Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Could I get away with a GTX 660 and a Core 2 Quad??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 25, 2012 11:43:26 PM

Hello,
So i am getting a hand-me-down computer and it is from 2009 or so i believe and I want to get a Graphics card because right now it just has integrated graphics
Specs:
Core 2 Quad 2.66 GHz
8 Gb RAM
1 TB HDD
Intel HD Graphics

Sorry I don't know any more than that, but it is a Dell Inpsiron something like this (http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-570/pd). Anyway, I want to get a pretty good card in the $200-$240 range, and the new GTX 660 looks very nice, but I think that the old motherboard and CPU might cause me to not get the most out of this card. I will be doing mainly After Effects, Photoshop, Premier Pro and some gaming (Borderlands 2. Black Ops II, Battlefield 3, etc).
Also what kind of power do I need (450w??)
Thanks, any help would be greatly appreciated

P.S. wouldn't be higher resolution than 1080p

More about : gtx 660 core quad

a c 173 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 12:04:48 AM

If you don't know what psu that you have and if it is a generic unit then don't bother going with anything that is high end unless you are willing to upgrade the power supply. A simple 7770 is a safe bet power wise and performance is good for the price.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 12:19:18 AM

Sir, a 7770 requires external power... if he were to get a card that run off PSU. a GT 640 would be a better option since it runs off PCI Express slot power
m
0
l
a c 84 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 12:24:13 AM

Rockdpm said:
Sir, a 7770 requires external power... if he were to get a card that run off PSU. a GT 640 would be a better option since it runs off PCI Express slot power

The GT 640 is bad. If the PSU has no PCIe 6-pin connectors, a 7750 is your best bet.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 12:27:59 AM

7770 isn't a power hog and is at load the same as a 9800gt when it comes to power. As for the GT640 lol, people throw away better performing cards thinking that newer is better. The GT640 is terrible for modern gaming and yes it beats a gt430 but for the price a 7750 can be had let alone a cheap gtx460 which creams it.
m
0
l
September 26, 2012 12:30:53 AM

so for power efficiency vs performance a 7770 would be a good choice? i would be ok with upgrading my PSU If I need to because I will probably be doing more upgrades in the future
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 12:34:33 AM

It is a good choice for now, if you do upgrade to a good mid range or better unit that is high quality you can get away with using a 7850 which is only a little more in price. If you can overclock your cpu then you will get a huge boost in performance. I got a q8200 and managed 3.2ghz out of it on less than stock volts :) 

7770 if you want something right away but if you are willing to wait and upgrade psu then 7850.
m
0
l
September 26, 2012 1:01:16 AM

I do not really want to OC the cpu, but if I get the 7850 you think maybe 600 watts would be fine? or could I get away with less even?
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 1:08:19 AM

A 7850 will run just fine off a high quality 550w unit, just aim for at least a bronze or better rated unit from brands like Seasonic, Corsair, Antec ect. The card will only need one or two 6pin connectors depending on which one that you pick. The overall load won't be much by today's standards.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 1:58:32 AM

nforce4max said:
7770 isn't a power hog and is at load the same as a 9800gt when it comes to power. As for the GT640 lol, people throw away better performing cards thinking that newer is better. The GT640 is terrible for modern gaming and yes it beats a gt430 but for the price a 7750 can be had let alone a cheap gtx460 which creams it.


Man if you dont stop hating on nvidia..Geforce and ati both make good cards your starting to be bias..
m
0
l
a c 198 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 2:03:25 AM

Well, for the price, the 640 doesn't exactly shine as the best card in the segment. The 7750 is a much better choice, as well as the GDDR5 6670.

They could have done much better with the 640.

And instead of the HIS 7850, go with this ASUS one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 2:05:04 AM

Deemo13 said:
Well, for the price, the 640 doesn't exactly shine as the best card in the segment. The 7750 is a much better choice, as well as the GDDR5 6670.

They could have done much better with the 640.

And instead of the HIS 7850, go with this ASUS one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Yea i mean thats true but everytime nv is being mentioned it like hes almost saying f nvidia..As for me i do see what your saying as the 7750 is the better choice
m
0
l
a c 198 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 2:09:04 AM

determinologyz said:
Yea i mean thats true but everytime nv is being mentioned it like hes almost saying f nvidia..As for me i do see what your saying as the 7750 is the better choice


Ironically, on this forum, nforce4max knows more about Nvidia, old and new, than any other person I've had the chance to chat with. He helped me with my hybrid SLI awhile back.

And I'd have to agree with him on the 640. It IS good for a Physx card though. No external power is like perfect for certain computers. Its not like he's saying that Nvidia is bad. The GT640 does what a GT640 is supposed to do, and it works, but there are things that do it better.
m
0
l
a c 109 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 2:14:51 AM

determinologyz said:
Man if you dont stop hating on nvidia..Geforce and ati both make good cards your starting to be bias..

What is this company? :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 2:33:45 AM

as i'll let other folks debate GPUs i'll give you a link to an article about what you can expect from your CPU.

Test: What about your Intel Core 2 Quad? - Gaming Performance HD 7970
heheheh gonna use a:
Spoiler
Conclusion

As you can see from those results, the Intel Core2Quad is still up to date if you compare it to the FX-4170/FX-8150 from AMD. Okay in some games like Call of Duty, Skyrim and StarCraft II, the AMD FXs are 10 % faster than the Core2Quad but that's all. Everywhere else those processors are scoring almost the same at +/- 1% in both games and synthetic benchmarks.
Now if you compare the Q6600 to the i7 3770K you see a serious gap performancewise going from almost nothing up to twice the performance. But hey, this is another league.


i will speculate that any "gap" in performance will not be as substantial in a mid range card like a 7850 or even a 660 (non ti). but i am SWAG that.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 2:48:39 AM

I think a higher level card may be severely bottlenecked on the OP's cpu. Being a dell mobo, I doubt it allows for overclocking. A C2Q at 2.66ghz is barely
better than a A8 3870k, which is a pretty significant bottleneck in some of today's games. Also, I don't know if I'd try swapping out your psu. Dell used to
have a problem with mating proprietary mobos and proprietary power supplies with non standard pinouts on the 24pin mobo connector. If a user swapped
mobos or power supplies, the resulting combo often fried the whole system. Even if you did spend the money on a decent psu for a better gpu, the new
card's frame rate potential will be killed by a cpu that can't deliver data fast enough to keep it fed. Right now, amd delivers better performance per dollar
than nvidia at many price points( mostly under 300 bucks). The other difference is physx, which is supported by a handful of current and near future titles.

I'm not a fan of the cartoonish art style of borderlands, myself(but the videos I've seen do look better with physx than without). One of the most popular
and demanding titles now is BF3(metro is more demanding and uses physx, but game play vids of it I've seen were kind of ho hum). Oh, since your cpu
is 130w and your current psu is 300w, you are likely limited to the likes of hd7750 and gtx650. HD7750 performs better and can be had for 85 bucks,
while gtx650 is 110. If you turn on physx, performance will be even worse. Neither will max the likes of BF3 at your res, but should do medium ok. That
will make the game look a lot better than on a console, and you will get even better performance in other games(save metro) which will allow you to turn
details up to higher levels. Be prepared for frame rate in some games to be lower than ideal thanks to your cpu, though.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 3:15:57 AM

Several post were added while I was composing my last one. A gt610 would be a better choice of dedicated physx card(30 bucks) but it requires an extra
PEG slot(something else I bet that dell mobo lacks). Those benchmarks that were linked used a Q6600 overclocked to 3ghz. An A8 3870k would be
between a stock Q6600 and stock Q6700/Q6750. Oh, wait. The op didn't specify the model(not that it would make much difference it if was a Q8400,
Q9400 or Q9450. Also, those benchmarks were just average frame rates(the minimum frame rate is very important). Here is a test with fewer titles, but
ones that both stress the gpu and are still pretty popular . The tests use a less expensive xfx 7950 double d with a number of current and recent cpus:

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

I linked the last page, but the whole article is a good read(as are all the gpu reviews there for the last year or so). See where the x4 850 sits in that chart?
That is about where your stock C2Q at 2.66ghz would sit(closer to 2.4ghz C2Q than to a 3ghz C2Q). x4 850 is like a A8 3870k at stock in these tests btw.
m
0
l
a c 198 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 3:18:41 AM

jtenorj said:
Several post were added while I was composing my last one. A gt610 would be a better choice of dedicated physx card


I beg to differ. The 610 would be an awful Physx card.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 5:00:09 AM

Dedicated PhysX Card Experiment - How Powerful Does it Have to Be?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 9:39:33 AM

I really don't see how that applies. 8600gts was among the first of nvidia's cards with unified shader architecture. It is one of the first dx10 cards and has
only 32 cuda cores at around 1400mhz on a 65nm process with limited gpu compute support. gt610 existed as both a 500 series card and a 400 series
card before it was branded as a 600 series part(all 40nm dx11 cards with much broader gpu compute ability). It has 48 cuda cores at more than 1600mhz.

Show me a gt610 being tested as a dedicated physx card and then I will believe it isn't a great suggestion. Actually, don't games that support physx usually
have different settings? High settings may kill even a high end gpu, but lower settings may be quite doable on a lesser card while adding substantially to
the end user's game play experience. Can I see some results for some testing like that? You may want to include results from a hybrid radeon+geforce
arrangement if you can find them. I know it requires hacked drivers and isn't perfect, but if the combo of a redeon and a cheap physx card is a better deal
price performance wise than a similarly priced or more expensive geforce, that path should be a consideration(as long as the likes of a gt610 can deliver
decent performance while adding notably to the game play experience).
m
0
l
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 5:34:57 PM

it is completely relevant since the 550ti is stronger than a 610. if you can't figure that out and just make excuses why proof against your argument doesn't qualify; then there is no reason to discuss this with you.

i am sure everyone else gets it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 5:42:49 PM

I have just come to learn that many physx titles I once thought required an nvidia gpu to use can actually use a software version on the cpu. Since only
a few of the meager lot available and coming out soon actually require an nvidia gpu to use the feature, I see even less reason to go with an nvidia
gpu than before(whether as a primary that will lose some performance with it enabled, or as a cheaper secondary to either nvidia or amd primary).
m
0
l
a c 198 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 6:04:28 PM

If the 610 were a good Physx card, I would be using that over a GTS250.

Also, if the 610 were a good Physx card, almost everyone would have one, since it is dirt cheap. You are welcome to buy one and try it, but I wouldn't recommend it. Generally you are going to want around 100 shaders.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 9:18:51 PM

jtenorj said:
Several post were added while I was composing my last one. A gt610 would be a better choice of dedicated physx card(30 bucks) but it requires an extra
PEG slot(something else I bet that dell mobo lacks). Those benchmarks that were linked used a Q6600 overclocked to 3ghz. An A8 3870k would be
between a stock Q6600 and stock Q6700/Q6750. Oh, wait. The op didn't specify the model(not that it would make much difference it if was a Q8400,
Q9400 or Q9450. Also, those benchmarks were just average frame rates(the minimum frame rate is very important). Here is a test with fewer titles, but
ones that both stress the gpu and are still pretty popular . The tests use a less expensive xfx 7950 double d with a number of current and recent cpus:

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

I linked the last page, but the whole article is a good read(as are all the gpu reviews there for the last year or so). See where the x4 850 sits in that chart?
That is about where your stock C2Q at 2.66ghz would sit(closer to 2.4ghz C2Q than to a 3ghz C2Q). x4 850 is like a A8 3870k at stock in these tests btw.


What rock have you been sleeping under? The only major relevant are of performance that truly matters in physx is 32bit single precession floating point and the very low end Fermi and Kepler cards just don't cut it. The GTX650 will manage and a 640 will struggle due to lack of bandwidth while the GT430 and its derivative re brands are as low as one can go without having terrible fps. If one wants a dirt cheap $10-40 dedicated card then there is a few choices like a second hand 8800gt or a gt240. The others are the GT430 and 9600gso. The GT520 is very weak but some have managed a few gains but that was upgrading from using the cpu in a AMD/ATI system.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 9:38:52 PM

gt610 is a rebrand of gt520.
m
0
l
a c 198 U Graphics card
September 26, 2012 9:40:19 PM

Still, the point is both are awful Physx cards.
m
0
l
a c 109 U Graphics card
September 27, 2012 1:43:12 AM

jtenorj said:
gt610 is a rebrand of gt520.

That means...GT420 is still the best! :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
!