# Recommend me a GPU which will meet my humble needs!



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Please recommend to me a GPU which will meet my needs.

I am not a hardcore gamer. I will be mainly playing only Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 and Half Life 2 (Counter Strike). I would like to be able to play both of these games on their full respective graphics settings.

My setup already comprises and Intel Dual Core 2.0GHZ and 4GB DDR2 667 RAM.

I would like a GPU which is as cost-effective and heat-efficient as possible, whilst still performing the minor gaming tasks I desire. I definitely wouldn't wish for the fastest card that money can buy.

I would also like a removal fan so that I can mount my own cooling solution. 

Second-hand or retail purchase options are both equally appealing.

I look forward to hearing your ideas. Thank you.


----------



## hat (Jun 16, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121319

Get this!!  A real 96 shader 9600GSO... havn't seen them around too much lately. Cheap too...


----------



## KainXS (Jun 16, 2009)

an HD4770 should do you good if you can find one

a GSO isn't bad if your really on a budget though

EDIT
hat beat me


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Thank you for two lightening-fast suggestions!

The 9600 GSO looks good. I am more familiar with GeForce cards. Is it similar to the 8800 GS?

Are 'shader operations' the best indication of the card's ability for the sorts of games that I have mentioned?


----------



## KainXS (Jun 16, 2009)

it is the 8800GS, you can think of the shader operations as the cards raw performance but rops are needed to maintain that power as you increase in resolution, in short no, not really but the GSO will max half life like its nothing, im not to sure about the other game though, but going by its system requirements it should max that too

what resolution does your monitor support at max(this is important)


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 16, 2009)

If you looking for a bit more power, also could look at

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102822

It's a bit more money, but after MIR not bad at all and is a fantastic card.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Thank you for the advice, the reassurance and the question.

My monitor is a Samsung SM923NW 19" widescreen - recommended resolution is 1400x900.

Does this alter my position with respect to this card in any way?


----------



## KainXS (Jun 16, 2009)

well, if your res is that low you might as well buy a GSO, thats lower than 1280x1024

do you plan on upgrading your monitor anytime soon

also do you live in uk


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Yes, I do live in the UK. And I don't plan on updating my monitor. I've just bought this 19" and I'm still mesmorised by it's size and quality. I couldn't dream of requiring anything more!

I would very much like a passive card with a hearty heatsink mounted to the top (rather than bottom). 

The Sparkle GeForce 9600 GT seems to fit the bill perfectly for this silent approach.

How would you appraise this card in comparison to those which have already been mentioned?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 16, 2009)

Is there any particular reason for a passive card?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

My reason is in the quest for reducing noise as much as possible.

I am running an Intel Dual Core 2.0GHz E1400 65W processor, [delete]_and a Geforce 9600 GT graphics card_[/delete].

I have an Antec Sonata III Case with a 120mm Kaze Jyuni intake at the front and a 120mm Antec Tricool at the rear. 

I had been intending to use a Zalman VF2000 on either on the CPU or the GPU. But now I figure that the rare yet ingenius top-mounted-heatsink on the Sparkle 9600 GT would work perfectly with my overall case ventilation.

What do you think?


----------



## KainXS (Jun 16, 2009)

what you have now is fast enough . . . . 

you don't need a new card to run those games


actually a GSO would be a downgrade, you can only upgrade to a GTS 250 or  HD4850 really, anything else isn't worth it


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

KainXS said:


> what you have now is fast enough . . . .


What do you mean?

I don't have _any_ card at present!


----------



## KainXS (Jun 16, 2009)

so what did you mean by 9600GT


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Allow me to quote myself, hopefully without affectation:



Pipps said:


> I would very much like a passive card with a hearty heatsink mounted to the top (rather than bottom).
> 
> The Sparkle GeForce 9600 GT seems to fit the bill perfectly for this silent approach.
> 
> How would you appraise this card in comparison to those which have already been mentioned?


Does this make sense?


----------



## hat (Jun 16, 2009)

Yeah, you said "I am running an Intel Dual Core 2.0GHz E1400 65W processor, *and a Geforce 9600 GT graphics card*", implying that you already had a 9600gt.

