CPU or Video Card Upgrade?

[DarkHart07]

So, I'm trying to decently run and have my computer live up well to today's game standards. I can practically run anything - just not-so-smoothly.

My CPU: AMD Athlon Dual-Core 4450B
My Video card: GeForce GT 220

I found some triple core AMD Athlon II series ( http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6620917&CatId=4919 ), I believe it was for about $70.
I also did some searching and found some decent Video cards with 2 gigs of memory as opposed to my 1. (Also, what exactly, besides the actual memory size, should I look for in video cards?

If I had to only choose one to upgrade, which should I go for? I'm only going with one for now (I know I should do both) because I just don't have the money required for both right now.

 

[cbrunnem]

gpu for sure

 

[daswilhelm]

i'd say GPU as well, but with only 1meg of L2 cache on that cpu, you are going to be bottlenecking any video card you purchase.

 

[xtreme5]

gt 220 is not a bad card a friend of mine running GT 210 with pentium4 cpu he run's all the latest game's with low setting, i'd recommend to upgrade your cpu.

 

[DarkHart07]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2254763&CatId=3669

Would this be a decent upgrade? Or should I look for something better? And if so, what kind of things should I look for that make it better?

 

[Ironslice]

How much are you willing to spend? I would say get something better. That GT430 will barely be an improvement over what you have.

 

[DarkHart07]

How much are you willing to spend? I would say get something better. That GT430 will barely be an improvement over what you have.

Right now I only have about $80 to spend after blowing all my money on guitar equipment. Should I just go with the triple core CPU that I listed in the original post? 'Cus as is, things just don't really run smoothly, even on lower settings, and there's often crashing. I notice that at times, my CPU's core temperatures are at, or somewhat above 80%.

 

[blazorthon]

i'd say GPU as well, but with only 1meg of L2 cache on that cpu, you are going to be bottlenecking any video card you purchase.

BS. The Sandy Bridge i7s have 256KB of L2 per core. How much L2 you have is not as important as how fast that L2 is. Heck, the Athlon IIs can have 512KB per core and no L3 to make up for it, yet they're much better than this CPU for gaming. Bulldozer CPUs have 2MB of L2 per two core module, yet they don't come close to SB in per core performance even if you disable one core from each module, giving each core a huge 2MB slab of L2, despite Sandy having 8 times less L2 capacity per core. Heck, even with 8 times less, SB is still somewhere between 25% and 40% faster per Hz per core than BD even if you disable one core per module, improving the performance of the still active cores.

 

[blazorthon]

Right now I only have about $80 to spend after blowing all my money on guitar equipment. Should I just go with the triple core CPU that I listed in the original post? 'Cus as is, things just don't really run smoothly, even on lower settings, and there's often crashing. I notice that at times, my CPU's core temperatures are at, or somewhat above 80%.

The CPU should help a lot more than a video card upgrade can right now. Also, 2GB of VRAM does not make a difference unless both the GPU and CPU can make use of it. For example, a Radoen 6950 1GB is exponentially faster than a GTX 430 4GB. Don't worry about a video card's memory capacity being more than 1GB unless you have a 1080p display or better.

 

[daswilhelm]

BS. The Sandy Bridge i7s have 256KB of L2 per core. How much L2 you have is not as important as how fast that L2 is. Heck, the Athlon IIs can have 512KB per core and no L3 to make up for it, yet they're much better than this CPU for gaming.

So, does that chip have a "fast L2"? what current card would it not be hurting?

 

[DarkHart07]

For example, a Radoen 6950 1GB is exponentially faster than a GTX 430 4GB.

Just to better educate myself, what does make the Raedon better than the GTX, then?

 

[blazorthon]

So, does that chip have a "fast L2"? what current card would it not be hurting?

A SB i7 would cost you $280 to $300. Way out of budget and they're not really good price/performance for gaming.

 

[daswilhelm]

i understand that. was referencing the amd chip he's using.

 

[blazorthon]

Just to better educate myself, what does make the Raedon better than the GTX, then?

The Radeon 6950 is a much newer and higher end card than the GT 220 and even the GT 430 4GB. The Radeon's GPU is far faster and it has much faster memory, even though it has less memory. This isn't because it is a Radeon card, simply because it is a newer model and is also a higher end model.

 

[blazorthon]

i understand that. was referencing the amd chip he's using.

It's limits would depend greatly on each game, settings, resolutions, etc. etc. This stuff varies widely because games can behave ver differently from other games and simply changing the settings and resolution makes the variance even greater.

I wouldn't pair it with anything faster than OP's current card at this time because a CPU upgrade is more important.

Honestly, the best thing to do here would be to hold on to that computer until OP can replace it completely with a new $400 or so computer.

 

[Sunius]

Core count. HD 6950 has 1408 cores while GT 430 has 96. Although core count doesn't tell the whole story, but you get the idea.

It's always wise to check benchmarks for accuracy, as it's impossible to tell exactly how the graphics card behaves just from the specifications.

For $80 you can get HD 6670. It's way better than GT 430.

 

[daswilhelm]

It's limits would depend greatly on the game, settings, resolutions, etc. etc.

I wouldn't pair it with anything faster than OP's current card at this time because a CPU upgrade is more important.

