Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best Card without severe bottleneck.....

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2010 8:44:54 PM

Hey,
Currently I have a mediocre computer and a full HD monitor and is a pain.
My specs:
Phenom 9750 at 2.4GHZ
2GB Crucial DDR2 800
EVGA 9600GSO 1.5GB
ECS A740GM-M Mobo
I was wondering what the best upgrade would be without a bottleneck...
I have no preference over anything because I never had a problem.

More about : card severe bottleneck

a c 189 U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 1:29:13 AM

What is your current PSU? brand? model? Budget?
Can you OC that Phenom 9750?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 12:12:17 AM

Sorry, have been absent.
THe PSU is 450 WAtts with 36 amps.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 189 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 12:28:50 AM

Wow, 450W PSU with 36A on 12V rail?
That's a good PSU. :) 

HD5770 or GTX460 maybe a good choice for you, that's a great upgrade from 9600GSO. Depend on your budget...
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 12:41:36 AM

Whether or not there will be a bottleneck really depends on the specific game as well as settings. The HD5770 through the GTX 460 like wa1 suggested would be good choices for your system. Another 2 gigs of ram would be a good idea as well.
Score
0
December 15, 2010 10:07:26 AM

i would suggest a gts 450.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 7:58:10 PM

My budget would be up to about $200
@jyjjy Can I replace the CPU with a newer Phenom II?
Because i might upgrade to an Phenom II 955..
SO does a CPU, RAM, or GPU take priority?
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 9:56:47 PM

2 more gigs of ram is pretty cheap these days($30) so it shouldn't really be put on the same level as the other much more expensive components. Considering you are using a 9600GSO(and the weaker version at that) on an HD monitor a new GPU is definitely a higher priority that your CPU which isn't very good but is still passable.
The CPU compatibility chart for your motherboard is a bit weird;
http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail...
It does actually list 2 Phenom II x4 processors but they are the low power models which I would think indicates the socket has limited power draw and can't handle the higher power chips. However it lists older processors up to 95w and most of the current Phenom II x4 processors are also 95w. To be safe you may want to get one of the 2 chips they list and just overclock it up to respectable speeds. They should overclock easily and well.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 10:15:25 PM

Then maybe the mobo should be replaced as I have a hard time overclocking anything frankly. Your opinion...?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 10:27:32 PM

The 9750 is still decent enough for mainstream gaming - it's certainly the stronger part compared to your 9600 gso.

I'd think about upgrading both eventually, and probably getting 2gb more RAM not long after. For now, go with a 5770 - it's...enormously more powerful than your current card and your cpu can just about handle it. A few months down the line you can upgrade to a phenom II dirt cheap if you think you need it.

I wouldn't go much higher than that though. Maybe even a 5750 would be more than good enough.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:24:32 PM

The wattage of those chips varies depending on the specific stepping I think;
http://products.amd.com/en-gb/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=...
The original Phenoms did not OC well and it is likely already right around the power draw limit for the CPU socket on that board so I wouldn't use that as an indication that your board isn't capable for overclocking. The 65w Phenom II x4s will probably be able to get up to 3ghz easily I would think. It's actually very likely your board can handle any 95w or below Phenom II x4 and the compatibility chart just isn't complete or is outdated. Perhaps do some googling and see if you can spot any people using your board with such a processors.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:26:02 PM

Thanks, all
I'll try searching a bit.
I don't play demanding games just SC2 and COD
Score
0

Best solution

a c 376 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:27:27 PM

eyefinity said:
The 9750 is still decent enough for mainstream gaming - it's certainly the stronger part compared to your 9600 gso.

I'd think about upgrading both eventually, and probably getting 2gb more RAM not long after. For now, go with a 5770 - it's...enormously more powerful than your current card and your cpu can just about handle it. A few months down the line you can upgrade to a phenom II dirt cheap if you think you need it.

I wouldn't go much higher than that though. Maybe even a 5750 would be more than good enough.

