Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best upgrade path

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 30, 2011 1:58:06 PM

I play at 1920x1080,
30fps at high/medium combination on average is ample for me.
I currently own a 1gb gddr5 5670.
AMD Phenom II x4 955 Black Edition
1333mhz Kingston 2x2Gb DDR3
ASUS M5A99X EVO

1) take msi gtx560-ti hawk, when dx12 comes out use it as phsyX, take a 8950 and then call it a day.
2) take msi r5870 lightning, sit over it when dx12 comes out and opt for a 8950.
3) sit over the 5670, take a GT520 for phsyX(is it sufficient?), and crossfire 5670 for a while to get away, then opt for 8950 or 8870 CF when out.
4) take msi r5770 hawk/sapphire 5770, CF it instantly, take a GT520, then sit and wait for hd 8xxx/gtx-6xx line-ups for dx12

I've got my hands on a 850W Corsair TX850V2 for the above purpose(s). It will arrive within 3 days more. (its for free anyway so no comments)

Option 3 seems to be best for the price/value, but I wonder which has more wastage...
I by all means want to waste less, as specified above, I'm satisfied with 30fps for the time being, but I'm more worried about being able to play ghost recon future soldier maxxed out at 1920x1080 with 30fps. Most probably it might have physX, so I want all the physX effects, recommendations on the most optimum card for it.

More about : upgrade path

a c 254 U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 2:17:31 PM

I do think that the jury is still out on physix as to whether or not game developers are going to fully embrace that technology. Don't forget the physix acceleration has been around for awhile and for those who buy and play the games certianly want it , it may be something that game developers are not liking. SO having said that you may want to focus your upgrade plans around the primary video card and worry about physixs later since it is easily implemented with a low end Nvidia card.
Pick up another 5670 , crossfire and get nice fps , enjoy the games and wiat for physix to develop as an intergral part of games.
Another option would be to go with Nvidia all the way and just enable physix since it is part of every Nvidia video card.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 2:18:57 PM

Well option 3 isn't possible because Nvidia cards won't run as a physx along side an AMD card.

Directx12 is a long way away. It hasn't even been announced yet, so that means it will be at least a year from now before it even comes out, and a year after that before anything even uses it. So you're looking at least a 2 year wait for dx12 which is an eternity in tech.

And PhysX is just a physics engine, used in not very many games, and many games use other engines like Havoc. Running a card for pure Physx acceleration adds unnecessary heat and electricity costs, and only offers a very small boost in performance in the limited number of Physx enabled games - it's not worth it.

Just get the best card you can now and enjoy it.
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 30, 2011 2:31:17 PM

gmcizzle said:
Well option 3 isn't possible because Nvidia cards won't run as a physx along side an AMD card.

Directx12 is a long way away. It hasn't even been announced yet, so that means it will be at least a year from now before it even comes out, and a year after that before anything even uses it. So you're looking at least a 2 year wait for dx12 which is an eternity in tech.

And PhysX is just a physics engine, used in not very many games, and many games use other engines like Havoc. Running a card for pure Physx acceleration adds unnecessary heat and electricity costs, and only offers a very small boost in performance in the limited number of Physx enabled games - it's not worth it.

Just get the best card you can now and enjoy it.



Like I said, I'm willing to spend for physX, but only upto the extent say, gt540, but I'd like to not get disappointed with framerates in physX games, ESPECIALLY future soldier. As for the topic,cost is not a concern, but saving will help it scale better later.
And there are hacks to run physX on an amd graphics card by using a nvidia card, thats what I want to do.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 3:02:49 PM

http://developer.nvidia.com/physx-games

There are some ghost recon games there but I don't see future soldier.

EDIT: Just noticed that game isn't out yet, so it might support Physx on release. Previous ghost recon games used a different game engine ("Diesel") than the console versions to enable Physx, so maybe they will do the same.

http://www.techpowerup.com/105329/Hack-Released-to-Enab...

This is supposedly the Physx hack for ATi+Nvidia cards, but if you really care that much about Physx just stick with Nvidia.
Score
0
November 30, 2011 3:06:59 PM

Well they did make advanced warfighter over physX, I don't see any reason why they won't make future soldier,
and then in short, you're saying to go with option no. 1?
when 8950 is out, I'll simply re-use my gtx560ti as a physX card
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 3:08:46 PM

It's hard to say how demanding Future Soldier will be but if you want to be prepared to Physx support then I believe the answer is quite simple, purchase an nVIDIA card because they support it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 3:12:19 PM

Yeah I would just go with the best Nvidia card you can get now, and possibly reuse it as a Physx card in the very far future.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 3:38:32 PM

physx wont increase your framerates when using an amd card, and enabling it on an nvidia card would decrease them a bit... but for the options and since you want physx i would just grab a 560ti
Score
0
a c 80 U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:05:56 PM

imo get a radeon hd 6850 or 6870 (151w). either one of those in cfx will give high end single gpu cards a good competition. if you want physx, the lowest you should get is a gtx 560 non ti. the 6850 is the most powerful gpu that requires only one pcie connector. and its tdp (127w) is only a bit higher than the 5770 (108w).
Score
0
November 30, 2011 4:13:32 PM

just to make it clear,
right now the costs
5770 CF < 6850 ~ 560 < 6870 ~ 560ti
so if 6850 < 560ti, then from physX point of veiw, I'd like to stick to 560ti
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:16:40 PM

This should be a simple decision ...

