Doubt about bottleneck…

[ELP3]

In principle, it's not a good combination. But not just because of the micro, which can fulfill it, but rather because of the resolution. 720p doesn't make the graphics work at all and everything is going to pull on the micro.

Any graphics card of 100€ that you put in is going to perform more or less the same at that resolution with that micro. Another thing is if we go to 1080p.

I think that a 7850-7870 could make you the best fix and the micro would handle it without too many problems.

As a future purchase if it's a good choice, what happens is that in computing, talking about the future is like talking about the bolsa.Es it's nonsense... today what you have, it's not worth buying that graphics card not only because of the micro, but as I say because of resolution. 720p is very little... any last generation graphics card in a range of 100-150€ is going to fulfill it more than enough.

Regards.

[javi2211]

@ELP3:

At first glance, it's not a good combination. But not just because of the CPU, which could handle it, but rather because of the resolution. 720p doesn't make the graphics card work at all and everything relies on the CPU.

Any graphics card costing €100 will perform more or less the same at that resolution with that CPU. It's different if we go to 1080p.

I think a 7850-7870 could be a better solution and the CPU would handle it without too many problems.

As a future purchase, it's a good choice, but the thing is that in computing, talking about the future is like talking about the bolsa.Es (stock market). It's nonsense... today, what you have, it's not worth buying that graphics card not only because of the CPU, but as I say, because of the resolution. 720p is very little... any last generation graphics card in the range of €100-150 will more than meet your needs.

Regards.

First of all, thank you very much for your reply
I initially had three doubts and I hope you can resolve them.

I was also looking into buying a 7870 but I read some places that they came with black screen defects and so on, and my fear was spending the money and then having problems... do you know if they were fixed?

With the 7870 could I also play games like Tomb Raider or Crysis 3 in high quality? (I imagine Crysis 3 would have to turn off some filters or something...)

Another doubt is whether buying the 7950 and a 1080p screen my CPU could handle this card... and if at the resolution I have, there is a bottleneck because it wasn't very clear to me.

Regards and thanks

[ELP3]

@javi2211:

First, thank you very much for answering
I have three doubts in principle, I hope you can resolve them.

I would have also looked into buying a 7870, but I read on some sites that they came with black screen defects and other issues, and my fear was to spend the money and then have problems... do you know if they were fixed?

With the 7870 could I also play games like Tomb Raider or Crysis 3 in high quality? (I imagine Crysis 3 would have to turn off some filters or something...)

Another doubt is whether buying the 7950 and a 1080p screen my micro could handle this card... and if at the resolution I have, there is a bottleneck because it was not very clear to me

Greetings and thanks

Crysis 3 is very CPU dependent. Apart from needing a very powerful graphics card. Right now, I'm sure you would play the same with a 7870 as with a 7950 at 720p. Frame up or down.

If you go to 1080p, you may start to notice the superiority of the 7950. It's true that the 7870s have problems, but by not buying Sapphire, I believe it's solved.

Your micro is not a bad micro, the problem is that it can't be oced, or not done well, and on top of that, the little it allows depends on the board.

I think that from 1080p if you can put the 7950, and your micro won't bottleneck it, but it's true that it will limit it a little, especially in games that are very CPU dependent.

Best regards.

[Bm4n]

Don't listen, buy the graphics card and the game will run better, it's one thing that the cpu affects but the main thing is the graphics. Crysis 3 Performance Test: Graphics & CPU - Page 6 - TechSpot there you see a bit how it affects, obviously without a graphics card that allows it you won't get the minimum fps, you will have time to upgrade the cpu.

PD. And I'll give you my case: without oc, with a 2500k which is 300mhz more than yours and a 560ti I play with high details even very high (except shadows) and fxaa at 1080 in Crysis 3 perfectly...

[ELP3]

@Bm4n:

Do not listen, buy the graphics card and the game will run better for you, one thing is that the CPU affects it but the main thing is the graphics. Crysis 3 Performance Test: Graphics & CPU - Page 6 - TechSpot there you can see a bit how it affects, obviously without a graphics card that allows it you will not get the minimum fps, you will have time to update the CPU later.

PD. And I'll give you my case: without OC, with a 2500k which is 300mhz more than yours and a 560ti I play with high even very high details (except shadows) and fxaa at 1080p in Crysis 3 perfectly…

You will forgive me but, I find your opinion towards my comment a bit annoying. One thing is to disagree, which is logical, and another is to discredit the opinions of others.

You yourself say that a 560Ti is enough for you to play Crysis 3 well at 1080p with an SB. Therefore, a 7950 which is MUCH superior, for 720p, should seem a bit excessive to you.