He is using a "full HD" monitor. I would assume that means at least 1080p. I don't think the HD5750 is an appropriate recommendation. Even with his current processor there are tons of games that will benefit from a better card at high resolutions. HD5770 should be the minimum IMO and a GTX 460/HD6850 optimal.
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:28:55 PM

The Phenom II x4's are 125W. The Ph II x2's are 80W. A Phenom II X2 555 BE would go good with a 5770 GPU both for just over $200. Plus there is a good chance that 555 could be a quad. If not it still won't slow a 5770 down.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:32:28 PM

jockey said:
The Phenom II x4's are 125W.
There are a number pf Phenom II x4 processors at 95w or below, especially with the latest stepping.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:32:48 PM

I know,
My CPU can handle it fine though at med high settings at 1920*1080
It just that my GPU starts to stutter a bit in shooters.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:38:45 PM

jyjjy said:
He is using a "full HD" monitor. I would assume that means at least 1080p. I don't think the HD5750 is an appropriate recommendation. Even with his current processor there are tons of games that will benefit from a better card at high resolutions. HD5770 should be the minimum IMO and a GTX 460/HD6850 optimal.


A 5750 is fine at 1080p, especially for somebody on a budget and who has been used to a 9600GSO - that's like what a 4x upgrade?

A 460 or 6850 will skin him and he'll be further from a better cpu + more RAM. However, I would go with my first recommendation, the 5770, so long as the price is right.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 11:51:42 PM

eyefinity said:
A 5750 is fine at 1080p, especially for somebody on a budget and who has been used to a 9600GSO - that's like what a 4x upgrade?

A 460 or 6850 will skin him and he'll be further from a better cpu + more RAM. However, I would go with my first recommendation, the 5770, so long as the price is right.

Nowhere near 4x. The 9600GSO is about on par with an HD4670. The HD5750 isn't quite twice as powerful:

It would do OK at 1080p but better cards will allow him to raise settings and AA and that will have little to do with the processor which he plans on upgrading anyway.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 16, 2010 12:03:40 AM

There are actually 3 different version of the 9600 GSO, the only decent one was the very last one, but most of them are trash and nowhere near 4670 performance.

Maybe 3x faster is more like it. That's a lot.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 16, 2010 12:15:48 AM

He probably does have the lastest one though as it's 1.5gb, so you're right the 5750 would be about twice as fast, maybe a little more.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 16, 2010 1:28:42 AM

There were basically 2 versions of the GSO(I used one for a long while.) There was the original(renamed 8800GS) which was slightly superior with 96 stream processors, 192 bit bus and 384mb of memory(sometimes doubled to 768mb.) The later one was a cut down 9600GT with a wider bus and higher clock speeds but only 48 stream processors. The 1.5gb cards were the newer version and they often used DDR2 which made them even worse. So his is actually probably the worst version of the card but even so the HD5750 would still be much closer to twice as fast rather than 3 or 4 times it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 16, 2010 3:46:16 AM

:lol:  I do, I have the 1.5 GB DDR2 version....
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 17, 2010 12:57:35 PM

The CPU mysteriously down clocks itself when not under 40% or higher load.



Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 17, 2010 7:43:55 PM

So it reduces clock speed to save power and lessen heat?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 17, 2010 7:56:16 PM

Yup.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 17, 2010 8:46:28 PM

Would waiting for the 67xx be a viable option?
As I am in no hurry.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 21, 2010 12:04:08 AM

The HD6850/HD6870 sort of are the "67xx" cards. This generation, for an unexplained reason, AMD increased the second number by 1 compared to what they have done in the past. They likely will release actual HD6700 card at some point in the future but they haven't been discussed much and the performance will probably not differ much from the HD5750/70.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2010 9:10:20 PM

I know, that the 68xx are the mid range and the 69xx are high-end.
So performance will not see a big increase?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 24, 2010 1:34:42 AM

Best answer selected by plznote.
Score
0
a c 169 U Graphics card
December 24, 2010 5:03:58 AM

This topic has been closed by Maziar
Score
0
!