new cards out there, so popping in a X1900XTX or 7900GTX will limit the card.

We can already see the difference a low end CPU and high CPU has on gcard performance (as much as 30Fps+ in certain games, which = 30fps more on an average fps which might be 30 over 25avg in game). So it won't benefit you if you put such a gcard in and don't intend to upgrade the CPU and/or RAM significantly in the nearest of near future.

I have a 1900XTX, and a 3.4 P4 - and I can see the limitation it brings. I just don't feel like buying a new CPU or mobo sub system.
May 6, 2006 10:53:05 PM

My budget would be around 300-400. I have a PCI-Express slot. It seems from the replies I'm getting I shouldn't buy the best video cards out there. Thanks for your help.
May 6, 2006 10:57:28 PM

X1900GT...
a b U Graphics card
May 6, 2006 11:45:15 PM

Quote:
My budget would be around 300-400. I have a PCI-Express slot. It seems from the replies I'm getting I shouldn't buy the best video cards out there. Thanks for your help.


For $300-400 you can't get the best cards. I don't see a 3500+ being too much of a bottleneck for any single card you want to throw at it. You can always OC anyway. :)  I wouldn't suggest a $900+ crossfire or SLI setup though with that CPU.


My vote is X1800XT for $260 (256MB) or $300 (512MB). 7900GT is good if you want NV. Best would be a $400 X1900XT if you can find one for that price. X1900GT when available should compete well with X1800XT from what I've heard.
May 7, 2006 12:46:55 AM

Vokofpolisiekar said the 3500+ will bottleneck a high-end video card. I disagree. Thus the :?:
May 7, 2006 12:57:28 AM

Thank you for your support. :D 
May 7, 2006 3:56:17 AM

I'm running a 3500+ with an X1900XT, upgraded from a 7800GTX 256mb, and can notice the difference.

Keep in mind that I run games at 1200x1920 or 1050x1680 because I won't go any lower. But at either rez, I get a 20-50% increase in framerate. At lower resolutions, the need for a high-end card decreases.

With the X1900XT and the Chuck patch, I can also run Oblivion with HDR and 4xAA. My test run was only about 5fps lower than without 4xAA.

The 3500+ might be a bottleneck -- I can't say for sure, since I haven't tested it against any other CPU -- but you can't go wrong with a high-end, single-card GPU from either nVidia or AT paired with the 3500+. From what I've read, significant bottlenecks occur only with 2-card, high-end GPU solutions. You'll still get a performance increase with any 2 GPU's, but the bang-for-your-buck factor decreases severely without a high-end CPU.
May 7, 2006 5:21:57 AM

Modern GPUs aren't as CPU bound as older ones. Hands down I would stay with current generation cards such as 7600GT, X1800GTO, 7900GT, X1800XT. I prefer the ATI X1800 series because they have noticably better image quality and are designed to perform well under stressful processing like Anti-Aliasing (removes jaggies) which I can't play a game without. 256MB is usually sufficient especially using PCI-E

Oh and I did a little research the X1900GT looks good also it is a bit faster than the X1800XT and same or faster than 7900GT - so watch for the price to drop on these they are to replace the X1800XT. (Has 36 shader units WOW!)

nVIDIA and ATI use completely different hardware to accomplish a similar task .. it appears ATI wins on image quality nVIDIA on speed sometimes IMO
May 7, 2006 8:29:24 AM

Quote:
I have a n AMD 3500+, 1gig ram comp with integrated video and I want to buy a videocard. What would be the best videocard for my system? Is is ok to get the most expensive available, or will it be overkill for my CPU? Thanks.


don't worry. most of what is out now is not even overkill enough to kill a kids game such as oblivion.

the more appropriate question is what is your budget? a 7800gt is extremely good value for the money, if you've got more than that to spend, get a 7900gt and overclock it to gtx speeds. the alternative is to get an x1900xt. or if you're really hardcore you'll help yourself out by going for a X1900XTX crossfire setup. (oops i nearly said SLI there for a second...) :oops: 

But this is only true provided you're on the pci-e platform.
If you're on agp then you've pretty much only got to choose from the 6800gs or the 7800gs, which is not at all a hard decision.
May 7, 2006 9:22:16 AM

Well, the last time I checked, most review sites mentioned the need of a high end cpu for the likes of 1900/7900 series. If a 3.4 P4 can only clear 8000 in 3dmark05, where as a FX can clear 10000, then one can see the difference. I'm not saying the FX is the benofacto choice, just using comparison.

I'll admit that the 3500+ is a good cpu (providing it being quite a new revision ie Venice) - but ultimately the gcard will depend alot on what the cpu/memory subsystem does.

Just a thought. If I'm wrong, sorry - but that's the way I see it. :roll:
May 7, 2006 3:48:33 PM

I see what your saying. But a more powerful CPU will always give a higher score in any test/benchmark. That doesn't mean that the slower ones are actually bottlenecking the card, though. :) 
May 7, 2006 6:58:30 PM

:lol: 
Hey, thanks so much for the help. I plan to buy the x1900xt. :D 
May 7, 2006 11:32:23 PM

EXCELLENT choice! You won't be sorry, my friend.
May 8, 2006 5:43:32 PM

Hey, don't get me wrong here. The gcard plays an integral role - I fully agree - but in situations where in game the fps drops to below 30 in any given heavy shader game, a strong CPU might save your neck and give you a vital 5-10fps and dismiss the need to drop on in game settings and AA/AF. And who out there wants to crank down on settings when they are running a 1900/7900?

Just an opinion - and I never meant to scare the person off from buying the gcard, I just wanted to focus on the aspect of: a gcard can be strong, and even stronger with a proper CPU (plus mem subsystem). I also under estimated the 3500+, and apologize for that. I'm a bit Intel focused (wrongly - I know) :lol: 
!