Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Intel G530; need graphics card.

Last response: in Systems
Share
June 20, 2012 7:18:44 PM

Hello,

I'm wondering what would be the absolute best graphics card that the Intel G530 on an H61 motherboard could handle without bottlenecking? It'll probably have to be PCI-e 2.0 compatible, and I'm alright with either AMD or NVIDIA. The cheaper the better.

Haven't decided on resolution. but I'm probably giong to use it on either a 1366×768 monitor & 720P HDTV.

If it's has more potential, then I might use it on my other 1650×1080 monitor & 1080P HDTV.

Thanks a bunch!
June 20, 2012 7:39:10 PM

Haha yeah I saw that, but I wasn't sure what to believe!

If the G530 can handle a 560Ti, then what would be the benefit of getting an i3-2100!?

How much of a performance increase would I see G530 vs i3-2100? Would this be apparent in all games or just the CPU intensive ones?

Thanks
m
0
l
Related resources
June 20, 2012 7:41:34 PM

i3 has hyper threading
m
0
l
June 20, 2012 7:43:45 PM

Oh wait a second.

They paired the G530 with the GTX560Ti, but it DID bottleneck, did it not?

Maybe a HD6850 would be a good balance? Seems to be the best bang for buck GPU at the moment for $115
m
0
l
June 20, 2012 7:46:37 PM

Where is it for $115? lol
m
0
l
June 20, 2012 7:52:20 PM

I can't remember anymore... I think NCIX has them on sale most of the time. Prices get quite low after MIR.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 275 U Graphics card
a b å Intel
June 20, 2012 8:04:20 PM

rex000 said:
Oh wait a second.

They paired the G530 with the GTX560Ti, but it DID bottleneck, did it not?

Maybe a HD6850 would be a good balance? Seems to be the best bang for buck GPU at the moment for $115


No such thing as a bottleneck. For ANY CPU, a faster graphics card will always perform better. The question is, by how much, and is the delta cost more beneficial than the same amount spent on a cpu.
The build was an extreme example on what you can do for $500, and, if nothing else, it demonstrates the value of graphics card performance, and the speed if sandy bridge architecture.

I love the idea of gaming on a large screen like a TV, even at 720P.

6850 is reasonable, and cheaper than a GTX560ti, but it is also not as capable.
I think you will get fair value at every price point with graphics cards. The market is very competitive.
I think, I would go with a newer 28nm 7xxx card. They run cooler with less power.

Few games use more than two cores. The hyperthreads of the 2100 will only help those that do.
On the other hand, the 3.1 clock rate of the 2100 is considerably more than the 2.4 of the G530. You can get a G870 with the same 3.1 clock rate for 20% less than a 2100. Just pick your cpu budget and there will be a good cpu in that price bracket.

How about a rule of thumb that says spend 2x your cpu budget on a graphics card for gaming?
Share
June 20, 2012 10:15:30 PM

geofelt said:
No such thing as a bottleneck. For ANY CPU, a faster graphics card will always perform better. The question is, by how much, and is the delta cost more beneficial than the same amount spent on a cpu.
The build was an extreme example on what you can do for $500, and, if nothing else, it demonstrates the value of graphics card performance, and the speed if sandy bridge architecture.

I love the idea of gaming on a large screen like a TV, even at 720P.

6850 is reasonable, and cheaper than a GTX560ti, but it is also not as capable.
I think you will get fair value at every price point with graphics cards. The market is very competitive.
I think, I would go with a newer 28nm 7xxx card. They run cooler with less power.

Few games use more than two cores. The hyperthreads of the 2100 will only help those that do.
On the other hand, the 3.1 clock rate of the 2100 is considerably more than the 2.4 of the G530. You can get a G870 with the same 3.1 clock rate for 20% less than a 2100. Just pick your cpu budget and there will be a good cpu in that price bracket.

How about a rule of thumb that says spend 2x your cpu budget on a graphics card for gaming?



Thanks for your detailed reply geofelt, I understand what you're saying.


It WAS my understanding that once the CPU reached 100% usage, that was the limit.

So for example, theoretically, let's say we had a perfectly 'balanced' setup w/ the HD6850. Where the CPU could keep up with the GPU.. so both are running @ 100% (Let's say this gives 60FPS).

Now, we swap out the HD6850 for the GTX560Ti. The 560Ti is more powerful, and since the CPU is at it's limit already, can't process anything any faster to feed to the GPU, and the GPU will only run @ 75%... I figured that would be the "bottleneck", and you would see no improvement in frame rates (still 60FPS) or anything if all settings were identical to the previous setup.

So I was thinking, an i3-2100 @ 3.1Ghz (regardless of HyperThreading), can process more information more quickly and CAN feed it fast enough to the 560Ti; allowing it to run @ 100%.. therefore, eliminating the bottleneck and increasing FPS. Again, if all settings remain the same.


**Rule of thumb: spend 2x the amount on a GPU as a CPU... well then. I'm getting the CPU for $40, which translates to $80 for the GPU. The best I can think of is a HD5770/6770.. hehe.
m
0
l
a c 275 U Graphics card
a b å Intel
June 20, 2012 11:39:29 PM

It is a basic principle of performance that to insure responsiveness, you need an excess of resources.
Even with a slow cpu or gpu, it will run at 100% only in bursts. A stronger GPU will also help with minimum frame rates or with more eye candy or higher resolutions.

I still think buy the best graphics card you feel comfortable paying for.
m
0
l
July 31, 2012 3:59:02 PM

Best answer selected by rex000.
m
0
l
!