I keep saying, that for 720p, a 7950 is not going to be able to give its all to justify itself against a 7870 for example, and even less with a stock micro. Obviously then the final buyer can do whatever he pleases…

Best regards.

At 1280X800… which is even more resolution than the one you are going to use, they only take a 3% in an average of all the games tested..

[Bm4n]

A 7950 is a smart buy because it is very well priced, they give good games with it, and as it says in the first message it wants to upgrade the screen soon so it is the best option without a doubt. Let's go, that's what I would do. What I mean is that you shouldn't pay attention to the fact that its cpu will limit it so much that it's what I talked about in the previous comment, upgrading the graphics will improve the present, sorry for the inconvenience but I'm brief because I'm writing from my mobile.

PD. But a 7870 is also a good option, without a doubt, I'm more drawn to the 7950 because memory consumption is increasing, with some oc it can perform much better, and these differences tend to be maximized in the games that are coming out. But in terms of performance/price you are right.

[javi2211]

I've been thinking and my screen is quite new (it's a year old or so and it's an LG FLATRON E1940) and I hope to wait at least another year to change it because it's still new...

Do you recommend I buy this graphics card
Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 OC 2GB GDDR5 GV-R787OC-2GD Graphics Card

I'm looking at that gigabyte because I've seen that the saphires had some issues with black screens on this model and gigabyte inspires confidence in me... and with this one, can I hold out for a couple of years? and then change the monitor and upgrade to a next-generation graphics card? that wouldn't create a bottleneck, right?

And the biggest doubt I have is whether this graphics card will become outdated soon for the games that are coming (you always have to have an idea of the future) or if it will keep up with the high level for a couple more years...

Thanks a lot for everything

[fjavi]

@Bm4n:

A 7950 is a smart purchase because it is very well priced, they give good games with it, and as he says in the first message he wants to upgrade the screen soon so it is the best option without a doubt. Let's go, that's what I would do. What I mean is that he shouldn't pay attention to the fact that his CPU will limit him so much, that's what I talked about in the previous comment, upgrading the graphics will improve the present, sorry for the inconvenience but I'm brief because I'm writing from my mobile.

PD. But a 7870 is also a good option, without a doubt, I'm more attracted to the 7950 because memory consumption is increasing, with some OC it can perform much better, and these differences usually maximize in the games that are coming out. But in terms of performance/price you are right.

For me it's a waste to put a 7950 or a 660Ti to play at 720p. At such a low resolution the CPU matters much more and the more powerful the card, the worse it is. What I would do is buy a cheap one and when I change the monitor then look at the market.

The bad thing at that resolution is not the fps it can give but the stability that will be very bad. If the graphics don't work at a high load it goes worse, if we were talking about 1050p or 1080p I wouldn't have any problem, but it's very possible that a 7850 would perform even better even giving less fps, it would give a better feeling when playing. If he could try one and if he's not convinced to change it then better, but even though that CPU is good the resolution is very low and it will cost to make that card work at full capacity.

You could also go for a cheap one if you find a 6950 or 560ti second-hand and when you change the monitor then look at what has come out, the graphics of this generation with Pcie3 are already thought for higher resolutions and more if they are high-end like the 7950.

regards

[Bm4n]

@fjavi:

The problem with that resolution isn't the fps it can provide, but the stability which will be very bad. If the graphics aren't working at a high load, it gets worse. If we were talking about 1050p or 1080p, there wouldn't be any problem, but it's very possible that a 7850 would perform even better, even if it gives fewer fps, it would give a better feeling while playing. If I could try one and if I didn't like it, I would change it, but even though that CPU is good, the resolution is very low and it would be hard to make that card work at full capacity.

It would be tremendously interesting if you could show some data that demonstrates that you can get better results by changing the i5 for another superior micro, keeping your 440, than by changing the graphics and keeping the CPU. I already told you that it's going to be complicated to find it...

@__javi2211__ Well, a 7870 with 2GB as ELP3 said is a very good option, but not for 230€, because for a little more you have the 7950 with 3GB. There are some from 180€, that would be a better option. That said, as I told you by pm, a couple of years is usually the recommended duration for a graphics card. If you see that you're going to be with your 720 screen for a while, I would consider a more economical graphics card like that 7870 or else see if the 440 can last you.

