Upgrade from GTS 250

[Sudden]

Was toying with the idea of a general upgrade and the kind folks over at General Hardware advised that it should likely be an SSD.

However, I just bought Witcher 2 and find that I can run it only on low settings. Even at medium the frame rate is dropping to around 20 (on low it's about 25).

This is pushing me more towards a GFX card upgrade instead (as I presume that upgrading this will let me run the game on higher settings. Do correct me if i'm wrong). I currently have a 1 gb GTS 250. Is there any thing out there which would give me a graphic boost without my other hardware being a bottleneck? I'm not looking at a full upgrade at the moment so upgrading the CPU or the motherboard is out.

Full spec is :

EVGA 780i FTW edition motherboard
EVGA GTS 250 (1gb) graphics card
4 GB OCZ Platinum Ram - DDR2
x6800 core 2 due extreme (2.93 ghz - oc'd to 3.2 ghz)
150 GB Raptor HD + other HD's for storage
Tagan 900W (I think) PSU
Windows 7 x64

Budget is around £100ish but flexible if something gives me a big boost and won't be bottlenecked by the other hardware.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

If those people knew you had a 250 GTS (not to mention your CPU being a little long in the tooth) and recommended an SSD upgrade over a graphic card upgrade, they should have their forum advice cards revoked!

If your looking for a £100 graphic card, you dont need to worry about your system holding you back. (You will get lower performance than with a more modern mboard+ CPU, but not to the extent you need to worry about.)

In that budget, AMD is king, and a 7770 seems the only option. Specifically, this one: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-101-GI&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1699

If you can stretch to a 7850 though, you'd be better off.

 

[Sudden]

Thanks!

Which 7850 would be good? They seem to be a few with prices varying a fair bit as well. I can stretch the budget to it, but only if the price is worth the performance increase.

A second hand GTX 460 was also mentioned in the general hardware section. How would that compare? (though I would prefer buying first hand cause of warranty etc.).

I don't mind spending more if I get a significant boost on performance. I just don't want to start spending so much that I start future proofing since in that event, I might as well just build a whole new one.

 

[OvEr_KiLL]

if you dont want to spend much then i reckon this 7850 would be alright for you http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-179-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=411

 

[Bromhead]

If you can stretch I'd definitely go for a 7850 over a 7770, though no matter which you choose will be a nice boost

Here's a link to a comparison

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/536?vs=549

I'd say a good 40% more, but definitely worth it for the better experience you'd have

 

[ShakeNBake]

GTX 460 or 650, both around £100, both a good deal more powerful than a GTS 250.

Check you have a strong enough PSU and motherboard is compatible 1st tho.

Dunno about AMD options in that price range, but others will.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

GT 460 is I think a bit better than the 7770, though not so much that you'd notice it significantly in a lot of games.

The 7850 is considerably better than both, but you do pay more for it.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Actually your slow Core2Duo would be bottlenecking even the GTS250 in Witcher 2 at the lower graphic settings, as the game is quite CPU demanding as well.

The reason when your dropping the graphic settings to low and medium and still get that poor frame rate is because that's all that Core2Duo CPU is capable of, and upgrading the graphic card won't really change that (the frame rate), other than give you more headroom for using higher graphic settings.

It's time for your to considering moving on and build a new gaming PC from scratch...or at the very least, try to pick up a cheap 2nd hand Quad-core CPU to throw onto your existing board (but still won't help much in games that uses less than 3-4 cores).

 

[Tonester0011]

^
Pretty much what Marine said, I gave my mate a 6850 to give him a slight boost with his X38 rig, it was a pretty pointless exercise, he became almost instantly CPU bound with next to no real world gains.

He's just now saving up to move over to 1155

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Before you accept the idea that your CPU is bottlenecking you, test it first.

Pick a couple of games you can benchmark. bench each game on the lowest settings, and again on the highest settings.

If you don't see much of a difference between low and high, you are CPU bound. If there is a significant difference, you might still be getting lower FPS than a better CPU would give you, but you are not CPU bound.

So if there is a difference, go for the graphic card upgrade. When you get it, repeat the same tests. If you don't get much of an improvement over your previous card's high settings, take advantage of OCUK's 14 working day customer satisfaction guarantee, and return it for a refund.

 

[markyb]

I think upgrading to a GTX460 won't really provide any worthwhile performance increase. The G200 Series were a very strong range. When the GTX260 is overclocked, performance is pretty much on par with a stock 460.

The only real benefit of upgrading is DX11, but then as said your bottleneck is your CPU.

I would suggested Overclocking the 260 (I'm running 700/1260 on my GTX275) for now and save up for some new shiny bits

 

[Sudden]

Before you accept the idea that your CPU is bottlenecking you, test it first.

Pick a couple of games you can benchmark. bench each game on the lowest settings, and again on the highest settings.

If you don't see much of a difference between low and high, you are CPU bound. If there is a significant difference, you might still be getting lower FPS than a better CPU would give you, but you are not CPU bound.