Honestly, the best thing to do here would be to hold on to that computer until OP can replace it completely with a new $400 or so computer.

agreed

 

[DarkHart07]

Honestly, the best thing to do here would be to hold on to that computer until OP can replace it completely with a new $400 or so computer.

But would a new computer at around $400 even be worth getting? I'd doubt it has that great of equipment in it - stock.

Wouldn't I just be better off saving up some money and getting quality hardware for my current one?

 

[Phyrexiancure]

Both Ideally, what is your budget? For $200 dollars I would suggest a you buy both a cpu and gpu. You can get a HD 7750 and a Athlon II x2. I wouldn't buy a $200+ gpu because you won't be able to enjoy it with your old cpu. Athlon II x2 trade blows with intels low end celeron dual cores but can overclock at $50, though they trade energy effiency for overclocking. If your motherboard doesn't support the athlon II for about $50 you can get one. I'd suggest you get an 970 board since they will probably support AMD next gen FX processors when an upgrade is needed.

 

[blazorthon]

But would a new computer at around $400 even be worth getting? I'd doubt it has that great of equipment in it - stock.

Wouldn't I just be better off saving up some money and getting quality hardware for my current one?

I meant a home-built $400 computer. You can get very high quality builds even at this price.

 

[Phyrexiancure]

But would a new computer at around $400 even be worth getting? I'd doubt it has that great of equipment in it - stock.

Wouldn't I just be better off saving up some money and getting quality hardware for my current one?

For $400 dollars you get get a lot if your recycle your hardware that you already have. If all you need is a cpu, motherboard, gpu and memory then you can get decent parts. You can get an HD 6870 for $160, phenom ii x4/i3 for $120, 4GB of DDR3 for $20, and a decent single gpu motherboard for about $90.

 

[blazorthon]

Both Ideally, what is your budget? For $200 dollars I would suggest a you buy both a cpu and gpu. You can get a HD 7750 and a Athlon II x2. I wouldn't buy a $200+ gpu because you won't be able to enjoy it with your old cpu. Athlon II x2 trade blows with intels low end celeron dual cores but can overclock at $50, though they trade energy effiency for overclocking. If your motherboard doesn't support the athlon II for about $50 you can get one. I'd suggest you get an 970 board since they will probably support AMD next gen FX processors when an upgrade is needed.

The 2.4GHz Celeron G530 beats the Athlon II x2s with ease until you give them a large overclock. It only costs $50 at newegg.

For $400 dollars you get get a lot if your recycle your hardware that you already have. If all you need is a cpu, motherboard, gpu and memory then you can get decent parts. You can get an HD 6870 for $160, phenom ii x4/i3 for $120, 4GB of DDR3 for $20, and a decent single gpu motherboard for about $90.

+1 to this one, although I'd rather buy a Radeon 7770 2GB for $160 rather than a 6870. It can overclock about as well as the 6870 can and would be far superior if CF is doen later on, in addition to using far less power, meaning a cheaper, lower wattage PSU can be had if the budget gets too high for other reasons. For AMD, dual graphics card capable motherboards are available at and below $90. Even Intel has a few cheaper boards that support two graphics cards and that are still good quality. I'd be weary of reusing the same PSU because PSUs degrade over time much more than most other components. I've yet to have a PSU explode, but I've had them die when pushed too far and they can take the rest of the computer with them.

 

[fantastik250]

If you are not planning to upgrade any parts. I suggest getting a GT 440 2GB it's a great little value with enough VRAM to play higher resolutions and some extra graphics settings.

Zotac GT 440 2GB ($64.99)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500235

Also you don't need a power cord for this card and is compatible with any PCI-E x16 slot.

 

[blazorthon]

The CPU upgrade looks more important than graphics if OP doesn't want a new computer. Also, the GT 440 doesn't have the performance to even max out 1GB in any game, let alone go past 1GB, so having 2GB of VRAM would not help at all.

Even more important is the fact that this is the cheapest GT 440 on newegg, yet the first six Radeon 6670s are better cards for about the same price. Four of these first six 6670s are cheaper than that GT 440 and the other two are the same price, one of which has 2GB of RAM (not that it matters). AMD's cards also come with a free copy of Dirt 3, a $50 game that if OP doesn't want to play, OP can just sell to further decrease the 6670's price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006662%2040000048&IsNodeId=1&Description=Radeon%206670&name=Desktop%20Graphics%20Cards&Order=PRICE&Pagesize=20

The GT 440 GDDR5 trades blows with the Radeon 6670 DDR3, but the GT 440 DDR3 is beaten by the 6670 DDR3, despite the 6670 often being cheaper (much cheaper if you consider the free game).

A video card replacement would be better than a CPU replacement if the CPU can be overclcoked instead of replaced, so upgrading the video card can be the better idea in this case, but only if OP doesn't mind overclocking, OPs motherboard and CPU support it, and if the CPU cooler gets replaced. Otherwise, the OP would probably be better off with a CPU upgrade. The graphics upgrade could help in some games at some settings, but in others, the CPU could limit it to hardly any better than it is now.

 

[Ironslice]

Get this card: http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=719421&CatId=3669

Believe it or not, my cousin has this card on his computer and it outperforms/is on par with an HD 6670 GDDR5. It's a card not many people have heard of because it was an OEM card that was barely put into production, but it's at a great price.

It's better than the GT 440 and is at least on par with the GDDR5 version of the Radeon 6670.