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outdated apps.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.