I have many doubts about changing the processor to get better results. Let me tell you about my own experience: a while ago I mounted a 4870 on a low-end AMD motherboard and processor (dual-core) and then I upgraded to an i3 Clarkdale (dual-core) and then to an i5 Sandy (4 cores), the difference from the first to the second was noticeable by about 10-15FPS and from the second to the third was practically not noticeable. As long as your processor is current and more or less powerful, I wouldn't change it unless you have a powerful graphics card and you want to get more out of it. Without having the graphics card, changing the processor without any other reason doesn't make sense to me.

[ELP3]

@Bm4n:

A 7950 is a smart buy because it is very well priced, they give good games with it, and as it says in the first message it wants to upgrade the screen soon so it is undoubtedly the best option. That's what I would do. What I mean is that you shouldn't pay attention to the fact that its CPU will limit it so much, which is what I talked about in the previous comment, upgrading the graphics will improve the present, sorry for the inconvenience but I'm brief because I'm writing from my mobile.

PD. But a 7870 is also a good option, without a doubt, I'm more drawn to the 7950 because memory consumption is increasing, with some oc it can perform much better, and these differences tend to be maximized in the games that are coming out. But in terms of performance/price you are right.

OK, sorry, I didn't understand your message well.

Best regards.

[Sylver]

@Bm4n:

Well, it would be tremendously interesting if you showed some data that demonstrates that you can get better results by changing the i5 for a higher micro while keeping your 440 than by changing the graphics and keeping the CPU. I already told you that it's going to be difficult to find it...

@__javi2211__ Well, a 7870 with 2GB as ELP3 said is a very good option but not for 230€ because for a little more you have the 7950 with 3GB, there are some from 180€ that would be a better option. That said, as I mentioned to you by pm, a couple of years is usually the recommended duration for a graphics card, if you see that you're going to be with your 720 screen for a while, I would consider a more economical graphics card like that 7870 or else see if your 440 can last you.

I have many doubts about changing the processor to get better results, let me tell you for example my own experience: a while ago I mounted a 4870 on a low-end AMD processor and motherboard (dual core) and then I upgraded to an i3 Clarkdale (dual core) and then to an i5 Sandy (4 cores), the difference from the first to the second was noticeable by about 10-15FPS and from the 2nd to the 3rd practically wasn't noticeable. As long as your processor is current and more or less powerful, I wouldn't change it unless you have a powerful graphics card and want to get more out of it, without having the graphics card, changing the processor without more reason doesn't make sense to me.

+1
I experienced that with a 5850 Xtreme, first on an Athlon64 x2 at 2'9Ghz and later on the i5 2500K. The only relevance was the amount of RAM in the computer (from 3 to 8Gb) but I could play with almost everything at maximum on both computers without noticing an abysmal fps difference.

Regards

[fjavi]

@Bm4n:

Well, it would be tremendously interesting if you showed some data that demonstrates that you can get better results by changing the i5 for a higher micro while keeping your 440 than by changing the graphics and keeping the CPU. I already told you that it's going to be difficult to find it...

@__javi2211__ Well, a 7870 with 2GB as ELP3 said is a very good option but not for 230€ because for a little more you have the 7950 with 3GB, there are some from 180€ that would be a better option. That said, as I mentioned to you by PM, a couple of years is usually the recommended duration for a graphics card, if you see that you will be with your 720 screen for a while, I would consider a more economical graphics card like that 7870 or else see if the 440 can last you.

I have many doubts about changing the processor to get better results, let me tell you about my own experience: a while ago I mounted a 4870 on a low-end AMD motherboard and processor (dual core) and then I upgraded to an i3 Clarkdale (dual core) and then to an i5 Sandy (4 cores), the difference from the first to the second was noticeable by about 10-15FPS and from the second to the third practically wasn't noticeable. As long as your processor is current and more or less powerful, I wouldn't change it unless you have a powerful graphics card and want to get more out of it, without having the graphics card, changing the processor without more reason doesn't make sense to me.

I didn't say he should change the micro, because it's a good micro, but you can't compare a 4870 with a 7950, for example a Q6600 at 3600 already loses something with a 470 if it's overclocked and that's talking about 1680x1050 or 1920x1080, if we go to 720p the CPU demand goes up a lot, these resolutions are used to see which CPU lags more because the graphics aren't working at full capacity, if a 470 isn't going so stable and also low resolution and you put a more powerful graphics card it will go much worse.

I know that there isn't much difference between one of those series i3 and a 2500k, but the difference is that while the 2500K can be overclocked, the 2320 can be overclocked very little and at such low resolution, everything that goes up will be good, or maybe it's better to buy a 7950 and a monitor with more resolution.

the game will also influence it but neither the 7900 series nor the 660Ti, 670 or 680 are designed for resolutions lower than 1080p, at least at 1680x1050 it will still go well but at 720p it's very low resolution.