So if there is a difference, go for the graphic card upgrade. When you get it, repeat the same tests. If you don't get much of an improvement over your previous card's high settings, take advantage of OCUK's 14 working day customer satisfaction guarantee, and return it for a refund.

Thanks for this! Was just about to post that I was a bit confused about what to do since I was getting some conflicting opinions.

Is Fraps a good enough software to test this? Or do I need something more?

Also - the 14 working day policy - will it still apply to a graphics card that has been put into a system and actually used? (I presume this will be a bit more obvious given the used packaging etc.).


Also - regarding the CPU. Are the newer CPU's better than just in terms of number of cores? I was under the impression that a quad core which is less than 3 ghz for e.g. won't provide that much boost over my core 2 duo at 3 ghz unless the game/application actually utilises the multi core. If that's correct, how many games actually do?

Also - would overclocking the CPU a bit more help? Or would it still bottleneck because of other things (if indeed it is the bottleneck)?

Finally - the 7850. There seem to be a 1gb version and 2gb version. I presume the 2gb is better for me, albeit more expensive? I game at 1920x1200.

I think upgrading to a GTX460 won't really provide any worthwhile performance increase. The G200 Series were a very strong range. When the GTX260 is overclocked, performance is pretty much on par with a stock 460.

The only real benefit of upgrading is DX11, but then as said your bottleneck is your CPU.

I would suggested Overclocking the 260 (I'm running 700/1260 on my GTX275) for now and save up for some new shiny bits

Thanks. Afraid on a 250 GTS, not a 260.

I don't mind spending more on the shiny bits - just not to the extent that I need a new machine. I can currently afford to build a new one, but this is the first time I have had any issues running a game on less than full and i'm not sure if I will again as I don't game as much as I used to. Don't want to spend loads and then hardly use the upgrade.

 

[markyb]

Thanks. Afraid on a 250 GTS, not a 260.

I don't mind spending more on the shiny bits - just not to the extent that I need a new machine. I can currently afford to build a new one, but this is the first time I have had any issues running a game on less than full and i'm not sure if I will again as I don't game as much as I used to. Don't want to spend loads and then hardly use the upgrade.

Sorry mate, reading fail for me

Keep checking out the Members Market on here. Might be worth picking up a older card which will provide a bit more power for little notes.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Before you accept the idea that your CPU is bottlenecking you, test it first.

Pick a couple of games you can benchmark. bench each game on the lowest settings, and again on the highest settings.

If you don't see much of a difference between low and high, you are CPU bound. If there is a significant difference, you might still be getting lower FPS than a better CPU would give you, but you are not CPU bound.

Specifically for Witcher 2, he doesn't need to bother to test it himself, as reviewers has already done it:
http://www.techspot.com/review/405-the-witcher-2-performance/page8.html
His Core2Duo at 3.20GHz would be pretty much around the similar performance as the Athlon II X2 260 at 3.20GHz, which only got average frame rate of 34 despite on the GTX590.

My own E5200 overclocked to 4.2GHz bottleneck my 9800GTX+ (which is GTS250 before rebranding) in quite a few games I play as well...so a Core2Duo at 3.2GHz would suffer worse than that. I'm afraid Core2Duo simply don't cut it for the modern games these day, except for may be E8x00 overclocked to 4.25-4.5GHz (even that isn't perfect).

 

[Sudden]

Thanks for the link. I see that it mentions that Witcher performance on core 2 duo takes a big hit. Is this for all modern games now or is Witcher just a bit different and doesn't like dual core processors?

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Thanks for this! Was just about to post that I was a bit confused about what to do since I was getting some conflicting opinions.

Is Fraps a good enough software to test this? Or do I need something more?

Also - the 14 working day policy - will it still apply to a graphics card that has been put into a system and actually used? (I presume this will be a bit more obvious given the used packaging etc.).


Also - regarding the CPU. Are the newer CPU's better than just in terms of number of cores? I was under the impression that a quad core which is less than 3 ghz for e.g. won't provide that much boost over my core 2 duo at 3 ghz unless the game/application actually utilises the multi core. If that's correct, how many games actually do?

Also - would overclocking the CPU a bit more help? Or would it still bottleneck because of other things (if indeed it is the bottleneck)?

Finally - the 7850. There seem to be a 1gb version and 2gb version. I presume the 2gb is better for me, albeit more expensive? I game at 1920x1200.

I tend to use games that have their own built in benchmarks, but FRAPS will be fine - better really, since you get to see how game play feels too.

The 14 day policy: yes, this allows fitting and use of the hardware. You need to be able to test it's fit for purpose.

CPUs: Newer CPUs have lots of improvements beside number cores. An ivybridge or sandybridge CPU with the same cores and clock speed as your CPU will still be faster.

Overclocking can help yes. Generally, overclocking a CPU gives only marginal gains (outside of very specific cases), BUT IF your CPU is a bottleneck, it can make a considerable difference by removing some of that bottleneck.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Thanks for the link. I see that it mentions that Witcher performance on core 2 duo takes a big hit. Is this for all modern games now or is Witcher just a bit different and doesn't like dual core processors?

