I just bought a barebone kit.
And my Uncles are building my new computer.
It as 4G of Ram, a Good Processor, but I know
Im gonna need a new video card.
The motherboard is a Abit I-45CV Motherboard,
what's the best Video Card to get?
My cash limit is 500$
What Video Card to Get?
Pink Hammer
Lurid
What power supply is being used? The ATi HD 4850 is a good buy at the moment.
Pink Hammer
The power supply:
450-watt power supply
Barebone-Kit Link:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...=A458-1202%20A
450-watt power supply
Barebone-Kit Link:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...=A458-1202%20A
Crimson Flame
I may be wrong, but doesn't it say that that motherboard already has an integrated Intel graphics chip? Can you upgrade that with a vid card?
Pink Hammer
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crimson Flame
I may be wrong, but doesn't it say that that motherboard already has an integrated Intel graphics chip? Can you upgrade that with a vid card?
|
computers but the simple stuff.
I googled the specs on that card:
256-bit graphics core running at 400MHz
Up to 10.6 GB/sec memory bandwidth with DDR2 667 system memory
1.6 GPixels/sec and 1.6 GTexels/sec fill rate
Up to 224 MB maximum video memory
2048x1536 at 75 Hz maximum resolution
Dynamic Display Modes for flat-panel, wide-screen and Digital TV support
Operating systems supported: Microsoft Windows* XP, Windows* XP 64bit, Media Center Edition 2004/2005, Windows 2000; Linux-compatible (Xfree86 source available)
One Tall Amazon Btch
The first thing you need to check is what the minimum power requirement is for the video card.. You should look for a card that has 350 or so for watts to run it.. If you put in a higher end card then that power supply might not be enough...
Also go to Abit's website and see what video card that MB can handle..
I believe you can disable the onboard graphics in the bios ..
good luck
Also go to Abit's website and see what video card that MB can handle..
I believe you can disable the onboard graphics in the bios ..
good luck
moriz
make sure you have a PCI-E x16 slot.
the HD4850 needs a 450W PSU minimum. however, you're cutting it very close.
the HD4850 needs a 450W PSU minimum. however, you're cutting it very close.
Lurid
Yes, you can install a graphics card if the motherboard has onboard graphics. Have you already bought that barebones? If not, I wouldn't...its a bit of a rip off for what you get. And at the very least i'd swap that PSU for something better suited to powering a medium to higher end GPU.
Pink Hammer
Its already been bought.
So basically im screwed?
Yes it does have the PCI-E x1 Slot..
So basically im screwed?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
make sure you have a PCI-E x16 slot.
the HD4850 needs a 450W PSU minimum. however, you're cutting it very close. |
Why_Me
Just checked, it has both a pci-e x1 and x16 slot. However, the case looks rather small, physical space may be an issue.
Pink Hammer
Thats not the case i got,
The case I got is bigger.
Than ran out of that case,
and gave me a choice of another:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...&Sku=TC3J-4512
^ I think thats the case I got? But even so,
that was just until pay day.
Oh and what about this video card?
e-GeForce 8600GT 10
The case I got is bigger.
Than ran out of that case,
and gave me a choice of another:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...&Sku=TC3J-4512
^ I think thats the case I got? But even so,
that was just until pay day.
Oh and what about this video card?
e-GeForce 8600GT 10
Tamuril elansar
the ATI HD4850 whipes the floor with the 8600GT.
i'd say you go for the 4850 or 4870 whatever you want.
i'd say you go for the 4850 or 4870 whatever you want.
Divinus Stella
8800GT, theres a few models floating around £110~ which might be more than you want to spend on a barebones system but if your into games its an investment.
Evil Genius
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pink Hammer
My cash limit is 500$
|
I have taken the liberty of assuming you would be willing to spend the money on a video plus other components, and that Newegg is acceptable.
Corsair HX-520 PSU for $100 (after $20 rebate) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817139001
Zalman CNPS9500 for $50 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835118003
This, or another fan, is an absolute necessity. Do not even turn on your computer without a CPU fan/heatsink.
ATI MSI 4850 for $175 (after $25 rebate) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127359
Brand doesn't matter, just get a 4850.
That comes to $325.
I had trouble deciphering that excuse for writing, but I assume you mean you have 4GB of RAM already. I cant understand if that Celeron E1200 (from the barebones) was what you referred to as a good CPU or not. Because its not good, however, with some overclocking and a good heatsink/fan it could be better.
Tell us
a) What you actually have
b) What ur budget actually is in USD
I suspect you meant $50 not $500. If that is the case, the best you can get is around the 8500GT mark.
Pink Hammer
No, my budget is 500$ USD.
I already bought a fan for the CPU,
and thats just a Barebone Kit, Theres
other stuff I had to buy for it.
I got the Barebone.
