I was wondering, i wanted to upgrade my video card from a Nvidia 9500 GT to a Palit GTX 470, but my processor is just an core 2 duo E7400 2.80ghz which will bottle neck my GPU.
So i decided, instead of getting a very expensive video card i was hoping to get a Nvidia GTS 250 1gb instead then upgrade to an Core 2 Quad8300 2.5G 4mb and with the money ill save i can also upgrade my 80gb hard drive to an 350gb HD.
Im just worried that getting a GTS 250 will not be future proof since there are a lot of new video cards coming up, so i might have another upgrade soon :| and i was hoping that if even if i buy a video card it would last me at least 5 more years of use.
So is it the GTX 470?
or the GTS 250?
btw, will a bottled neck 470 perform better than a GTS 250? i will be using this for mainly video editing and a little games ( i will not play crysis, BF2 and all those heavy games)
I would say that even with your current CPU the 470 will easily be better than the 250, bottlenecked just means the 470 isn't performing as well as it could, but its still a significantly better card.
I would not consider the 250 to be future proof at all, its essentially a rebadged 8800/9800 card. That said though, I'm doubtful that any card you get will still be acceptable after 5 years, at least not if tech continues as it has. To last 5 years my personal choice would be to take what you'd spend on that card, and half it, get something now and replace it in 2-3 years.
ok so ill get a CQ2, a 700GB HD and a GTS 250 for now. at least the CQ2 would be a good investment for a while i guess. and i just might get another GTS 250 then just SLI them but that for another 3 more years i have to save up for. Will this bee good rig for video editing?
I currently have the e7500 which is basically the same as yours but clocked at 2.88ghz. My previous card was a 9800gtx+ which is an exact copy or should I say the original. The GTS250 is not exactly a 8800gt/9800gt, it it an exact clock for clock copy of the 9800gtx+.
This card is great in SLI and will last you at least 2years MAX if you have two in SLI. But otherwise you would need a SLI capable motherboard which both processors you are eying can handle. If not, then just get a Radeon5770 which is better than the GTS250.
here is a thread that brings up the discussion of SLi'ing a 9800gtx+ or two GTS250's. It might be worth the investment if you would choose to buy a better motherboard with SLI capabilities, but then again, a 5850 is the best buy OVERALL and just leave your current processor as mine is still a e7500 3.0ghz and im using a 5850 just fine..... yours isnt that far off being 2.88
What resolution will you be playing at? If your reusing an 80GB drive, you're probably still on an older monitor. I'm guessing your monitor will be a bigger bottleneck then your CPU.
If this is mostly a production machine with little gaming, I would get the GTS250 or the 9800GT. (5750 would be another good card.) The important thing would be to get a fast CPU and lots of RAM to do the work you need it to do. Work first, game second. More so if you aren't playing the big bad games.
well im playing at 1920x1080 led lcd monitor. i havent replaced my hard drive since i always forget to make up back up copies etc so i still stick with it.
anyway, i was told that ATI was just solely for gaming NOT VIDEO editing therefore it wont be a good investment for the future since even though crossfire is not picky with cards its still just good for gaming unlike nvidia, it has the CUDA thingy. im not really a nvidia fan but as most articles say Nvidia is the way to go when it comes to work and play.
So, now i am planning to stick with my core 2 duo as of now. but get a better graphics card, a Palit GTX 260. would be better that a gts 250 right? and this is well kinda a good investment since 2 GTX 260 SLI'ed would be awesome.
what do you guys think? or should i really go for a processor? if thats the case i have my eyes set on the Q9400. dont have the money for the Q9550 or if its good enough the Q8400
Two words: SANDY BRIDGE.
I have the BFG nvidia gts 250 1gb, with an internal 250MB cache. I am posting to this almost 1 year old thread to support the original poster in the assertion that it's not just graphics card, but system engine that determines graphics performance. The new Intel Sandy Bridge turns system CPU into 8 threads of Nehalem fury, whatever you're up to. TechSpot is running a great review.
Today's fastest budget architecture is Sandy Bridge, which fully integrates with GTS 250 graphics in my box. SB easily provides GTS 250 an 80-90% noticeable increase in speed over same card on dual core Athlon 64. Better yet, the apps that used to snarl and crash are now unveiled as yet to mature outdated apps. nVidia roars to life with SB, not that game creators won't quickly find ways to push Intel further ahead. Budget pro graphics cannot get any better today.
Specs are i5 2500K on H67 HD3500 Graphics with 8Gb DDR3. Here's how GTS 250 integrates. CPU core delivers 3.3 Ghz power seamlessly threading GTS instructions at 340-820 million bits per second. DDR3 packs 4Gb in slot 0 and 4 in slot 1: all graphics memory has the fully dedicated use of slot 0. Motherboard provides optimal threading, integrating CPU and DDR3 into the heart of the graphics card. nVidia's hardware conducts up to 12 threads of activity at a time using DDR3 and CPU as is they were built right into the card. To restrict performance extension to just 85% more speed overlooks vast increases in stability and versatility.
I don't play games, except Windows Spider Solitaire. But I do a lot of image processing. Able to effortlessly uncover that 32-bit graphics apps like Photoshop CS5.5 are taking a last breath. Also able to casually watch as Win7-64 unsnags apps and adjusts OS environments to handle what the future promises.
More on gaming. GTS 250 does ActiveX 10. On that rendering platform, i5-i7 K-series both make it easy for GTS 250 to outperfom competition with almost equal results for both K cores (i5 SB wins some tests, i7 SB wins some tests). Why pick support from i5 vs. i7 when i7 would only cost $60 more? Hyperthreading is new tech for both core configs: though i7 boasts 6 cores, tests prove only 4 are active leaving a massive cache potential as yet ungamed, ergo unmanageable. For now though, i5 is more stable, tried and true. i7, while obviously a "future" step ahead will not provide any noticeable performance improvements, but will fetch considerably more system and application conflicts as it settles in.
I suggest you make a new post on the CPU or possibly the Graphics forums.
However, I must disagree with you in some respects regarding your above post.
Is Sandy Bridge the fastest gaming CPU option? YES
Will it improve the performance of you GPU (in this case the GTS 250) compared to say, an Athlon X2? YES
Will the GTS 250 be sufficient for running the latest games at decent framerates for some time to come? NO
The last point is the killer. Since you stated that you don't game, I assume you won't have experienced this before. Running today's games at high resolutions with eye candy enabled requires GPU muscle, end of story. Yes, a fast CPU will obviously allow the GPU room to stretch it's legs, but ultimately, the GPU supplies the bulk of the gaming performance. Pairing a GTS 250 with an i7-2600k is a bit of a waste in my opinion.