GTS 250 1GB vs 8800 GTS 320 mb @ 1920x1080 on old p4?

the GTS 250 1GB won't make any improvement. not that its not any better then the 8800GTS but your single core CPU is just to slow for either of those cards.

you have 3 choices

1) play at lower resolutions

2) see if you can upgrade your CPU, then see what the new/used CPU market has to offer

3) put the money towards a new PC

  so an upgrade in vram won't help at the high resolution? Benchmarks (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-radeon,...) seemed to indicate that the gts 250 was ~100%+ better than the gts 320 at high resolutions.

There is no upgrade path on my cpu... new mobo/cpu/ram is the only option for an upgrade there.

If it won't help though then saving sounds like the best plan.

"We ran the following graphics cards on a PC with an Intel Core i7-920 CPU overclocked to 3.8 GHz (its default clock rate is 2.66 GHz), minimizing the possibility of a processor-based bottleneck."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-radeon,...

there is no question the GTS 250 is a better card but they ran those tests with a 4 core / 8 thread CPU.

Indeed, your best bet is to try upgrade the mobo, RAM and CPU.

The cheapest way to do this would be to grab an AMD RANA 440 CPU - $74.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

A low end motherboard for probably about $60 and then 4gb RAM which will be $100. Though I believe you can get a mobo that would use DDR2 RAM if you really needed to save money (assuming your PC uses DDR2)

thanks all; sounds like the gfx card upgrade isn't worth it - though I'm going to try and run some tests vs reference benchmarks to see how bottlnecked I am at 1080p (I trust the replies here, but still have a hard time believing the limited vram isn't costing me frames on top of the cpu limitations at these high resolutions).

I probably won't upgrade the platform yet - I was hoping to do this graphics update because I could sell off the gts on ebay for ~40-50 bucks and then the total upgrade cost would be around $50-60, which I can afford (I don't even have $100 to spend on upgrades now). For a platform upgrade, I'm planning to just wait a couple years until my current build is totally obsolete and I have the money (~$600) to build a new system.

I'm pretty positive the GPU would help a ton.

The reason why your game is slow at such a high resolution is the amount of video RAM you don't have. 320MB fo 1080p is just not enough. You need more video RAM. I would say go for it it's not a huge expense and you will see a huge improvement until you can save up around ~1000 and get a core i7 - the real mans processor.

Run a benchmark to confirm but I'm pretty positive the GPU will help a lot.
Good luck!  

+1 to xxsk8er101xx.

The benchmark that was posted here shows a 500% improvment for the GTS250 1GB over the 8800GTS320 at 1920x1200 resolution and not a mere 100%. The use of an i7 processor contributes to the fact that the bottleneck is coming from the GPU and not from the CPU.

hey wait up, isnt the p4 560 socket 775? check the official website of your mobo and check if it supports at least a single core2 chip.

if it does, even a single e5200 (if you can still find one) would help alleviate the cpu bottleneck.

this is the second dumbest post i have read on this thread. video ram is only effective when the video card is fast enough to use it. that is why an ATI 5770 512mb or 4870 512mb is better at 1080p then the GTS 250 1GB (I card I have owned)

and this gets the award for dumbest post on the thread. if a card runs faster with a faster CPU then its a CPU bottleneck not a GPU one. If the 8800GTS 320mb has the exact same FPS with a P4 as it does with an i7 then it would be a GPU bottleneck. learn some facts then make posts, not the other way around.

...so the 500% difference in games between the GTS250 1GB and the 8800GTS320 @1920X1200 (no AA AF) is because the i7 is a bottleneck there? I thought it was because of the smaller 320MB memory of the 8800GTS320... sorry...

so are you suggesting that the gts250 can not effectively use 1gb of VRAM?

vram usage depends on the game in question.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/ecs-geforce-gts-250-1024-mb-review-test/11

guru3d disagress with you.

you need to reread what I stated. "video ram is only effective when the video card is fast enough to use it. that is why an ATI 5770 512mb or 4870 512mb is better at 1080p then the GTS 250 1GB"

never stated the GTS250 can not use the extra ram. what I stated was the extra ram won't put it ahead of a faster card. so jonnyguru does not disagree with me unless you can find a benchmark of the GTS 250 1GB running faster then a 4870 512mb.

what jonnyguru does agree with, is that you fail to understand what I just stated.

PS. all those tests where run on a Core i7 965 @ 3750 MHz (3.6 + Turbo mode). not a P4 single core, if they where any difference between the cards would be marginal.

here is a benchmark using a 8800GTS (a card below the graphics performance of the GTS 250) and a quad core CPU. they ran benchmarks with one, two, and four cores using games that are not multi-core optimized. there was a 25% decrease in FPS when running with just one core @ 1280x1024.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING...

Thanks for the replies all... My system is definitely cpu-bottlenecked pretty bad. My 3dmark score is roughly half of what it would be if I had a modern cpu. I get the same 3dmark06 score at 1280x1024 & 1920x1200 (~5k 3dmarks), and reducing my resolution from 1080p to 1600x900 in Borderlands yielded only a ~5-10% increase in fps.

My cpu is LGA-775. My mobo is an older Intel 915G board (the model is D915PCY) - I am pretty sure it cannot support anything more advanced than a Prescott based chip, even though some of the core2 chips are 775, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong here.

I get an average of 20fps in Borderlands right now at almost maxed settings 1080p. If a GTS 250 would bump me up to an average in the mid 30s, I would consider the purchase warranted.