Well I know nothing about UK shops or UK prices so I can't help you out. I only hoped you were in the US cause that was a deal that even I would have jumped on in your shoes.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

You are both right and I am wrong! Thank you for the clarification.

I do not have a 9600 GT. I have no card at all this point. I am still on the verge of investment.

May I still ask - how would you compare the 9600 GT to the 9800 GSO?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

What does this comparison mean in real terms?


----------



## KainXS (Jun 16, 2009)

the problem now is that in the UK video card prices are not low as you probably know by now, the 9600GT is barely slower than the 9800GT though in older games like HL2, but in newer games it gets left behind

someone from UK on this board will have to help you with the prices because I don't live in uk


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

How much would you like to spend?

EDIT:

I'm thinking this 
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/153311 

As a GTS250/HD4850 costs close to the same price at most other etailers. Might as well proof yourself with newer games.

EDIT2:

Although I will need to know what brand/model OR specs of the power supply in the pc.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Thanks for the recommendation. That looks like a good GPU. However, it would be introducing another fan into the equation, and I am not sure that it would be the best overall choice for my otherwise silent PC.

My PSU is an Antec Earhtwats 500W. My motherboard is currently the Asus P5Q Pro. 

What do you think of the specs of these items?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

Well very very close to my wifes rig. Since you are wanting an out of the box silent solution your going to be paying a pretty penny for it. Quite hard to find passive cards out of the box when you can get a video card thats close to twice as performing but have an active cooling solution. So I will state .... I would pickup the 4870 as its hard to find one at that price.

EDIT

But on second thought you are res limited but add some AA/AF to the equation and you will be maxing those games plus quite a bit of others, actually many many others.


----------



## EnglishLion (Jun 16, 2009)

Looks to me that either the Nvidia 9600GSO or the Ati 4670 would do the job, both retailing around the £55 mark in the UK for a 512Mb version.  Expect to pay a slight premium for a passive version of either.  Both have very similar performance and will max HL2/CSS on your monitor and should do the same for PES2009 although I've not seen any benchmarks or played PES2009.

From ebuyer as follows:

Zotac 9600GSO - http://www.ebuyer.com/product/155596

and 

ASUS 4670 - http://www.ebuyer.com/product/152940

The advantage of the 4670 is that it doesn't need a power connection from your power supply as it gets all it's power from the PCIe slot - basically it's more power efficient.

Or passive 4670 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-HD-4670-512MB-ULTIMATE/dp/B001RPAKTS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1245160532&sr=8-1


----------



## hat (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> What does this comparison mean in real terms?



The 9800GT is better. More ram and more shaders, and higher clockspeeds to boot. It's like comparing a car that does 70MPH to a van that does 100MPH, the van transports more at the same time... and faster. The car is the 9600GSO and the van is the 9800GT.


----------



## Darren (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Please recommend to me a GPU which will meet my needs.
> 
> I am not a hardcore gamer. I will be mainly playing only Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 and Half Life 2 (Counter Strike). I would like to be able to play both of these games on their full respective graphics settings.
> 
> ...




Hello, I'm from the UK so I’m familiar with the best prices for video cards and where to obtain the best deals. The best video cards for the job are the ATI 4770, 4830, 4850 or Nvidia 9800 GTX+, GTS 250

Unfortunately prices have gone up slightly but those cards can still be had for cheap, you will not benefit from their maximum performance due to the processor bottleneck but they should be suffice for playing those games you mentioned.

XFX ATI Radeon HD 4830 512MB GDDR3  £75.04 inc vat  
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?XFX-4830


Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 4770 512MB GDDR5 £79.21 inc vat  (recommended)
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAP-4770

Novatech GeForce GTS 250 SLI 512MB  £85.09 inc vat   
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?NOV-250

Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 4850 Vapour-X 512MB GDDR3 £87.39 inc vat
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAP-4850VX


If your budget is abysmal consider the ATI 4670, its £57.49 inc vat 
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?NOV-4670


----------



## AhokZYashA (Jun 16, 2009)

9800GTX+ is more than enough
or GTS250 should do the job for you...

my 9600GT OC runs Crysis on 1280x1024 monitor high setting with no problem...

since i lived in Indonesia i can't give you the price...
sorry, gomen..


