Curse

Obsy · Jun 15, 2009, 05:18 AM // 05:18

I have a Core 2 Duo E7200 running at 3.8GHz and am wondering what would be the fastest graphics card I can get for it without bottlenecking.

My current video card is a Radeon HD 4850 but I'll sell it to a friend and get a faster card if it won't be bottlenecked.

byteme! · Jun 15, 2009, 05:43 AM // 05:43

What's wrong with the 4850? It's a fantastic card. I don't see the point in investing in the latest as the performance increase is very likely minimal. Wait a while.

Obsy · Jun 15, 2009, 06:00 AM // 06:00

I totally agree. I wouldn't be thinking about upgrading it until half a year later but my friend really wants it to replace his HD 2600 XT, and I'd like to run Call of Duty 4 at 125 FPS for other reasons.

Elder III · Jun 15, 2009, 10:19 AM // 10:19

I'm curious as to why you want 125fps in any game..... agreed it's cool, but it's not going to increase your gaming pleasure any... just epeen (which is reason enough lol).

Anyways, what GPU is best for you depends on 2 things: What resolution you want to play at & What's your budget?

riktw · Jun 15, 2009, 10:26 AM // 10:26

i got an HD4850 to and i am getting an HD4870*2.
why?
i went from 19" screen to 24" screen.
and i want to play crysis in high

Ec]-[oMaN · Jun 15, 2009, 04:45 PM // 16:45

With the price drops on ATI's lineup you can't go wrong with a 4870 1gig for 150$ or lower.

Burton2000 · Jun 15, 2009, 05:09 PM // 17:09

The 4890 is also a good choice for under £200 if you wanns stay with ATI.

Obsy · Jun 15, 2009, 08:32 PM // 20:32

My friend is offering $70 cash for my 4850. Not bad considering I got it last summer for $110. I'm trying to get it to him before the DX11 cards change his mind.

I'm eying the freely-shipped MSI 4890, which also comes with two games

, on ZipZoomFly for $169.99 after a $20 rebate. I'd just like to know if my E7200 would bottleneck it or a GTX 275. My stock-clocked E7200 bottlenecked my 4850 in some games so I thought it might do so to an HD 4890 or GTX 275, even if it was overclocked by 50%.

I don't know if its just me but 60 FPS in Call of Duty 4 seems choppy - choppy compared to 125, that is. My FPS meter seems to agree, because the indicator goes from green status to red when I get lower than 60. Anyhow, 125 FPS allows me to do things, gameplay-wise, that I wouldn't be able to do with less FPS. This is an ordeal that would need a thread of its own, really.

moriz · Jun 16, 2009, 12:09 AM // 00:09

no, you won't be bottlenecked. a E7200 at 3.8ghz is generally faster than a stock E8600, so you should be fine.

deluxe · Jun 17, 2009, 05:11 PM // 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obsy

My friend is offering $70 cash for my 4850. Not bad considering I got it last summer for $110. I'm trying to get it to him before the DX11 cards change his mind.

I'm eying the freely-shipped MSI 4890, which also comes with two games

, on ZipZoomFly for $169.99 after a $20 rebate. I'd just like to know if my E7200 would bottleneck it or a GTX 275. My stock-clocked E7200 bottlenecked my 4850 in some games so I thought it might do so to an HD 4890 or GTX 275, even if it was overclocked by 50%.

I don't know if its just me but 60 FPS in Call of Duty 4 seems choppy - choppy compared to 125, that is. My FPS meter seems to agree, because the indicator goes from green status to red when I get lower than 60. Anyhow, 125 FPS allows me to do things, gameplay-wise, that I wouldn't be able to do with less FPS. This is an ordeal that would need a thread of its own, really.

If you think that upgrading from a 4850 to 4890 doubles your fps, you'll be disappointed.
Also, you are aware what vsync is? Because iirc i used to get over 100 fps easily with cod4. (4850 here)

Obsy · Jun 17, 2009, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Nope, I don't think that a 4890 will double my FPS.

Yes, I know what vsync is and it's off. How else would I know how to compare 60 FPS to 125 and above? I just used 60 FPS as an example because that is what most people consider as smooth gameplay. I'm running on a 1680x1050 res and my HD 4850 can easily get more than 125 FPS, but it doesn't stay that way and will drop when it gets more intensive.

Brett Kuntz · Jun 21, 2009, 07:04 AM // 07:04

Dunno where you pulled the 125 number from, but unless COD4 uses the Q3 engine, there is probably a better number to frame lock yourself to. Quake 3/Live uses 125 FPS because of some rounding errors in the physics engine which allows you to accelerate faster, on average, at 125. But since comp tech is much better now than before, a new max of iirc 177 can be used for even more accel. I see a lot of people/myths about locking to 125 FPS, mostly because 125 is a nice even number, but they are all false. Quake 3 is the only game with the phenomena of rouding errors + decimal dropping on the frame delay within the physics engine. Other games may have similiar phenomina, but they'd have their own FPS lock numbers.

Obsy · Jun 21, 2009, 08:24 AM // 08:24

Yes, Call of Duty 4 uses the Quake 3 engine. 'nough said.

moriz · Jun 23, 2009, 01:53 AM // 01:53

you sure about that? according to wiki, CoD4 uses a proprietary engine, which was heavily modified from the Quake 4 engine. i personally doubt such a glaring error would make it past all these revisions.

Obsy · Jun 23, 2009, 07:17 AM // 07:17

Yeah, I've known it uses a "propriety" engine based on Quake. I apologize for my wording.

And the error not being revised is doubtful indeed. I'm apparently not going to be able to convince you guys that CoD4's engine has the 125 FPS errors, so run CoD4 yourself and try to make the 125 FPS jumps in this guide and this, but without 125 FPS. Then bump the FPS to 125 and see if it's possible. That way you can personally confirm if errors at 125 FPS still exist.