If we say that in a couple of months you put another monitor then yes but if it takes many months you may not be able to play well and not for lack of FPS but because the graphics card will be unstable, although if you change from a 440 then maybe it seems like a big change.

[javi2211]

Thanks to everyone for answering me...

After seeing the debates generated and so on, I still have my doubts...

My situation is clear: I have 280 € saved more or less, so I could buy up to the 7950... I can't continue with my gt 440 because I'm going to put it on my father's pc, who wants it for a simple use of office stuff and so on... and I've been wanting to change my graphics card for a while.... so do you recommend me to go for it headfirst or with my current configuration of proce and monitor it will go very bad for me?
Will I be able to play with my current configuration and this card at maximum quality in almost all games? (I already know that in the most cpu dependent ones I won't...)

Or is it better for me to go headfirst for an hd 7870? which is better in the long run? because it's clear that with time I will buy a screen with more resolution without a doubt, only that now for the moment not at least until the end of summer or Christmas... as an investment with a view to the future (1 year at most, much with my current configuration of proce and monitor) which do you recommend?

I know that these are a bit messy questions but they would help me a lot...

Thanks to everyone again ;D

[Bm4n]

I'll go step by step because I get lost with your reasoning.

@fjavi:

I didn't tell him to change the micro because it's a good micro, but you can't compare a 4870 with a 7950, for example a Q6600 at 3600 already loses something with a 470 if it's overclocked and that's talking about 1680x1050 or 1920x1080, if we go to 720p the CPU demand increases a lot, these resolutions are used to see which CPU lags more because the graphics aren't working at full capacity, if a 470 is no longer so stable and also with low resolution and you put a more powerful graphics card it will go much worse.

Let's see if we can clarify, if a graphics card works well at 1080 it will work better at 720 and if a CPU works well at 1080 it will work the same at 720p. OK? So if an i5 2320 works well for playing with current graphics cards, as you rightly say why change it? And if a 440 is a bit short for current games then logic dictates that you should upgrade it. Correct?

The doubt is whether it's better to buy a graphics card of a more or less high range, in view of the future ALL are bad because they will be surpassed by new ones although obviously the one that yields more will continue to yield something more in the future. The thing is that as ELP3 said the difference between a 7870 and a 7950 is small for a 720p resolution that uses less memory than a higher resolution, so unless you think about putting a higher resolution before changing the graphics card it's better to choose the more economical option.

@fjavi:

I know that there isn't much difference between one of those i3 series and a 2500k, but the difference is that while the 2500K can be overclocked the 2320 can be overclocked very little and at such low resolution everything that goes up will be beneficial, or perhaps it's better to buy a 7950 and a monitor with more resolution.

At 720p you will benefit from both changing the graphics card and changing the CPU, which will notice more? Changing the graphics card without a doubt for more reasons than its graphics card is older and of a lower range.

@fjavi:

the game will also influence it but neither the 7900 series nor the 660Ti, 670 or 680 are designed for resolutions lower than 1080p, at least at 1680x1050 it will still work well but at 720p it's very low resolution.

You say that without more, I repeat that a graphics card that works well at 1080 works the same or better at lower resolution, there's just less difference in performance between graphics cards. We all know that the lower the resolution the less demanding it is for the graphics card, but if the one you have is insufficient (the answer is yes: ASUS GeForce GT 440 1 GB Review | techPowerUp) you will have to change it.

@fjavi:

If we say that in a couple of months you put another monitor then yes but if it takes many months you may not be able to play well and not for lack of fps but because the graphics card will be unstable, although if you change from a 440 then perhaps it will seem like a big change.

The graphics card doesn't become unstable because of the CPU or the resolution.

The explanation is very simple if a game consumes X CPU resources it will limit you the same way on a 440 as on a 7950, what's the difference? Hypothetical example:

440 with a 2GHz CPU - 45 FPS
440 with a 4GHz CPU - 50 FPS
7950 with a 2GHz CPU - 55 FPS
7950 with a 4GHz CPU - 70 FPS

Not sure if it's clear?

[javi2211]

So should I buy the hd 7950? What would actually happen if I play with that graphics card in 720p? Can't I set the graphics to maximum or something? Or would it lag? Or would it just work great even if I don't push the graphics card to its limits until I buy a monitor?

[Sylver]

I am also in favor of getting the 7950, because the microcode update will be inevitable sooner or later, so even if there is a small loss of performance, the outlook for the near future always gives better results for people who do not have a large budget, and in addition, the improvement that you will notice from playing with the 440 to playing with the 7950 will be very significant.
For me, it would be a waste to get a 7850 while you can afford a better one, just because you will not be able to get the most out of it now, and knowing that you will be updating the microcode in the near future.