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

EnglishLion said:


> ...Or passive 4670 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-HD-4670-512MB-ULTIMATE/dp/B001RPAKTS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1245160532&sr=8-1



Thank you for the great advice. I just wish that passive 4670 had the heatsink on the opposite side of the card, like the Sparkle 9600 GT (Passive) does. It would be much better for case ventilation.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

hat said:


> The 9800GT is better. More ram and more shaders, and higher clockspeeds to boot. It's like comparing a car that does 70MPH to a van that does 100MPH, the van transports more at the same time... and faster. The car is the 9600GSO and the van is the 9800GT.


This definitely clarifies things succinctly for me. Thank you.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

AhokZYashA said:


> ...my 9600GT OC runs Crysis on 1280x1024 monitor high setting with no problem...


That is really good to know. Thank you.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Darren said:


> Hello, I'm from the UK so I’m familiar with the best prices for video cards and where to obtain the best deals...


Hi Darren. Thank you for the multiple recommendations. I will have to think long and hard about my options.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> ...on second thought you are res limited but add some AA/AF to the equation and you will be maxing those games plus quite a bit of others...


Sorry for the n00bie question, but what does 'AA/AF' mean?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

I have found one other passive graphics card (albeit a less aesthetically pleasing one) with the heatsink mounted on the top side - ie the correct side.

BFG 9800 GT.

How is this card rated, guys?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

And for those who are scratching their heads as to why the alternative mounting of the GPU heatsink is so important to me, please see the following photograph of a setup which is identical to my own, save the GPU:







I want to take full advantage of silent graphics and the straight-through ventiliation which my case will provide. I would be crazy not to!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

I think I have found an aftermarket GPU upgrade solution to achieve what I need:

Zalman VNF100 Fanless Heatpipe Cooler

Phew!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Sorry for the n00bie question, but what does 'AA/AF' mean?





Pipps said:


> I have found one other passive graphics card (albeit a less aesthetically pleasing one) with the heatsink mounted on the top side - ie the correct side.
> 
> BFG 9800 GT.
> 
> How is this card rated, guys?



A quick read on AA/AF

Since 1280x1024 is very similar to 1440x900 ......


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

That is really useful - thank you!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Zalman VNF100 compatibility:

http://www.zalman.co.kr/Eng/product/Product_Read.asp?idx=147



> ATI Radeon X1600 Series
> ATI Radeon X1300 Series
> ATI Radeon X1050 Series
> ATI Radeon 9*** Series
> ...



So my choice must be within these options?

I wonder why the GeForce 9600 isn't on there?

Can anyone think why this might?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Darren said:


> ...you will not benefit from their maximum performance due to the processor bottleneck but they should be suffice for playing those games you mentioned....


Darren, can you tell me more about your thoughts on the potential bottleneck situation with my Intel Dual Core 2.0GHz CPU? I would not wish to spend more on a motherboard than is necessary or worthwhile.

Which of the GPUs on the Zalman list would you suggest would not create such an issue with my existing components?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

Overclock your processor a little bit, that would eliminate the bottleneck. It should be able to do 9x333(1333QDR) for 3Ghz @stock or near stock vcore, which would give a decent performance boost.


Here's a nice REALLY nice cooler just in case you do end up choosing one with active cooling....
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Ther...heat-sink-for-ATI-Nvidia-GPU-VGA-(Without-Fan)


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Great advice - thank you!

So a Dual Core 2.0Ghz will achieve effectively 3Ghz performance when properly overclocked?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Great advice - thank you!
> 
> So a Dual Core 2.0Ghz will achieve effectively 3Ghz performance when properly overclocked?



Yes, it would help tremendously!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Brilliant!  And I can run a beauty of a graphics card, with silent cooling, taking advantage of proper case ventilation, too!

I will take it that a GeForce 9600 GSO would be a good choice of card. But can anyone suggest why it might not be stated as compatible with that Zalman heatsink?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

I think this answers my question:

The Zalman heatsink would not appear to be able to cope well with the extreme heat of the higher-end GPUs.


