A good cpu for a 4870 radeon

[kal20mx]

Ok so i thought I could upgrade my rig but I cant at the moment and I can only spend around 300$ I currently have a
Athlon x2 4600
2GB DDR2 800
and 1950 radeon pro

But I want to get the RAdeon 4870 512 maybe the 1GB but im not sure if my processor can handle it. I dont want to go to intel since I dont have any money yet and I love my M2n sli deluxe mobo. can the 4600 handle it? or should I get a 6400 cpu and a 4850?

 

[Zecow]

get a new cpu.. OC it above 3Ghz and you should be fine.

 

[chechnyan]

you want to spend 300$ on cpu and gpu?!
before that tell us whats the resolution you use
the 1GB will not be necessary am sure
the 6400 x2 is the highest cpu you can get for that mobo
you still combine the HD4870 with you current cpu and you will for sure feel the difference over you 4600 x2
if you don't play in big res
i may suggest to pick the hd4850 its around 160$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102770

 

[kyzarvs]

I've just played through the Crysis demo on my Phenom 9650 (stock speeds - about the same as your 4600 but with twice the cores?). I have a Sapphire 4870 512mb graphics card, running at 1920x1200 on XP-P.

Seemed fine to me with everything on max except AA. I have 4GB physical memory for dual-channel operation though obviously XP only sees 32bits worth - 3.something GB.

I do see slow down when there are thousands of units on CnC Kanes Wrath - but that's as it is a strictly one-core game. Everything else I've played seems to zip along nicely. It's the only game that the extra clock-speed of my old x2 6000 makes a difference.

I'd probably go for the x2 6000 CPU (only £66 here in the UK) + 4850 which I've also had and is a superb card with less noise and driver issues.

 

[kyzarvs]

Would like to point out that CnC slowdown is down to AI calculations and is entirely down to the CPU - I've been playing on max graphics settings since my 8800gt.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

^^^ ditto

 

[kal20mx]

Oh I forgot to mention I play on a 22inch 1650*1050. I love my monitor so im not gona get a higher resolution one. Is 4870 worth it or 4850 or 8800GTX on this resolution?
So should I get the card first? or get me a cpu first?

 

[Onus]

Be sure to check for the highest wattage CPU your mobo can safely support without burning up.

 

[sailer]

Oh I forgot to mention I play on a 22inch 1650*1050. I love my monitor so im not gona get a higher resolution one. Is 4870 worth it or 4850 or 8800GTX on this resolution?
So should I get the card first? or get me a cpu first?

Two things. If you do overclocking, I think an overclocked 5000 BE would be a great CPU for the money. Second, I think a 4870 would be better than a 4850. I have a 4870 with a 22" Samsung monitor and it does a great job and is well worth it at a resolution of 1650x1050.

 

[zebula234]

I thought I saw a Toms Hardware article on just this topic recently, I was right.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-gaming-benchmark,2054-1.html


Basically just slap a 4850 in it and most games aren't that CPU limited. A 4600 is right on the edge of being upgradable(and worth the money). A 6400 is like 120 and a 4850 is like 160-70 on newegg right now. A 4870 would pretty much have to be paired with a 6400 to make it worth the money, but with the 4850 you just slap that in it with your current CPU.

 

[someguy7]

I agree with sailer, I would go for the 5000BE and overclock it. Since its nice and cheap. If your not going to OC the 6400 would be nice also

 

[epsilon84]

How far can you overclock your current CPU? If you can clock it near 3GHz just stick with what you have, otherwise a cheap X2 overclocked to 3GHz+ is the go, or you can just get the X2 6400+ (although its overpriced for my liking, I'd stick with the X2 6000+).

Looking at Far Cry 2 performance at 1680 x 1050 with a 4870 1GB, I'd say the minimum CPU required for decent performance would be the X2 6000+, anything below that is clearly bottlenecking the GPU as can be seen below:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,663817/Reviews/Far_Cry_2_GPU_and_CPU_benchmarks/?page=2

 

[kassenz]

I've been reading Tom's and Anandtech lately, and Futuremark ORB. Most of the reviews are using a $1000+ Intel overclocked quad to show the spread.

For $300, there is not much you can do. But right now computer parts are at an all time low price for what performance you'll get. I am also an AMD guy. I won't buy an Intel, but right now the Intel quads and e8400 are strongest performing overclockers. 3dMark 2006 scores over 20,000 with the old video card you have.

I would just OC the CPU you got. The 4600 x2 is pretty close to the 6400 x2 honestly. The new 5600 Black edition is 65nm vs 90nm and I've heard they can over clock to 3.3ghz. But the 4600 x2 is the same 90nm core as a 6400, only the multiplier is at 12x. Try overlclocking what you've got. Set the ram ratio lower, bump up the volts, set the bus up gradually. You should be able to hit 3ghz with it. The money you spent on a new chip will barely show much difference.

These guys are right. The best GPU card for the money now is the ATI 4850 ($150), read TOM's artical on what they can do with and without Crossfire mode. You should feel a little difference, and the benchmarks will improve a little over the ATI 1900. I prefer Nvidia GPU's. I been reading alot about the 260's and GX2's. I just shoe-horned in a 9800GTX ($150). With the 9800GTX, it runs physx and CUDA, and BF2, and nVidia coded games a little better. Benchmarks on an old single core AMD 3700+ OC'd @2.8ghz only improved 1500 in 3dmark 2005 and 850pts in 3dMark 2006 over the 7950GX2 I just retired. Without a more powerful processor, the more expensive video cards will be just waiting and you won't see any benefit from anything more. A 260, or a 280, or 4870, would just be bragging right, not really anything noticeably faster over a 4850 or 9800GTX.