Two sticks of 2GB DDR2 Memory.
a Cooling fan for the CPU.
and Im assuming my uncles just
putting in my old video card
( i dont know what kind that is )
and I just wanted to upgrade that.
I already bought a fan for the CPU,
and thats just a Barebone Kit, Theres
other stuff I had to buy for it.
I got the Barebone.
Two sticks of 2GB DDR2 Memory.
a Cooling fan for the CPU.
and Im assuming my uncles just
putting in my old video card
( i dont know what kind that is )
and I just wanted to upgrade that.
The Way Out
moriz
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...anufacture=XFX
double up in price, quadruple in performance (well, at least i hope).
unfortunately, your barebones components are going to seriously bottleneck anything more powerful than the above graphics card. it's probably a lot wiser had you posted to ask questions BEFORE forking out the $$$.
double up in price, quadruple in performance (well, at least i hope).
unfortunately, your barebones components are going to seriously bottleneck anything more powerful than the above graphics card. it's probably a lot wiser had you posted to ask questions BEFORE forking out the $$$.
deluxe
Grab a double slot graphics card, why you ask?
I used to have a Shuttle barebone with a radeon 9800 in it. That gfx card was overheating my whole pc, that's never healthy for a barebone.
The radeon 3870 for example has a cooler like that.
And even though the 4850 is faster, that card is a HOTHEAD, and doesnt have the double cooler.
Most new nvidia cards have double coolers aswell. (exceptions are the cheaper ones like the 8800gt)
Barebones are small, and the heat has to get out!
Don't spend too much on your pc, it only has a Celeron 1600, so putting in the latest and greatest gfx card in it wont help you much.
Maybe even grab a 2nd hand gfx card like a radeon x1950 or nvidia 6800.
I used to have a Shuttle barebone with a radeon 9800 in it. That gfx card was overheating my whole pc, that's never healthy for a barebone.
The radeon 3870 for example has a cooler like that.
And even though the 4850 is faster, that card is a HOTHEAD, and doesnt have the double cooler.
Most new nvidia cards have double coolers aswell. (exceptions are the cheaper ones like the 8800gt)
Barebones are small, and the heat has to get out!
Don't spend too much on your pc, it only has a Celeron 1600, so putting in the latest and greatest gfx card in it wont help you much.
Maybe even grab a 2nd hand gfx card like a radeon x1950 or nvidia 6800.
moriz
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...anufacture=XFX
double up in price, quadruple in performance (well, at least i hope). unfortunately, your barebones components are going to seriously bottleneck anything more powerful than the above graphics card. |
btw, barebone PCs have full cases, so ventilation is not an issue.
Quote:
|
Barebones are small, and the heat has to get out! Don't spend too much on your pc, it only has a Celeron 1600, so putting in the latest and greatest gfx card in it wont help you much. Maybe even grab a 2nd hand gfx card like a radeon x1950 or nvidia 6800. |
Lurid
The bottleneck won't appear at higher resolutions (1440 x 900 or higher should do the trick). The main problem with the barebones is the price vs what you get, as bottle necking is generally over stated.
wolf trader
Okay, first off if you are using the Celeron that came with it UPGRADE! My suggestion is to get a Core 2 E7xxx or E8xxx cpu. The Celeron will not let any video card you put in it perform over 50%, I know from experience.
As for a video card, ATI HD3k or HD4k series. They still have a lot of bugs in the HD4k series, as once again the manufacturers did a snoozer on their BIOS and the fans don't throttle properly. But hey, can't say we didn't see that coming...same thing happened with the HD3k's.
The integrated chipset you have isn't that bad though, and should hold you over till you can mod up. But seriously, a 1.6GHz Celeron just can't cut it.
As for a video card, ATI HD3k or HD4k series. They still have a lot of bugs in the HD4k series, as once again the manufacturers did a snoozer on their BIOS and the fans don't throttle properly. But hey, can't say we didn't see that coming...same thing happened with the HD3k's.
The integrated chipset you have isn't that bad though, and should hold you over till you can mod up. But seriously, a 1.6GHz Celeron just can't cut it.
Lurid
You've tried it at what resolution? Anything reasonable and the card won't bottle kneck. Real world performance doesn't suffer nearly as badly as synthetic benchmarks tend to show.
moriz
it's a safe bet that any modern CPU (including the newer celerons) won't bottleneck with GW, except at really high resolutions.
however, for newer games, the bottleneck is noticeable and quite severe. the faster the graphics card, the more pronounced the bottleneck becomes.
btw, what kind of bugs are you talking about with the HD4800 series? mine run just fine. for the fanspeed thing, i merely tweaked a few settings and makes it run at 40% (instead of 5%). temperatures dropped by 20C.
however, for newer games, the bottleneck is noticeable and quite severe. the faster the graphics card, the more pronounced the bottleneck becomes.
btw, what kind of bugs are you talking about with the HD4800 series? mine run just fine. for the fanspeed thing, i merely tweaked a few settings and makes it run at 40% (instead of 5%). temperatures dropped by 20C.
