New graphics card

[TemplarLord]

Hey, I was thinking about replacing my old X1950Pro, with a new HD4850, preferably this one. Now, I need you to tell me should I hold out a little while, will something better come up in the coming months, or should I just go for it?

And, I'm not really in a hurry to get a new GFX, I just want to play Mass Effect 2 in all it's glory. Since it's not coming out until Q1 2010(and this date is very likely to be postponed), I guess I should hold out?

I might have hold onto my X1950, but driver support has been cut, and I'm just guessing I'll have tons of issues with new games.

Rig details here.

[Freddie]

Hey, I was thinking about replacing my old X1950Pro, with a new HD4850, preferably this one. Now, I need you to tell me should I hold out a little while, will something better come up in the coming months, or should I just go for it?

And, I'm not really in a hurry to get a new GFX, I just want to play Mass Effect 2 in all it's glory. Since it's not coming out until Q1 2010(and this date is very likely to be postponed), I guess I should hold out?

I might have hold onto my X1950, but driver support has been cut, and I'm just guessing I'll have tons of issues with new games.

Rig details here.

The original Mass Effect was a bit of pig to run smoothly at decent settings on my setup (playing at 1920x1200 and at 1680x1024) and although a HD4850 is slightly more powerful then a 8800GT I doubt it would be enough given the fact your CPU isn't exactly the fastest cat on block these days.

I would say wait and see what comes out in the next couple of months, you might also want to consider upgrading your CPU. In the mean time you should get yourself a matching pair of 1Gb ram sticks (total ram 2Gb) and sell your existing module on ebay or something. You should see an overall system improvement with the extra ram and reduced load times.

[TemplarLord]

The original Mass Effect was a bit of pig to run smoothly at decent settings on my setup (playing at 1920x1200 and at 1680x1024) and although a HD4850 is slightly more powerful then a 8800GT I doubt it would be enough given the fact your CPU isn't exactly the fastest cat on block these days.

I would say wait and see what comes out in the next couple of months, you might also want to consider upgrading your CPU. In the mean time you should get yourself a matching pair of 1Gb ram sticks (total ram 2Gb) and sell your existing module on ebay or something. You should see an overall system improvement with the extra ram and reduced load times.

I tend to play on 1280x1024@60Hz, and was amazed to realize that Mass Effect was running smoothly at 40-80 FPS. Thanks for the advice on RAM, will defo do that. I quickly checked the prices of various CPU's, and that might be my first upgrade, though everything will depend on how my existing GPU will handle new games.

[Roman Clone]

The original Mass Effect was a bit of pig to run smoothly at decent settings on my setup (playing at 1920x1200 and at 1680x1024) and although a HD4850 is slightly more powerful then a 8800GT I doubt it would be enough given the fact your CPU isn't exactly the fastest cat on block these days.

I would say wait and see what comes out in the next couple of months, you might also want to consider upgrading your CPU. In the mean time you should get yourself a matching pair of 1Gb ram sticks (total ram 2Gb) and sell your existing module on ebay or something. You should see an overall system improvement with the extra ram and reduced load times.

How do you know which CPU he has?

I second getting the 4770, at least AFTER you get a new CPU.

[Freddie]

How do you know which CPU he has?

I second getting the 4770, at least AFTER you get a new CPU.

Rig details here.

[Roman Clone]

Meh. Didn't see that....

[Devilmaypoop]

You should rather get Ati HD 4770. Its a new card with never technology and its very cheap. The performance is between 4830 and 4850.

[TemplarLord]

Well, I think I'll be patient for a little bit more, only game I'm interested at the moment is Mass Effect 2, and maybe Dragon Age: Origins once it comes out this autumn(if it comes out).

And, I think that legacy products from AMD/ATi get new drivers every 3 months, so hopefully I'll be able to play DA:O with no problems.

Regarding the CPU, is it really worth it anymore to get a dual-core? If so, I was thinking about this one. It's a Black Edition, so with a better cooler I should be able to OC it to 3.2GHz or smth like that. If not, I'll just go with a X4, or maybe an X3 and unlock the fourth core.

[TemplarLord]

In advance, I apologize for the necropost, but things have changed and I decided to hold off completely on the GPU until Mass Effect 2 comes out; but the thing I'd want to upgrade now first would be the CPU.

I was considering an AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE or the 965 BE. The difference between them is that the 955 runs at 3.2GHz, while the 965 is stocked at 3.4GHz, so is it really that big of a deal? Also, my current motherboard should be sufficient enough for either of the CPU's? Since AM3 is backwards compatible with AM2+ motherboards...

Also, do any of you know is AMD preparing a new batch of CPU's any time soon? Like in the next 6 months or so? If anyone knows this I'd appreciate it since it will affect when I buy the thing.

Oh, and I'm defo getting a HD5xxx series card for ME2, more than 80% faster than the previous gen made me change my mind...

[Roman_Man#3]

The 955 BE is a good processor, I'm using it right now. It's cheaper, runs with less power, and IIRC runs cooler than the 965 for a little bit of a performance decrease, which can be made up for by overclocking. AMD is also releasing some six-core processors late in 2010. Not in 6 months though.

concerning the video card, I'd wait until nVidia releases their cards to see what the performance is and so that ATI's prices drop.

[Douchebag]

Why don't you get Intels Q9550? Some guy did a test here, and AMD's 965 BARELY beat Q9550.

Intel still has the upper hand here in a couple of respects. Thanks to its higher per-clock performance, for instance, the Q9550 can compete with the X4 965 while running at only 2.83GHz. And at that lower clock speed, the Q9550 fits into a 95W thermal envelope. In fact, Intel even makes a low-power variant called the Q9550S that has a 65W TDP.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-041-_-Product

[Strelok]

The Q9550 also has great overclocking potential. I, for example, am running the Q9550 at 3.4GHZ from 2.83GHZ with a voltage of 1.22V. Depending on your motherboard, your stock speed voltages might be higher than that, so it's a perfectly safe overclock and I have had no real temperature increase.

[Douchebag]

The Q9550 also has great overclocking potential. I, for example, am running the Q9550 at 3.4GHZ from 2.83GHZ with a voltage of 1.22V. Depending on your motherboard, your stock speed voltages might be higher than that, so it's a perfectly safe overclock and I have had no real temperature increase.

Hell yeah. I OC'ed mine to 3.8 ghz using only stock voltage. But it didnt make any different when I was playing Crysis, so I just lowered it to 3.5

[Strelok]

Hell yeah. I OC'ed mine to 3.8 ghz using only stock voltage. But it didnt make any different when I was playing Crysis, so I just lowered it to 3.5

3.8GHZ at stock voltage? I envy you. What motherboard do you have? Are you sure you don't have it set to Auto which will automatically increase the voltage (and usually too high)

[Douchebag]

Gigabyte P45 UD3P. And no, its not on auto.

[TemplarLord]

Well, I have a AM2+ motherboard and don't really feel the need to switch to Intel since I'm not that much of an overclocker... And I've seen that AMD CPU's don't fall that far behind Intel's when it comes to gaming; which I will be primarily using it for. And that will be for Mass Effect exclusively.

And yeah, I'll wait more than 6 months for the GPU so I know exactly which cards work best for Mass Effect 2.

[TemplarLord]

So I did quite a few upgrades in the last year; changed the CPU, PSU, new desktop case, GPU and lastly got a new MBO and RAM). Now, I think, might finally be time to change my aging(medieval really) monitor, teh LG Flatron 17".

It won't be missed.

I'm turning once again to the superior knowledge of my fellow forumites, because I'm not quite sure what's really important and what's not regarding PC monitors. I'll dish out 300-400$ for it... My specs are here.

What really comes to play? Is there a huge difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200(16:9 or 16:10 I'm guessing)? Contrast ratio? LED backlighting? I'm guessing 2ms is only marginally better than 5ms response time(is it noticeable in FPS gaming)? Do any of these matter really, or is the more expensive product better?

Sorry for the necropost and so many questions, I just don't wanna waste money unnecessarily. Thanks for your time!

[Freddie]

So I did quite a few upgrades in the last year; changed the CPU, PSU, new desktop case, GPU and lastly got a new MBO and RAM). Now, I think, might finally be time to change my aging(medieval really) monitor, teh LG Flatron 17".

It won't be missed.

I'm turning once again to the superior knowledge of my fellow forumites, because I'm not quite sure what's really important and what's not regarding PC monitors. I'll dish out 300-400$ for it... My specs are here.

What really comes to play? Is there a huge difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200(16:9 or 16:10 I'm guessing)? Contrast ratio? LED backlighting? I'm guessing 2ms is only marginally better than 5ms response time(is it noticeable in FPS gaming)? Do any of these matter really, or is the more expensive product better?

Sorry for the necropost and so many questions, I just don't wanna waste money unnecessarily. Thanks for your time!

That this is thriller, thriller night
'Cause I can thrill you more than any ghost would ever dare try
Thriller, thriller night
So let me hold you tight and share a
Killer, diller, chiller, thriller here tonight

An HD 5870 with a 17" screen? That's some epic future proving.

The biggest difference between 1080 and 1200 screens is the technology behind them a lot of cheaper 1080 screens uses crappy TN technology which is good for response times and reduced input lag (input lag is when there's a delay between pressing a key or mouse click and seeing the corresponding action on the screen) and faster pixel response times but at the expense of colour vibrancy and accuracy. Monitors that display at 1920 x 1200 will typically use S-IPS, H-IPS, S-PVA or VA technologies. PVA screens are more money then TN but the colour reproduction and accuracy are top notch which in practice means next to a TN display colours looks a lot more brighter and vibrant almost as if everything has come to life when compared to a TN where colours are dull and washed out . The draw back with PVA is the pixel response times but that's really only an issue IMO on older PVA screens newer ones say from 2007 it really isn't an issue unless your a hardcore FPS gamer. Up from PVA there IPS which has all the advantages of PVA and none of its disadvantage but it's probably out of price league.

Just a quick note on input lag, your not going to spot it in Total war type games as the gameplay is slow, it's really only in online FPS where you can experience it from time to time.

[ROFL Copter]

AAHHHHGH!! NECROMANCY!