----------



## EnglishLion (Jun 16, 2009)

How about this, it has a passive heatsink with fins reaching round to the topside and heatpipes to transfer the heat around to those fins.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-RADEON-4670-Ultimate-Interface/dp/B001PA6WEM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1245178530&sr=8-4

A slightly more expensive 4670 due to being passive.  I personally think the 4670 would be plenty for your setup and requirements and if you need to upgrade later to play something new then so be it.  Afterall anything you buy now no matter how high up the range will be dated in a year or so!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

That looks like a decent card. Thank you!

Although I am still a little concerned about the heatsink aspect on the front-side.

I will have to think seriously about this one!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

I have now just found the Thermalright HR-03 Plus. It's £25 and can stretch as far as dealing with the GeForce 8800GT GPUs. It also requires RAMsinks to assist in its cooling. Interesting.


----------



## Darren (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> I have now just found the Thermalright HR-03 Plus. It's £25 and can stretch as far as dealing with the GeForce 8800GT GPUs. It also requires RAMsinks to assist in its cooling. Interesting.



Buy the Accelero s1 rev 2, its under £20. I've seen them run high end cards such as the 4870 series completely passive. You have the option to buy and attach a silent fan but it is not necessary.

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Arct...erformance-passive-cooler-x4-heatpipes-(4850)

Take a look at the support list, practically all the popular Nvidia and ATI cards within the last 6 years are supported.

http://www.arctic-cooling.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=2_&mID=105&language=en


Edit:



Pipps said:


> Darren, can you tell me more about your thoughts on the potential bottleneck situation with my Intel Dual Core 2.0GHz CPU? I would not wish to spend more on a motherboard than is necessary or worthwhile.



You would be bottlenecked because your system will not be balanced, you are attempting to run 3 year old processor which was probably low-end on release with today's midrange video cards. I'm not saying that you can not enjoy those games you listed but I'm saying that you'll be enjoying them at a considerably lower frame rate, resolution, and detail than someone with a more modern processor.


Edit 2:




Pipps said:


> Thank you for clarifying this.
> 
> Would it still be the same even if I overclocked the E1400 from 2.0Ghz to 3.0Ghz?



It depends on the motherboard and whether it has enough features for you to apply an overclock. But if you were able to achieve an overclock of around 3.0 GHz it would eliminate most of the bottleneck and would probably perform between the Intel E5200 and E6600 which is around the speed of an AMD 6400+. But even these CPUs are not fantastically fast by today's standard but is enough for one to almost exploit the potential of the video cards we've suggest which are below £100.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Darren said:


> You would be bottlenecked because your system will not be balanced, you are attempting to run 3 year old processor which was probably low-end on release with today's midrange video cards. I'm not saying that you can not enjoy those games you listed but I'm saying that you'll be enjoying them at a considerably lower frame rate, resolution, and detail than someone with a more modern processor.


Thank you for clarifying this.

Would it still be the same even if I overclocked the E1400 from 2.0Ghz to 3.0Ghz?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Finally...

The Thermalright HR-03 GT can handle the GeForce 9800 GT cards.

And tests show that it is superior even to the Sparkle!

More to the point - it's actually for sale in the UK!

Now I have found exactly what I want, I can happily purchase a stock 9800 GT (according to this source) and fit the HR-03 GT and enjoy perfect case ventilation.

That is because attaching a 120mm fan to the HR-03 should negate any requirement for a CPU fan. I should be able to go with just a CPU heatsink.

This is all thanks to proper case ventilation.

Although it will still work out at £100 for the full GPU setup.

Is this extortionate, or realistic?


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Darren said:


> ...But even these CPUs are not fantastically fast by today's standard but is enough for one to almost exploit the potential of the video cards we've suggest which are below £100.


But then my office rig would be noisy! 

Of course, you're right, though. This just proves that I am not a proper gamer!


----------



## Darren (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> But then my office rig would be noisy!



Not really, I doubt the fans will increase in speed to compensate for the extra heat build up. I actually lowered my Freezer 64 Heatsink + fan speed from normal to slow even after applying the overclock. I'm running my processor overclocked from 2 GHz to 2.8 GHz.



Pipps said:


> I have found exactly what I want, I can happily purchase a stock 9800 GT and fit the HR-03 GT and enjoy perfect case ventilation.



How much are you getting the 9800 GT for? It would have to be a fantastic deal financially because the 4770 and 4830, even the 4850 cost around the same retail and would be a faster choice.