Answer: HD 7950

Regards

[javi2211]

@Sylver:

I am also in favor of getting the 7950, because a microcode update will be inevitable sooner or later, so even if there is a small loss of performance, looking at the near future always gives better results for people who do not have a large budget, and in addition, the improvement you will notice from playing with the 440 to playing with the 7950 will be very significant.
For me, it would be a waste to get a 7850 when you can afford a better one, just because you won't be able to get the most out of it now, and knowing that you will be updating the microcode in the near future.

Answer: HD 7950

Regards

And even if I can't play at 1080p now but at 720p, will I be able to play most games on ultra without problems??

Thanks for the answer and bye2

[ELP3]

@Sylver:

I am also in favor of getting the 7950, because a micro update will be inevitable sooner or later, so even though there will be a small loss of performance, the outlook for the near future always gives better results for people who do not have a large budget, and besides, the improvement you will notice from playing with the 440 to playing with the 7950 will be very significant.
For me, it would be a waste to get a 7850 when you can afford a better one, just because you won't be able to get the most out of it now, and knowing that you will be updating the micro in the near future.

Answer: HD 7950

Regards

In my opinion, and I quote myself, thinking about "in the near future" in computing is silly.

Possibly when I change the micro, platform, and monitor, the 7950 will be outdated and for that price there will undoubtedly be better alternatives.

The 7870 works perfectly, and look at that, even a 7850 coming from what it comes from, a 440, and on top of that playing at 720p. When in two years for example, I want to make the change of everything, what will fall short is the 7950. However right now, with that configuration that is what it has, you will play exactly the same with one as with the other, but saving money for the future.

I still say that we are not aware of the resolution, 1280X720 is a resolution of console.La graphics there, the more expensive and powerful, the greater the waste... and even more so with that almost innocent micro.

But anyway..let him do what he believes, go for whatever he chooses, the difference will be abysmal with what he has right now.

Regards.

[wwwendigo]

@fjavi:

I didn't tell him to change the micro, because it's a good micro, but you can't compare a 4870 with a 7950,for example a Q6600 at 3600 already loses something with a 470 if it's overclocked and that's talking about 1680x1050 or 1920x1080,if we go to 720p the CPU demand goes up quite a bit,those resolutions are used to see which CPU lags more because the graphics aren't working at full capacity,if a 470 isn't that stable anymore and you also lower the resolution and put a more powerful graphics card it will go much worse.

I know that there isn't much difference between one of those series i3s and a 2500k, but the difference is that while the 2500K can be overclocked the 2320 can be overclocked very little and at such low resolution anything that goes up will be good,or maybe it's better to buy a 7950 and a monitor with more resolution.

the game will also influence it but neither the 7900 series nor the 660Ti,670 or 680 are designed for resolutions lower than 1080p,at least at 1680x1050 it will still go well but at 720p it's very low resolution.

If we say that in a couple of months you put another monitor then yes but if it takes many months you may not be able to play well and not for lack of fps but because the graphics will be unstable,although if you change from a 440 then maybe it seems like a big change.

I totally confirm that the CPU is noticeable in not a few games with graphics of that level. With a GTX 560 Ti that performs similarly to a GTX 470, in certain games the performance was lower with a Q6600 even at 3.6 GHz than with a stock i5 2500k, not to mention with OC.

There are phases or moments in many games that are quite CPU-dependent, the current Tomb Raider with LOD at maximum, in the village in the mountain and in "shandy Town" they rely on the CPU above all, leaving a powerful graphics card (I'm talking about an i5 2500K with OC) dead laughing.

So of course at 720p with a 7950 you won't get to use its full potential, although it should be enough to maintain 60 fps except in those CPU-dependent situations mentioned.

But anyway, what you have to look for is a balance between both components, CPU and GPU.

[Bm4n]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

@__ELP3__ yo lo veo muy simple, 7950 si va a actualizar en breve y 7870 si no.

@__wwwendigo__ me voy a poner pesado, perdón de antemano

Estáis comparando un Q6600 con un 2500K, hay dos generaciones de diferencia por medio, como no va a haber diferencia?! Aquí habla de que el ya tiene un Sandy que rinde casi como un 2500 sin OC. Pondré algo con colorines a ver:

El CPU que el tiene es casi como el ROJO, creéis que necesita cambiarlo por el VERDE? Te suena de algo el gráfico? :ugly: