Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Upgrading my ATi 4670???

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 1, 2010 1:38:08 AM

I've been looking for some new graphics card and I can't seem to make up my mind or find one that will convince me to buy it. I also on a budget. I can't spend more than 100$. My 4670 1GB have been performing very well IMO. I got Batman:AA and Crysis Warhead at max settings with at least 4xAA(I probably got it to run smoothly because of my max resolution of 1280x1024 :??:  ).

Anyways I would like some suggestions that may appear on top of your head to let me know about some graphics card I should get. I was looking at a 8800GT but the difference isn't that great. I just can't find a card under 100$ that does much better than my current one. I seem to find the ones that have insignificant difference. :sweat: 

Or should I save up more? As you can see my specs, I am not a very hard core gamer that requires such high resolution and crazy framerates(because I don't have the money lol :(  )

Specs :

AMD 5000+ x2 2.2GHz
Motherboard : ?? forgot
1280x1024 LCD monitor
600w PSU
ATI Powercolor 4670 1GB
2 GB RAM

More about : upgrading ati 4670

a c 196 U Graphics card
March 1, 2010 1:43:29 AM

At 1280x1024 your 4670 should be sufficient, if you are planning to upgrade your monitor try to save up a bit more for a 5770, that would be able the lowest that you will get a significant benefit over your current one.

If you arent planning to upgrade your monitor soon and are able to max stuff out at your current resolution with your current GPU why upgrade?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2010 1:46:27 AM

Save up more. You have about the best card for the price range. For $130 you can get an ATI 5770 on Newegg.com. It's completely awesome and has Direct X 11. You can even use three monitors in a panoramic resolution! It also has GDDR5!
m
0
l
Related resources
March 1, 2010 1:46:51 AM

Thanks for telling about my monitor. Now that I think of it, I need to get a better monitor at higher resolution :o  . I have a lot of saving to do. My current feels like a baby compared to other people's monitor these days.
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 1:48:54 AM

multiscreenz said:
Save up more. You have about the best card for the price range. For $130 you can get an ATI 5770 on Newegg.com. It's completely awesome and has Direct X 11. You can even use three monitors in a panoramic resolution! It also has GDDR5!


I was thinking the same thing! I wouldn't mind saving about 50 more $ to get that card.(since of directx11) Thank you :bounce: 
m
0
l

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2010 1:57:41 AM

I agree with Hunter...if you're going to stay at 1280x1024 and don't plan on upgrading your monitor anytime soon, the 4670 is quite sufficient. You could go with either the 5670 or the 8800GT (both are about 20-30% faster than the 4670) but you're probably not going to notice on your current monitor if you've already got those games at max settings on the lower resolution.

Also...isn't the 5000+ a 2.6GHz part...not 2.2GHz? You're either running that downclocked or you've got a 4200+ or a 4400+ (depending on L2 cache). You'll need at least the 5000+ speed (2.6) to be able to even push a 5670 or 8800GT. In fact, based on a few PCs I've built using an X2 240 OC'd to 3.2GHz or the FX62 (2.8GHz), those can't even push a 4670 as I've seen a difference of 1500 in 3dMark06 going from an X2 240 OC'd to an X4 945 at 3.2GHz or a Q9650 at 3.0GHz. The 5000+ is a good deal slower than the 240 and FX62 even at 2.6GHz, let alone at 2.2GHz.
Share
a c 195 U Graphics card
March 1, 2010 2:06:58 AM

I think dkapke is right, that your CPU at 2.2GHz will likely bottleneck even a HD4670; I know a 4850e does, and your CPU isn't all that much faster.
It sounds like you've just been bitten by the upgrade bug, since you're generally satisfied with your machine's performance. It also looks pretty well balanced; if you upgrade your monitor, you'd probably have to upgrade both the GPU and the CPU to get overall better FPS.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 1, 2010 2:07:21 AM

HD 5770 for $130? Where? Wait you mean the HD 5750?

(I checked newegg, cheapest is $144 for Powercolor HD 5770)

$130=HD 5770 by powercolor
m
0
l
a c 359 U Graphics card
March 1, 2010 2:50:55 AM

For $100 the best you can hope for is a HD 5670 which is roughly 20% - 30% faster than the HD 4670. However, for your resolution it is not worth the upgrade.