Pipps said:


> That is because attaching a 120mm fan to the HR-03 should negate any requirement for a CPU fan. I should be able to go with just a CPU heatsink.



It depends on the 120mm fan you are attaching, not all fans are the same you can easily buy silent fans which is just as silent as it being completely passive. One should be looking low a noise levels in decibel (dBA) and ensure it can push out a lot of air (CFM). You shouldn't be able to hear a fan below 19 dBA and there are plenty of fans which go all the way down to 8 dBA with great air flow. 

QuietPC.com sells a huge range of silent fans


http://www.quietpc.com/gb-en-gbp/products/120mmfans



Pipps said:


> Although it will still work out at £100 for the full GPU setup.
> 
> Is this extortionate, or realistic?



£100 for the GPU and custom heatsink seems like an average deal, with the HR-03 GT  or accelero with a better GPU such as the 4770 or 4830 can be had for under £100 too.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

I can now see that it should in fact be possible to do this for under £100.

I simply buy the HR-03 heatsink and attach it to a more appropriate processor.

Would someone with far superior knowledge please tell me what would be an affordable card from any of the following:



> ATI HD-2900XT
> ATI HD-2900PRO (512MB&1GB)
> nVidia GTX280 & GTX260
> GTX285 & GTX260
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

For your max resolution, I suggest not going above a GTX260/HD4870.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> For your max resolution, I suggest not going above a GTX260/HD4870.


Whoa... just checking their respective prices now, they are both well over £100, and therefore out of my budget!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Darren said:


> How much are you getting the 9800 GT for? It would have to be a fantastic deal financially because the 4770 and 4830, even the 4850 cost around the same retail and would be a faster choice.


It appears that a 9600 GT is available for £70 and a 9800 GT for £80. Does this seem credible?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

Yes it does and 9800GT is about 10% faster in gaming. You really should look into the 4850 or 9800GTX+/GTS250.


EDIT:

I take that back, 4830!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Darren said:


> ...£100 for the GPU and custom heatsink seems like an average deal, with the HR-03 GT  or accelero with a better GPU such as the 4770 or 4830 can be had for under £100 too.


The 4830 looks like a very nice card. Faster than the 9600, too. Only a less reassuring that it is only provisionally compatible with the HR-03. 

The 4830 appears to be £90. Is that a good price?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2009)

Now the only reason why I say 4830, on your mobo you can always add a 2nd later for crossfire if wishing to and thats any of the 48XX family (4870 4830 or 4850).


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Nopw the only reason why I say 4830, on your mobo you can always add a 2nd later for crossfire if wishing to.


Ha!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

The very first recommendation I received on this thread was to look at the GeForce 9600 GSO. And it now appears to be compatible with the HR-30 heatsink.

The 9600 GSO is £45 in the UK. Half the price of the HD4830. A considerable saving. And actually within my price range.

Would the 9600 GSO still get me through the basic games I have mentioned?
(Edit: Those games being: Pro Evo, Half Life 2, and perhaps GTA IV.)

What would be a general comparison between the two?


----------



## Darren (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> It appears that a 9600 GT is available for £70 and a 9800 GT for £80. Does this seem credible?



Very good deals, but the newer cards push them out of the water performance wise with the same financial budget. Forget the 9800 GT for £80, its a few points more expensive than the faster 4830 and 4770.




Pipps said:


> The 4770 looks like a very nice card. Faster than the 9600, too. Only a less reassuring that it is only provisionally compatible with the HR-03.
> 
> The 4770 appears to be £90. Is that a good price?



I wouldn't pay more than £80 for the 4770. The ATI 4850 can be had for £90.

Novatech ATI Radeon HD4830 512MB  £68.99
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?NOV-4830

XFX ATI Radeon HD 4830 512MB £75.99 inc VAT 
http://overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-125-XF


Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 4770 512MB GDDR5 £79.21 inc vat 
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAP-4770


_Asus ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB £74.99 inc VAT 
http://overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-168-AS_ <<--- This is the fastest of all the cards suggested and is the second cheapest 


A side note, the 9600 GT was known to have  a faulty batch which caused random lock ups and blue screens of deaths with particular motherboard chipsets. I would avoid it for this reason, although I used to have one and its performance is top notch for the price.