If you want PhysX support without having to run hacked drivers, purchase a nVIDIA card.
Score
0
a c 106 U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:21:01 PM

5870s are priced way to high right now so I say get a 6870 instead. A 560Ti is also a good option. The 5870 lightning from MSI makes for an interesting overclocking experiment, but for the price you can just get a Radeon 6970 or GTX 570 which are better options, unless you managed to find that 5870 cheap.
Score
0
November 30, 2011 4:23:07 PM

Warmacblu said:
This should be a simple decision ...

If you want PhysX support without having to run hacked drivers, purchase a nVIDIA card.


There was some confusion,
I could get a 5770CF + GT520 or a 5670CF (I already own one) + GT520, be done with PhysX and have a warm 25~30fps framerate
but I can't seem to find out if GT520 is ample for DEDICATED phsyX, or I need something stronger
Score
0
November 30, 2011 4:28:12 PM

megamanx00 said:
5870s are priced way to high right now so I say get a 6870 instead. A 560Ti is also a good option. The 5870 lightning from MSI makes for an interesting overclocking experiment, but for the price you can just get a Radeon 6970 or GTX 570 which are better options, unless you managed to find that 5870 cheap.


I'm talking about the costs in my hometown
the 5870 lightning is rather a fake option, as I don't think the shopkeeper would have it
but I wonder if he has the hawk or twin fzror version of gtx560-ti, these are the only versions worth the purchase I presume?
I won't mind playing at 30fps with another 5670 and using GT520 for physX if I can't find the best version of the cards I want
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:29:36 PM

amd955be5670 said:
There was some confusion,
I could get a 5770CF + GT520 or a 5670CF (I already own one) + GT520, be done with PhysX and have a warm 25~30fps framerate
but I can't seem to find out if GT520 is ample for DEDICATED phsyX, or I need something stronger


Can your motherboard support 2 HD 5670's and a GTX 520? If it can and you want PhysX support, you will need some sort of alternative drivers. The easiest way to run a game with PhysX options enabled is to purchase a nVIDIA GPU. My recommendation is to purchase a single powerful nVIDIA card that can be the dedicated graphics card and also run PhysX options.
Score
0
a c 80 U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:31:38 PM

amd955be5670 said:
just to make it clear,
right now the costs
5770 CF < 6850 ~ 560 < 6870 ~ 560ti
so if 6850 < 560ti, then from physX point of veiw, I'd like to stick to 560ti

how is 5770 ($110 x2) cfx cheaper than a 6850 ($145) and how are 6850 and 560 ($190) non ti similar in price? i used newegg prices cuz i don't know where you'll be buying your at. 6850 is less powerful than 560 ti, 6950 (>6850) and 560 ti trade blows with each other in gaming benches but 560 ti has the physx advantage. if you must have physx, then the 560 ti is good.
another way is to get a 6870 with a gt 240 gddr5-like card.
edit: avoided recommending 5670s and 5770s in cfx because of possible microstuttering problems.
Score
0
November 30, 2011 4:33:23 PM

Warmacblu said:
Can your motherboard support 2 HD 5670's and a GTX 520? If it can and you want PhysX support, you will need some sort of alternative drivers. The easiest way to run a game with PhysX options enabled is to purchase a nVIDIA GPU. My recommendation is to purchase a single powerful nVIDIA card that can be the dedicated graphics card and also run PhysX options.


Yes its got 3x pcie lanes, 2 at 16x (in CF mode its 8x), and one at 4x, I will use the gt520 in the 3rd one
Score
0
November 30, 2011 4:40:23 PM

de5_Roy said:
how is 5770 ($110 x2) cfx cheaper than a 6850 ($145) and how are 6850 and 560 ($190) non ti similar in price? i used newegg prices cuz i don't know where you'll be buying your at. 6850 is less powerful than 560 ti, 6950 (>6850) and 560 ti trade blows with each other in gaming benches but 560 ti has the physx advantage. if you must have physx, then the 560 ti is good.
another way is to get a 6870 with a gt 240 gddr5-like card.
edit: avoided recommending 5670s and 5770s in cfx because of possible microstuttering problems.


the sapphire 5770 CF will be done in 9000INR
the 6850 sapphire costs 10500INR
the 560 zotac costs 10900INR
the GTX560Ti costs 13900INR
the 6870 sapphire costs 14000 INR

a GT520 with 2gb memory is around 3200INR
a second 5670 is for 4500INR
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:41:25 PM

amd955be5670 said:
Yes its got 3x pcie lanes, 2 at 16x (in CF mode its 8x), and one at 4x, I will use the gt520 in the 3rd one


I am uncertain on the intricacies of CrossFire and SLi but what you want to do sounds like you will run into issues and may require you to do some advanced tweaking.