I'm inclined to think ct1615 is correct in his thoughts since I'm seeing the exact same performance at 1080p and 1280x1024 and that those performances are only 50-60% of what they'd be on a newer cpu; my guess is that a newer card would offer marginal improvement but not enough for what I desire (a ~30-50% fps increase in UE3 based games).

Best answer selected by BigMack70.

oh, alright, then lets put into perspective what you just posted in response to the other dude.

lets deduce:

resolution > 1080p > 320mb gts320mb > insufficient vram according to the other dude is slow > change to gts2510 1gb says other dude > according to you is dumb > :


conclusion:



if you're speaking in english, i believe what you're saying is that 1gb vram on the gts250 would be put to waste @ 1080p hence the word "effective" and "dumb" is used.

otherwise, care to point out how that post became dumb.



ofcourse it wont, thats why its a "faster" card. but it did bring it closer (managed to squeeze 10fps extra on farcry2 which is vram sensitive @ higher resolutions) to a 4870 1gb, 3fps difference.

i have no problem with you labeling people dumb but when your analogy is flawed as well..

ps: i cant find any 5770 512mb review

i have borderlands, its fairly easy to run from a graphic perspective but you do need a dual core for it.

i maxed it out easy with GTS250 but i also had a triple core processor at the time. res 1680x1050.

you're right, i looked it up, bad luck your board cant support a c2d.

1. your first statement is not English, can you please clarify it?

2. once again I never stated that, I have no clue where you come up with this crap.

3. glad we can agree. so that would conclude my point of a video card is more then just RAM. since that is over, if you want to continue debating with whatever it is you are attempting to state in your other points, I suggest you find a mirror. A dictionary and thesaurus may also help. If you do lose the debate (my money is on the other guy), try not to punch out the other guy, its bad luck to break a mirror.

yup, and quit pretending you actually know something when you dont... and i do hope the logical fallacies that fill your brain don't spill on your way out, you'd dirty the floor.

ps: you also need to work on subject-verb agreement between clauses before you go out calling people dumb.

i made a point, proved it, and you agreed with it. guess I do know something after all, huh?  

you made a point, failed to prove it (guessing you are used to failing), and then when off on a ramble and starting to make things up

no need to prove who is the fool any further

calling people dumb actually proves something? i agreed with what again?

lets have a look again shall we?

[/b]

unless theres a new school of thought wherein an argument is followed by a nonsensical non-relative statement, you'd actually be a genius.

please learn how to properly use the words "that is why" after a statement. with what you did,thats like declaring a variable with another declaration of a variable.

so based on your idiotic hypothesis again, "why" is the 5770/4870 faster than a gts250 1gb?

Here is a benchmark of UT3 (the OP mentioned UE3-based games) on a single core Athlon 64 4000+ (only 10% faster than P4 3.6GHz) and 8800GTX which has 768MB memory at 2048x1536 reslolution, and we get 76 FPS!

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183499/p-5.html

Top that!

ok. on the exact same chart you just linked, the Intel Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz increased FPS by 10% (84fps) from your set up. 84 is higher then 76, be definition on top of it. proof the card was bottle necked by the CPU. thanks for proving my point, I appreciate it. you will also see that the E6300, better CPU don't increase FPS. that would be the reverse of the CPU bottle necking the card. the card then becomes the bottleneck.

the architure of the card in both the 5770 and 4870 is superior to that of the GTS250 1GB. a card is more then just RAM. its a GPU, the clock speed of the GPU. a bit bus, memory clock speed, shaders and their speed. no two different model cards are ever exactly alike even from the same GPU manufacturer. because of that fact, the only way to clearly see how a card will perform is by using independent benchmarks.

in independent benchmarks, the 5770 and 4870 are faster then the GTS250 1GB. that is why both cards are in fact faster.

No no no, you said "the GTS 250 1GB won't make any improvement" and I just brought a benchmark that shows that the OP will get about 60 FPS on UE3 games at 1920x1200 that is more than the 20 FPS that he is getting now with the 8800GTS320. At that resolution the 8800GTS320 causes more bottleneck than the P4 on UE3 games. You were right of course that P4 is a bottleneck in today's games no matter how high it is OCed.

good, now you actually improved, sorry for my very late reply. what you posted here is common knowledge. very good. you also missed the part where gpu performance also is relative to the game in question.


so the prelude "video ram is only effective when the video card is fast enough to use it." shouldve been omitted, since its actually moot. supporting an argument with another argument. EPIC FAIL.


oh and i remembered this 1 bit:



http://guru3d.com/article/starcraft-ii-wings-of-liberty-gpu-graphics-performance/8

although i'm not hoping for a gts250 to be generally faster than a 4870.so what now mr. self proclaimed genius?

and i still can't find anything on google regarding a "5770 512mb" being reviewed to actually throw any conclusions about that certain card. i wonder where'd you get yours?

congratulations, you posted a know fact that that nvidia cards are faster then ATI cards in SC2, even if they are lesser cards. something I, as well as everyone else on the boards have stated multiple times since the games launch. it only took you one week to figure it out. So now you have stated one single accurate thing in the entire thread....a repost of what I as well as everyone else have stated...you get a cookie  

make next week you can state how intel i5 dual cores CPUs run SCII better then Phenom II x4 and claim you found that fact also....      

face you lost, the OP agreed with me, you are just trying to save face from constantly being embarrassed...keep trying but you keep losing

FYI, here are the results of the GTS250 vs ATI 4870 512mb in multi tests (   not one test     )
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Galaxy/GeForce_GTS_2...



here is a ATI 5770 512mb, it would offer similar performance to the ATI 4870 512mb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey