Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best new graphics card to go with an E6700 CPU?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2008 6:51:29 PM

Hey guys,

I'm currently looking at getting a new graphics card for my PC for a bit of a performance boost, but I'm a bit concerned about how much actual potential I'll get out of one of them with my current system.

At present I've got:
Intel E6700 2.66 Ghz CPU
2 GB DDR2 667 Ram
8800 GTS 328 MB Graphics Card
560 Watt Silverstone PSU

I thought about getting a Radeon 4850 or 4870 or even a GeForce GX2 - but would I actually get the most out of these cards with my CPU and would there be a significant difference over my present graphics card?

Also, would it be worth upgrading to 4 GB of Ram at this point for more recent games?

Overclocking my CPU to avoid bottlenecks is out of the question, BTW, as I have an HP Desktop and the BIOS has disabled any kind of tampering.

Thanks in advance for assistance.
August 30, 2008 6:58:19 PM

I would go with either a 4870 or GTX260. They should be about 60-80% faster than your current card. As for your CPU, it should be fine. 2gb is enough for most games if you have XP. Your powersupply should hande it no probem. All is ago!
August 30, 2008 7:05:44 PM

if you were to go with an HD4850, i dont think your cpu will bottleneck you video card

if you are using vista 64, you are definitely gonna want to get 4gb of DDR2 800 ram (not 667 ram)...i tried out vista ultimate 32 for a little while and wasnt satisfied with my 2gb of ram...but i would definitely recommend getting good solid ddr2 800 for sure

Related resources
August 30, 2008 7:18:10 PM
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2008 7:29:48 PM

ahslan said:
if you were to go with an HD4850, i dont think your cpu will bottleneck you video card

if you are using vista 64, you are definitely gonna want to get 4gb of DDR2 800 ram (not 667 ram)...i tried out vista ultimate 32 for a little while and wasnt satisfied with my 2gb of ram...but i would definitely recommend getting good solid ddr2 800 for sure


I'm pretty sure my motherboard won't support DDR2 800 memory, unfortunately. It's a ASUS P5LP-LE - which appears to be specifically manufactured for HP desktop PCs and doesn't have a great deal of leeway as far as upgrades are concerned.

Is there much of a notable difference in paying for more expensive memory in the same specs as budget (ie Kingston) memory, do you think?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2008 7:32:22 PM

I just thought I should also mention that I am running games in 1440 x 900 resolution on a 19 inch widescreen monitor. Would there be much need to go beyond a Radeon 4850 at this resolution?
August 30, 2008 7:59:19 PM

Quote:
I just thought I should also mention that I am running games in 1440 x 900 resolution on a 19 inch widescreen monitor. Would there be much need to go beyond a Radeon 4850 at this resolution?


Not for overwhelming majority of current games. Future titles will take more though.
a c 270 U Graphics card
a c 334 à CPUs
August 30, 2008 8:09:33 PM

It is probably not worth upgrading your vga card unless you skip a couple of levels, and get a significant boost. In your case, you are looking at a 4870 or GTX260 or better.
Corsair says better gaming performance with 4gb vs. 2gb. http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Performan...
DDR667 is fine, and upgrading to 4gb should not cost much.
a c 190 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2008 8:15:25 PM

AT your current resolution at HD4850 will be fine for most titles around now. But you might want to consider a GTX260 or a HD4870 if you plan on keeping the system for more than another 18 months or just like playing at very high AA and AF, or plan on a bigger monitor in that time frame.

As AHSLAN says, if you`re using a 64 bit OS and particularly Vista, an extra 2 Gigs of memory is a good idea.
But do n`t worry if your rig can`t use the very latest (expensive) memory. I doubt anyone could actually SEE a difference between DDR 800 and DDR667 equipped machines, but there is a difference between 2 and 4 Gb under Vista as it uses so much memory.
August 30, 2008 8:19:11 PM

coozie7 said:
AT your current resolution at HD4850 will be fine for most titles around now. But you might want to consider a GTX260 or a HD4870 if you plan on keeping the system for more than another 18 months or just like playing at very high AA and AF, or plan on a bigger monitor in that time frame.

As AHSLAN says, if you`re using a 64 bit OS and particularly Vista, an extra 2 Gigs of memory is a good idea.
But do n`t worry if your rig can`t use the very latest (expensive) memory. I doubt anyone could actually SEE a difference between DDR 800 and DDR667 equipped machines, but there is a difference between 2 and 4 Gb under Vista as it uses so much memory.


Why a 4870 or gtx260? When 9800gx2 is cheaper than both and outperforms a gtx280 across the board? :p 
August 30, 2008 8:27:28 PM

there will be no need to go beyond a 4850 at that resolution...

where did u find out that ur mobo only supports 667 ram? i tried looking it up real quick and couldnt find anything...

Edit: just found the mobo specs...ur right, it doesnt support ddr2 800...sorry
!