Edit 2:



Pipps said:


> The 9600 GSO is £45 in the UK. Half the price of the HD4830. A considerable saving. And actually within my price range.
> 
> Would the 9600 GSO still get me through the basic games I have mentioned?
> (Edit: Those games being: Pro Evo, Half Life 2, and perhaps GTA IV.)



It is enough for the games listed with the exception of GTA IV (because of the CPU). That card will definitely struggle in newer games, its half the price of the 4830 because its half the performance most of the time!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

Thank you for the options and prices. That is very useful.

Also...


Darren said:


> A side note, the 9600 GT was known to have  a faulty batch which caused random lock ups and blue screens of deaths with particular motherboard chipsets. I would avoid it for this reason, although I used to have one and its performance is top notch for the price.


That is very useful too. Thank you.

But what about the 9600 GSO for £45?

My needs are not extensive, after all. I won't be playing Crysis, for instance.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

You say...


Darren said:


> [the 9600GSO]...is enough for the games listed with the exception of GTA IV (because of the CPU).


But, even with the 2.0Ghz CPU clocked to 3.0GHz?

And...


> That card will definitely struggle in newer games, its half the price of the 4830 because its half the performance most of the time!


A most salient point!

Noted!


----------



## Darren (Jun 16, 2009)

Pipps said:


> You say...
> 
> But, even with the 2.0Ghz CPU clocked to 3.0GHz?



GTA 4 is one of those games that can cripple the highest end PCs. I can remember in the game section of this forum reading numerous posts of people complain that their quad core processors and ATI 4870X2s struggled with the game. Clocked at 3.0 GHz you'd have a better chance of playing GTA 4 at medium but the frame rate might be piss poor in a few areas due to the 9600 GSO only having 384 MB of onboard ram which isn't a big deal on more faster cards or if you have a lot of system ram. £45 seems like a good deal, but £30-35 does get you a card which could potentially perform 2-3 times faster (if it wasn't for the CPU bottleneck).


BTW what video card does your system currently have.
Fil out your system spec here:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/profile.php?do=specs


Edit:




Pipps said:


> That is very useful to know - thank you!
> 
> £30 sounds interesting! What cooler-modifiable GPU would you recommend for around this price?
> 
> ...




The Artic Cooling Accelero S1 Rev 2 is under £20, I think it is your best choice.


4 GBs of ram is plenty for games, it should help you dramatically.


You shouldn't regret buying a low end CPU, if you bought it 3 years ago it would of been a fantastic investment considering that it was enough to run games from 2006-2009 and with its overclocking capabilities it was a good choice. Even if you bought a high end CPU 3 years such as the E6600 you'd be looking to replace it soon anyways.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 16, 2009)

That is very useful to know - thank you!

£30 sounds interesting! What cooler-modifiable GPU would you recommend for around this price?

I acknowledge the point about the bottleneck. I am almost regretting buying a budget CPU, now.

I currently don't have any video card at present. Just onboard Intel GMA 950. I haven't even attempted to run a game yet.

Though I do have 4GB of DDR2 667 RAM. Does this help my chances in any way?


----------



## EnglishLion (Jun 17, 2009)

Pipps said:


> That is very useful to know - thank you!
> 
> £30 sounds interesting! What cooler-modifiable GPU would you recommend for around this price?
> 
> ...



Forget GTA4 on your current CPU and a <£100 graphics card.  I have a Dual Core E2160 overclocked to 3.4GHz and a 4870 with 1GB of RAM and my system only just scrapes through in terms of playing at acceptable frame rates and that's with a reducion in quality settings.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 17, 2009)

Good grief! I had no idea that GTA IV was so demanding!

Here is an example. There seem to be a number of similar related videos, too.

I suppose their visible qualities were reduced by FRAPS?

Do you think an 8800 GT with a 2.0GHz processor would be enough then?

Or perhaps I should disregard all intentions for GTA IV!


----------



## Darren (Jun 17, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Do you think an 8800 GT with a 2.0GHz processor would be enough then?