On a side note, combining all of these mid to low range cards may perform much worse than a single fast card.
Score
0
November 30, 2011 4:44:14 PM

Warmacblu said:
I am uncertain on the intricacies of CrossFire and SLi but what you want to do sounds like you will run into issues and may require you to do some advanced tweaking.

On a side note, combining all of these mid to low range cards may perform much worse than a single fast card.


Well thats why I voiced the first option as taking a 560ti, using it for physX when 8950 arrives.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 80 U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:46:19 PM

amd955be5670 said:
the sapphire 5770 CF will be done in 9000INR
the 6850 sapphire costs 10500INR
the 560 zotac costs 10900INR
the GTX560Ti costs 13900INR
the 6870 sapphire costs 14000 INR

a GT520 with 2gb memory is around 3200INR
a second 5670 is for 4500INR

damn... the price is messed up imo.
but, looks like a 560 (followed by 560 ti) is your best bet for a high end gfx card with physx. for non physx, hd 6850 + a low end nvidia card (sell the 5670?). the 520 has excessive ram, if you get a 520, look for one with 1 gb gddr5.
Share
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 4:54:46 PM

amd955be5670 said:
Well thats why I voiced the first option as taking a 560ti, using it for physX when 8950 arrives.


I think you mean the 7950?

You still run into the issue of using an AMD card with a nVIDIA card for PhysX.

If you really have your heart set on PhysX support, only mix and match nVIDIA cards.
Score
0
November 30, 2011 4:59:40 PM

Warmacblu said:
I think you mean the 7950?

You still run into the issue of using an AMD card with a nVIDIA card for PhysX.

If you really have your heart set on PhysX support, only mix and match nVIDIA cards.



I mean the 8950, hell yeah I'm ready for the wait, but that or gtx660ti is the next dx12 card, I wanted 5670 to last for dx11, but at full HD it has totally no hope of survival.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2011 5:02:25 PM

amd955be5670 said:
I mean the 8950, hell yeah I'm ready for the wait, but that or gtx660ti is the next dx12 card, I wanted 5670 to last for dx11, but at full HD it has totally no hope of survival.


If you want PhysX support then purchase a nice nVIDIA card now.

If you don't care about PhysX support, wait a few months for the HD 7000 series and purchase one of those.
Score
0
December 1, 2011 12:08:31 AM

Changing the topic of this thread to which GTX560Ti to take

Palit 2Gb ver
Palit Sonic
MSI Hawk
MSI Twin Fzror II
MSI Twin Fzror II/OC
MSI 2Gb ver
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2011 12:11:38 AM

Any of the MSI cards receive my recommendation.
Score
0
a c 80 U Graphics card
December 1, 2011 3:40:48 AM

amd955be5670 said:
Changing the topic of this thread to which GTX560Ti to take

Palit 2Gb ver
Palit Sonic
MSI Hawk
MSI Twin Fzror II
MSI Twin Fzror II/OC
MSI 2Gb ver

if you want to game at resolutions higher than 1080p and/or with eyecandies (aa and stuff) enabled, the 2 gb vram will help you. otherwise, for now, 1 gb should be enough, and you might be able to save some money going with a 1 gb card. another thing, 2 gb vram is wasted on weaker, entry level gpus. those gpus run out of juice long before vram usage hits 2 gb.
Score
0
December 1, 2011 7:05:56 AM

Currently the Twin Fzror II and M2D1GD5 versions are available, both have 800INR difference, I wonder which one to take
Score
0
December 1, 2011 7:40:35 AM

Alright,GTX-560Ti M2D1GD5 is for 14500INR the Twin Fzror II costs 15300INR and the Palit GTX570 is for 16300INR, is going for Palit a good move?
The Twin Fzror II MSI GTX570 costs 18500INR which is totally far from my budget profile.
p.s. I am not moving away from 1080p, that is the final resolution I'm playing at, but at 1080p I'd like to enable eye candy stuff like aa, etc
Score
0
a c 142 U Graphics card
December 1, 2011 10:12:49 AM

amd955be5670 said:
Like I said, I'm willing to spend for physX, but only upto the extent say, gt540, but I'd like to not get disappointed with framerates in physX games, ESPECIALLY future soldier. As for the topic,cost is not a concern, but saving will help it scale better later.
And there are hacks to run physX on an amd graphics card by using a nvidia card, thats what I want to do.


Hate to burst your bubble, but Ghost Recon Future Soldier is not coming to PC, it will be console exclusive. Ubisoft has decided not to release it on PC and instead offer a F2P game called Ghost Recon Online. Ubisoft is pulling out of PC development citing high piracy numbers. You can read an article about it here.
Score
0
December 1, 2011 11:42:01 AM

the Palit gtx570 was quoted wrong, it costs 19200INR,
I went ahead and ordered the N560GTX-Ti Twin Fzror II, plan to throw in another next year, and then a 1.5~2yr wait for dx12
Score
0
December 1, 2011 11:45:04 AM

Best answer selected by amd955be5670.
Score
0
!