Best GPU bang for buck

[forteh]

Having been pointed in this direction by MarkeR following queries on upgrades to play arma3 I am asking more questions!

Basically I may be in need of a gpu upgrade to replace my aging gtx260 core 216 (clocked to 280ish speeds I think) specifically for playing arma3, I have been recommended to stick with nvidia because I also play DCS sims. Budget is limited, ideally £75-100 but I am more than happy with older 2nd hand cards. Anything with less heat/power and size than the 260 would be a bonus.

I'm not trying to chase maximum fps (as my cpu is also pretty old and limited - [email protected]), I would be happy with something that will pull a fairly constant 35-40 fps on high @ 1080p in arma3.

I'm initially looking at a gtx660ti which can be had on fleabay typically for 70-80 quid, any further thoughts or suggestions?

 

[Marine-RX179]

The issue with Arma3 it is one of the few games that are extremely hard on the CPU (and is not too light on the graphic neither). The cheapest way to bring your system to play Arma3 at decent level is probably replaced your i3 530 with a 2nd hand i7 860/870, and then replace your GTX260 with a 2nd hand GTX670 or 7950.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

ARMA3 also has limtations on the server side too IIRC,and is a game you can throw hardware at and still have problems.

It also only uses one thread so I am not sure if a Core i7 will massively help ATM:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18631428

I would try and put the money into a graphics card ATM - a secondhand GTX670 or HD7950 suggested as earlier is what I would look for.

 

[almighty15]

Get a quad core CPU and one of those £200 GTX780's.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Get a quad core CPU and one of those £200 GTX780's.

Check his budget first.

 

[forteh]

Thanks for the input so far, I'm aware that it is severly limited server hardware side but that isn't too much of a concern for me right now.

I've just tested a3 on my work machine (i7 [email protected], 16gb, ssd) with my gtx260 plugged in and im getting slightly higher fps with the same settings which would indicate that the gpu just cannot give any more and it's bottlenecking the system.

Eventually I intend to replace the i3 with an i5 760 clocked up to 4ghz but in the mean time looking at the gpu as main culprit.

Would the 670 be a better bet than the 660ti? They appear to be in the higher bracket of my budget but will it make that much of a difference?

 

[Marine-RX179]

Thanks for the input so far, I'm aware that it is severly limited server hardware side but that isn't too much of a concern for me right now.

I've just tested a3 on my work machine (i7 [email protected], 16gb, ssd) with my gtx260 plugged in and im getting slightly higher fps with the same settings which would indicate that the gpu just cannot give any more and it's bottlenecking the system.

Eventually I intend to replace the i3 with an i5 760 clocked up to 4ghz but in the mean time looking at the gpu as main culprit.

Would the 670 be a better bet than the 660ti? They appear to be in the higher bracket of my budget but will it make that much of a difference?

Yes I would agree for 1920 res, between the overclocked i3 530 and GTX260 the graphic card would probably be the bigger bottleneck.

The biggest difference between the GTX670 and the GTX660Ti is that the number of cuda cores aside, the GTX670 and GTX660Ti is that one is 256-bit memory bus and the other is only 192-bit memory bus. It's been shown that for the GTX660Ti when frame rate will drop at a much steeper rate once AA is enabled beyond 2xAA, comparing to the GTX670/GTX680 with 256-bit bus.

 

[forteh]

Yes I would agree for 1920 res, between the overclocked i3 530 and GTX260 the graphic card would probably be the bigger bottleneck.

The biggest difference between the GTX670 and the GTX660Ti is that the number of cuda cores aside, the GTX670 and GTX660Ti is that one is 256-bit memory bus and the other is only 192-bit memory bus. It's been shown that for the GTX660Ti when frame rate will drop at a much steeper rate once AA is enabled beyond 2xAA, comparing to the GTX670/GTX680 with 256-bit bus.

Thanks for the advice, I rarely run more than 2xfsaa anyway at 1080p so it shouldn't be much of an issue. Either way I will see if I can pick up a cheap 670 if not then a 660ti

 

[Jamielicious]

Going from a 260 to a 670 would be a massive leap up. The AMD equivalent would be from a 4870 to a 7950. I think CPU bottlenecks are less and less of an issue and of course a GPU is much much easier to upgrade.

 

[Akagi]

Your i3 is still a capable CPU, I used to have one at 4.4GHz, and later 4.6GHz and it was a good match for the GTX660 OC and later the GTX760 I fitted. I also had a system with a GTX670 and an i5 at the time (GTX670 and 760 perform very similarly) and there was only a few FPS in it.

Admittedly I don't play the most intensive games out there. Those experiences were mainly based on Borderlands 2 and Portal 2.

 

[forteh]

Your i3 is still a capable CPU, I used to have one at 4.4GHz, and later 4.6GHz and it was a good match for the GTX660 OC and later the GTX760 I fitted. I also had a system with a GTX670 and an i5 at the time (GTX670 and 760 perform very similarly) and there was only a few FPS in it.

Admittedly I don't play the most intensive games out there. Those experiences were mainly based on Borderlands 2 and Portal 2.

The fact that an the 4.2ghz i7 with the gtx260 installed pulled maybe 3fps more than the 4.2ghz i3 is pleasing news to me, obviously for running solidworks at home the i3 dies on its arse but most games I've come across are yet to use more than two cores. Arma3 was loading my two cores to 45-60% constantly last night in a quick test whilst the 260 was blatting away at 90%.

Now anyone got a gpu for sale cheap?
I don't have access to the classified market and I'm not active enough on here to likely ever get access

 

[Marine-RX179]

The fact that an the 4.2ghz i7 with the gtx260 installed pulled maybe 3fps more than the 4.2ghz i3 is pleasing news to me, obviously for running solidworks at home the i3 dies on its arse but most games I've come across are yet to use more than two cores. Arma3 was loading my two cores to 45-60% constantly last night in a quick test whilst the 260 was blatting away at 90%.

Actually the reason for that is because the bottleneck is with the graphic card, it is why you are not seeing higher frame rate with the i7 on the GTX260 and CPU usage is not being pushed.

If your GTX260 is only able to push 20fps at a scene, then the CPU would do the same and use only enough grunt/give it just enough load to push 20fps, rather than pushing it to 50-60fps when the graphic card can't keep up anyway; if you toss a say...GTX670 in there to replace the GTX260 and the card can do 40-50fps, the CPU would increase the load accordingly to try to push the same frame rate- at which point, the i3 might not be able to keep up with what the GTX670 can deliver...which becomes what's known as "CPU bottleneck", thus you'd need a faster CPU.

 

[almighty15]

I would try and get a 7950 if you can, bigger bud and VRAM then pretty much all the Nvidia offerings in the same price bracket.

 

[wellibob]

I'd like the man above said grab a 7950 2nd hand as they are slightly better than nvidia offering at a similar point. That said 670/760 are decent on there own right. Getting value for money is probably better in your situation.

 

[forteh]

Actually the reason for that is because the bottleneck is with the graphic card, it is why you are not seeing higher frame rate with the i7 on the GTX260 and CPU usage is not being pushed.

If your GTX260 is only able to push 20fps at a scene, then the CPU would do the same and use only enough grunt/give it just enough load to push 20fps, rather than pushing it to 50-60fps when the graphic card can't keep up anyway; if you toss a say...GTX670 in there to replace the GTX260 and the card can do 40-50fps, the CPU would increase the load accordingly to try to push the same frame rate- at which point, the i3 might not be able to keep up with what the GTX670 can deliver...which becomes what's known as "CPU bottleneck", thus you'd need a faster CPU.

I know the gpu is bottlenecking the cpu in this instance, I wanted to confirm that was the case though before I replace the cpu to find that the fps increase is minimal to none. I also fully expect the i3 to somewhat bottleneck the new gpu when I get it, eventually I will upgrade the i3 to an i5 but finances just don't allow it right now

With regards the 7950 vs 660ti/670, I'm led to believe that nvidia cards run better with the dcs sims, as such I would prefer to stay nvidia unless someone can offer alternative info

 

[Jamielicious]

The main advantage of the 7950 is that it has 3GB VRAM but for the games you care about I would recommend the 660ti/670 depending on what you can stretch to. Both overclock quite well too.

 

[Marine-RX179]

With regards the 7950 vs 660ti/670, I'm led to believe that nvidia cards run better with the dcs sims, as such I would prefer to stay nvidia unless someone can offer alternative info

Looking at Digital Combat Simulator...it does look like the type of game that would run more reliably with Nvidia than AMD.

With that said, I still won't recommend getting anything lesser than a GTX670. More and more games uses high res texture thesedays, and I wouldn't recommend card with narrow bus width than 256-bit and relatively low memory bandwidth.