For most games yes, but for GTA 4 I doubt it. It is like what English Lion said he has a ATI 4870 which is about twice as fast as the 8800 GT and a processor at 3.4 GHz and it struggles in GTA 4 according to him. If you want to play GTA 4 you're going to have to invest the money into the processor. At the moment is the best time to upgrade parts as prices are so cheap, AMD tri-core (Phenom II X3 720) and motherboard can be had for like £160 and about £120 for a AMD dual core (Phenom II X2 550)  and motherboard once you put an extra say £70 on a GPU, that is around £200 for a rig that would piss all over most games for about a year and a bit. - presuming that you kept the existing case, HD, CDROM, RAM, OS etc.


----------



## EnglishLion (Jun 17, 2009)

The problem with GTA4 and smooth gameplay is cause by the large number of computer controlled 'things' in the game.  All the pedestrians and the cars (including the cars occupants) have a high level of realism and this requires a lot of CPU intensive calculation.  It's calculating all their movements and their responses to their environment, how they fall when you bump into them etc.  They even interact with each other without your intervention.  It's not unusual to pass a incident in the street (cops taking on other low lifes etc). So no longer can you play a game like this with a low end CPU and a high end graphics card.

When you run the in built benchmark in gta4 it provides a summary at the end which includes system usage and on my system with a 3.4GHz Intel Dual Core and my current settings it lists my CPU usage as being around 95% which is much too high for an average value - it will max out far too often.  If I drop my CPU back to it's standard clock speed of 1.8GHz the game comes almost to a complete standstill.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 17, 2009)

Darren, that is an extremely concise and useful summary of designing a masterful rig with very little difficulty. Thank you!


----------



## Darren (Jun 17, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Darren, that is an extremely concise and useful summary of designing a masterful rig with very little difficulty. Thank you!



How much is very little, I specialise in budget gaming rigs. I can whip something up for £250-300 AMD rig which would outperform or be on par with an £600 Intel easily. Although you say you're only a casual gamer I get the sneaky suspicion that you desire a gaming rig to see what the fuss is all about?

Edit:




Pipps said:


> Exactly!
> 
> My brother has been thrilled about Counter Strike for years.  I am still curious as to why!




Once PC games have you in its grips you are hooked. Counter Strike and WOW are two games which have been known to make people drop out of university, a few of my friends dropped out of our Computer Science degree to become bums and pursue playing WOW full time.



Pipps said:


> And I would have to use a system which generated a lot more heat and noise!
> 
> Not sure that I am able to do such a thing at present.



You're obsessed with heat and noise. Today's computers are quieter than ever, more video cards are coming with aftermarket coolers, my current 4830 and my old 9600 GT stock fans was way quieter than my ancient x1600 PRO. When I replaced my x1600 Pro I was actually shocked by how silent these new cards are.

As far as heat it will depend on the individual components you buy, from what I’ve heard the i7 CPUs are suppose to run hot, Phenom IIs are moderate in heat but they've got a new energy efficient tri core range which operate with less voltage and output less heat. The ATI 4770 video card which a few people have recommended is suppose to generate very little heat too.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 17, 2009)

Exactly!

My brother has been thrilled about Counter Strike for years.  I am still curious as to why!

Now, I like nothing more than a drunken Pro Evo session, and the PC version is considerably better than that of the PS3, but aside from that, I would have to take a few months off work if I dared let myself experience the immersion of GTA IV.

To add to that, it seems that I would have to do some significant system rethinking in order to facilitate it.

And I would have to use a system which generated a lot more heat and noise!

Not sure that I am able to do such a thing at present.


----------



## EnglishLion (Jun 17, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Exactly!
> Now, I like nothing more than a drunken Pro Evo session, and the PC version is considerably better than that of the PS3, but aside from that, I would have to take a few months off work if I dared let myself experience the immersion of GTA IV.
> 
> To add to that, it seems that I would have to do some significant system rethinking in order to facilitate it.
> ...



It may cost to build a gta4 capable PC but the game is definitely worth it IMO.  It got a lot of criticism when it came out and for some valid reasons too but once it's up and running on a decent PC it is so much fun.

and you don't need a PC that churns out loads of heat and makes loads of noise - just pick your components wisely and fit the right fans etc.  Passive makes no noise sure, but many fans make near to no noise such that the PC is inaudiable to the user.  In addition if set up well the only time it'll be making noise is when you're playing and then you won't hear it for all the gun shots, explosions, engine noise and squealing of tyres!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 18, 2009)

Lion, thank you for explaining further about exactly the implications which GTA IV presents. It is really useful to know.