If the HD 4670 has been performing very well in your opinion, then I do not see the need for you to upgrade. There's a difference between itching to upgrade and needing to upgrade.
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 12:23:33 PM

dkapke said:
I agree with Hunter...if you're going to stay at 1280x1024 and don't plan on upgrading your monitor anytime soon, the 4670 is quite sufficient. You could go with either the 5670 or the 8800GT (both are about 20-30% faster than the 4670) but you're probably not going to notice on your current monitor if you've already got those games at max settings on the lower resolution.

Also...isn't the 5000+ a 2.6GHz part...not 2.2GHz? You're either running that downclocked or you've got a 4200+ or a 4400+ (depending on L2 cache). You'll need at least the 5000+ speed (2.6) to be able to even push a 5670 or 8800GT. In fact, based on a few PCs I've built using an X2 240 OC'd to 3.2GHz or the FX62 (2.8GHz), those can't even push a 4670 as I've seen a difference of 1500 in 3dMark06 going from an X2 240 OC'd to an X4 945 at 3.2GHz or a Q9650 at 3.0GHz. The 5000+ is a good deal slower than the 240 and FX62 even at 2.6GHz, let alone at 2.2GHz.


I wondering myself about my cpu clock speeds at 2.2GHz instead of 2.6Ghz. I found out mine was "generic" from performance test benchmark. The 5000+ 2.2Ghz was cheaper than the other 5000+ 2.6Ghz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This is where I got mine! From the comments of the product, how in the world did those two people, who wrote a review, OC'd to a quad? I can't even make a stable OC to a 2.4Ghz... is it because of their motherboard? what software?
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 12:26:45 PM

Thanks guys :] I've made my mind that I am not going to upgrade. JaguarSKX and jtt283 are right about me I guess. Me upgrading one thing will make me upgrade everything again... I'll save up until I can buy all the things.
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 12:30:09 PM

AsAnAtheist said:
HD 5770 for $130? Where? Wait you mean the HD 5750?

(I checked newegg, cheapest is $144 for Powercolor HD 5770)

$130=HD 5770 by powercolor


Yea I know about the 5770 @ 144$. Thats why I replied to the other person that I am going to save up 50$ more from my 100$ budget for graphics card. :kaola: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2010 3:09:49 AM

sh3bang said:
I wondering myself about my cpu clock speeds at 2.2GHz instead of 2.6Ghz. I found out mine was "generic" from performance test benchmark. The 5000+ 2.2Ghz was cheaper than the other 5000+ 2.6Ghz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This is where I got mine! From the comments of the product, how in the world did those two people, who wrote a review, OC'd to a quad? I can't even make a stable OC to a 2.4Ghz... is it because of their motherboard? what software?


Wow...I wasn't even aware they came out with an AM2+ version and named it 5000+. Gads...AMD and they're naming conventions. UGH! I imagine they're using 785G/790 boards with the SB710 southbridge chip (no software required). That said, I know the PHENOM X2s and X3s can unlock, and some of the Athlon IIs can unlock their L3 cache, but I've never heard of an Athlon unlocking. VERY interesting. Oh well...they're not available any longer anyways. Good to know, though. The first commenter was using a Gigabyte MA785GM-US2H which I've used to unlock 550BE's quite a few times, so that makes sense.

There's no reason you shouldn't be able to bump up your 65w part to 2.3GHz fairly easily - bump the front side bus (clock) to 210. Beyond that, though, you'll need to start adjusting your hyper-transport speeds. By default, they're set at a 5x multiplier of the clock. 1,000MHz is the default, but they can usually be pushed to 1100-1200 without much issue. Once you go beyond 210, you'll need to bump the multi down to 4x. So, say, a FBS of 225 with a 4x mutli on the Hyper-Transport will net 1000 - right where it needs to be. But, that'll get you a processor speed of 225x11 - 2.475. I doubt you'd need higher voltage and that low of speed, but you could try. The 65w parts are pretty generous when it comes to their voltage. Try a bump of .05v (1.45v) and see how you come out. Keep playing with the FSB but keeping your HT to under 1100ish.
m
0
l
March 13, 2010 11:33:50 PM

Best answer selected by sh3bang.
m
0
l
!