Lurid
The lower the resolution** CPU power limiting factors only show themselves at lower resolutions, wherein the CPU is actually a limiting factor. At higher resolutions the GPUs are able to stretch their arms and actually begin to work more so.
moriz
at what resolution the bottleneck occurs depends on the game. for instance, tom's hardware recently tested graphic cards across a few generations (geforce 6 to 9) with a variety of CPUs. in half life 2 ep2, the bottleneck on CPU was apparent all the way up to 1920x1200, while in games like COD4 the bottleneck eventually disappears at high resolutions.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...de,1928-9.html
either way, pairing a really fast graphic card with a slow CPU will give you poor results. i think we can all agree to that.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...de,1928-9.html
either way, pairing a really fast graphic card with a slow CPU will give you poor results. i think we can all agree to that.
Lurid
I don't see how that proves anything? He's using high end CPU's and GPU's ranging from lower end to higher end. We're not talking about GPU power being significant in games, we all know it is. The discussion was that with a lower end CPU the bottle neck is highly over exaggerated once you hit higher resolutions.
Could it limit it somewhat? Yes, its very possible. Are you going to actually notice a huge difference? Not likely. I'm not arguing for the sake of argument, I agree that when building a new system buying old out dated hardware and pairing it with newer stuff is counter productive. The fact of the matter is, your bottle necking situations have been vastly over stated due to synthetics that weigh the performance of the CPU and the GPU together whereas most (Not all) games will not benefit from a faster CPU at any non ridiculously low resolution.
Could it limit it somewhat? Yes, its very possible. Are you going to actually notice a huge difference? Not likely. I'm not arguing for the sake of argument, I agree that when building a new system buying old out dated hardware and pairing it with newer stuff is counter productive. The fact of the matter is, your bottle necking situations have been vastly over stated due to synthetics that weigh the performance of the CPU and the GPU together whereas most (Not all) games will not benefit from a faster CPU at any non ridiculously low resolution.
moriz
he's also testing E2150(?) CPU as well. if you look carefully, that can dramatically cut the performance on high end graphic cards with certain games (HL2 comes to mind).
Lurid
I'll be honest, reevaluating those graphs has made me wonder if i'm correct or not. I've sat here wondering for a few minutes and honestly I think i've come up with something that coincides and makes sense. It seems to me as though the key to understanding why there are such large gaps in the data is more the cache differences between those CPUs than anything.
Cache size has a larger impact on games than CPU speed, or so that graph would indicate. Therefore that graph doesn't show that a "faster" CPU is required, it shows that cache plays a larger role than clock speed. The only way to test for certain whether or not the clock speed matters is to do this:
Test resolutions: low to high
Test image quality: low to high
You'd have to use the same CPU, GPU, monitor, etc.... The idea is that you underclock the CPU and see if there is a noticeable difference in FPS. My guess is that the CPU will limit the GPU more so at lower resolutions / textures, and less at higher. As it stands the Toms diagram isn't conclusive.
In a way you are correct, as more expensive CPUs generally have more cache. However saying that speeds effect the game more than cache size or resolution...debatable at best I think.
Cache size has a larger impact on games than CPU speed, or so that graph would indicate. Therefore that graph doesn't show that a "faster" CPU is required, it shows that cache plays a larger role than clock speed. The only way to test for certain whether or not the clock speed matters is to do this:
Test resolutions: low to high
Test image quality: low to high
You'd have to use the same CPU, GPU, monitor, etc.... The idea is that you underclock the CPU and see if there is a noticeable difference in FPS. My guess is that the CPU will limit the GPU more so at lower resolutions / textures, and less at higher. As it stands the Toms diagram isn't conclusive.
In a way you are correct, as more expensive CPUs generally have more cache. However saying that speeds effect the game more than cache size or resolution...debatable at best I think.
moriz
further down the article, the author concluded that it's GHz that matters the most.
he overclocked the E2100 CPU up to 3GHz, and it suddenly began to post similar numbers as the more expensive core 2s.
cache does matter, since the overclocked chip is still slower clock for clock than the core 2s. it seems that pure speed is what's most important here, and i guess it makes sense: the new graphic cards churn through a lot of data. if you can't supply it fast enough, it will greatly hinder their performance.
he overclocked the E2100 CPU up to 3GHz, and it suddenly began to post similar numbers as the more expensive core 2s.
cache does matter, since the overclocked chip is still slower clock for clock than the core 2s. it seems that pure speed is what's most important here, and i guess it makes sense: the new graphic cards churn through a lot of data. if you can't supply it fast enough, it will greatly hinder their performance.