It does look like the witcher 2 is one of those few games where you need more than two cores for decent performance. By the way, that review didn't say it was bad on core 2 duos (they had none to test). It said it was bad for dual core chips in general: there are dual core athlons, phenoms, and intel chips. The witcher 2 is coded to use 3 or more cores, and any processor less than that will suffer. This is NOT the norm (at least not yet). Most games do fine with two cores.

I'd still do the test yourself. The test doesn't include your specific CPU, and requires you to make an assumption that it is comparable to an athlon 2 chip - a completely different family. Athlon 2s and Core 2 Duo Chips perform differently: in one game, they may be equivalent, in another game they may be very different.

Besides, real world testing often differs from published reviews - the only way to see what's right for your situation is test yourself. You might still get adequate performance.

 

[Marine-RX179]

It does look like the witcher 2 is one of those few games where you need more than two cores for decent performance. By the way, that review didn't say it was bad on core 2 duos (they had none to test). It said it was bad for dual core chips in general: there are dual core athlons, phenoms, and intel chips. The witcher 2 is coded to use 3 or more cores, and any processor less than that will suffer. This is NOT the norm (at least not yet). Most games do fine with two cores.

I'd still do the test yourself. The test doesn't include your specific CPU, and requires you to make an assumption that it is comparable to an athlon 2 chip - a completely different family. Athlon 2s and Core 2 Duo Chips perform differently: in one game, they may be equivalent, in another game they may be very different.

Besides, real world testing often differs from published reviews - the only way to see what's right for your situation is test yourself. You might still get adequate performance.

I have to disagree on this. Other than the god awful lazy ported piece of poo GTX IV, I don't really recall any games are like that.

It is about the overall game performance of the CPU rather than the number of cores. In many games benches, it clearly shows that the i3 would mostly keep up with the i5 CPU for single GPU card (except for CPU demanding games), and in those very same bench, the Athlon II X2 would be huge chunk lower in terms of frame rate.

In most modern games (excluding linear tunnel crawlers action/FPS games), a Athlon II X2, Phenom II X2, Core2Duo even with overclocked would struggle to even hold minimum frame at above 20-25fps, and average frame rate would be around 30-40ish...it is only the E8x00 with high overclock of around 4.2-4.5GHz would still manage.

"The witcher 2 is coded to use 3 or more cores, and any processor less than that will suffer".

Actually it's the other way round. My friend's i3 2120 (HT disabled at the time due to issue with BF3) would hit 100% CPU usage no problem in Witcher 2, so he's getting every last bit of juice out of the CPU in that game dispite being a dual-core; now let's say if the game only uses up to 2 or 3 cores but not 4, it would mean a 4 cores CPU like Core2Quad or Phenom II X4 are ones that would suffer, with CPU usage only hitting 50 or 75% max, thus gaming performance would be fair bit slower than the i3 (an i3's gaming performance is around the same as Core2-Quad or Phenom II X4 at around 3.6-3.9GHz in games that would use 4 cores such as BF). If a game can use 100% usage on all 4 cores of a quad-core CPU, then there's no reason that a dual-core CPU would suffer due to having two less physical cores, as it would still be at 100% CPU usage. One of the very commonly seen problem with games is that that are poorly coded in the way of 100% usage on the 1st core, 10-30% usage on core 2, 3, and 4. In games like these, the i3 will have very noticable performance advantange over Core2Quad or Phenom II X4 CPUs, as the 1st core of the what affect the frame rate the most, and the i3 would have superior performance by quite a margin in this regard...the 2nd core of the i3 would easily be able handle the workload shown on the core 2, 3, and 4 of the Quad-core CPUs, as they are only 30% or below usage. Bascially overclocked Core2Quad or Phenom II X4 would need the games to be well coded to use all the cores to close to 100% usage, in order to match or better the performance of a i3 with 100% usage. However if the Quad2Quad/Phenom II X4 was compared the Core2Duo/Athlon II X2/Phenom II X2 in games that would use all 4 cores up to 100% usage, then the Quad-core CPUs would have advantage, as the those dated dual-core would pretty much have exactly half the gaming grunt in contrast you their 4 cores big brothers; in the poor coded example I mentioned above though (100%, 30%, 30%, 30% usage), the Quad-core would still have not much advantage over their dual-core little brothers.

So rather than number of cores, it's more about the overall gaming performance/grunt of what the CPUs are capable of.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Marine, your entire response seems to be responding to something I didn't say.

My comment was specifically relating to the witcher needing 3 cores or more, and was definitely not meant as a general rule (I thought that was clear).

That comment was prompted by the specific CPU review mentioned earlier, which stated that for Witcher 2, and CPU with only 2 cores would struggle to perform well.

I agree that there's more to gaming performance in general than the number of cores, and said as much myself. Which is why i was encouraging the OP to test it himself, and perform simple tests to find out if he can improve his performance.