I also agree with you that a properly designed case - even one containing a gaming rig - should not necessarily generate unreasonable noise. To this end, I have been considering how I could go about building such a system. It would seem to me that ventilation through-flow would be the key.

I know this thread is veering even more towards cooling and silence issues, but may I ask, would you consider a 2.0Ghz CPU overclocked to 3.0Ghz, to be satisfactorily catered-for with a passive heatsink such as the Thermalright SI-128 SE heatsink, when positioned in a properly ventilated case?

I think my next step would be to set up an protocol for the system to automatically raise a decrease fan speed according to monitored temperatures of the GPU and CPU.

How would you recommend that this should be best achieved? Mobo BIOS, additional hardware, or software?


----------



## Darren (Jun 18, 2009)

Pipps said:


> I know this thread is veering even more towards cooling and silence issues, but may I ask, would you consider a 2.0Ghz CPU overclocked to 3.0Ghz, to be satisfactorily catered-for with a passive heatsink such as the Thermalright SI-128 SE heatsink, when positioned in a properly ventilated case?



It is definitely possible to passively cool a processor, I'm not sure if the Termalright SI-128 SE is the best heat sink to run without a fan, I haven't seen any of the reviews but it seems tiny compared to other passive solutions such as the Scythe Ninja II. In either event if you're planning on overclocking I'd still stick a fan onto, a slow spinning 120mm low noise fan that can operate at below 18 dBA that way you get the best of both worlds a silent PC and reassurance that your PC isn't going to overheat.



Pipps said:


> I think my next step would be to set up an protocol for the system to automatically raise a decrease fan speed according to monitored temperatures of the GPU and CPU. How would you recommend that this should be best achieved? Mobo BIOS, additional hardware, or software?




AMD motherboards and processors support Cool and Quiet which can be enabled in the bios. It reduces the voltage and clock speed when the computer is idle to reduce power consumption and adjusts the CPUs fan accordingly. I believe Intel’s version is called EIST or Speed Step.  Most good motherboards will have options to manually increase or decrease the RPM of the fans when the temperature is above X or below Y.



			
				Pipps said:
			
		

> I can see that AMD would be the way to go. May I ask, would the DFI LanParty Jr 790GX



The 790GX chipset belongs to a high end motherboard, although they're good as they usually contain a flurry of overclocking features I wouldn't recommend it because of the price, if you're on a budget such a board would defeat the purpose. The cheaper alternatives which are just as good are the 780v, 780G and 8300 chipsets.




			
				Pipps said:
			
		

> I would be very interested to hear more about your recommendations on a £250 DX10-gaming-capable-rig.



Usually I’d include memory and PSU in a build but I’m presuming you’re going to use your existing components, so all you’d need is a CPU, Motherboard and video card.

Components from Ebuyer.co.uk:

AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8GHz Socket AM3 6MB L3 Cache Retail Boxed Processor £108.75
ASUS M3A78-CM 780V Socket AM2+ onboard graphics 8 channel audio mATX Motherboard £55.94 
ASUS HD 4850 512MB DDR3 Dual DVI HDCP HDTV out PCI-E Graphics Card £93.80 

£258.49 (free super saver delivery)

You can shave off £16 if you get the Phenom II X3 710 instead of the Phenom II X3 720
here

You can shave off £30 if you buy the Phenom II X2 550 instead of the Phenom II X3 720
here
You can shave another £15 off if you buy the ASUS ATI 4850 from overclockers.co.uk 

here

So potentially you could end up with spending anything from £220-260



Edit:

Your current Asus PQ5 Pro is a good motherboard, I see no reason why you couldn't get your existing processor to 3GHz or above, it even supports the newer Core 2 Duos and Quads, it might be more convenient to drop in a new processor E7400/E8400 and a new video card opposed to going AMD. Although the AMD rig I spec'd above would be slightly faster for around the same price it is a hassle replacing the motherboard especially when you've got a more than adequate motherboard.

In your shoes I'd explore overclocking the CPU and buying the ASUS ATI 4850 from overclockers, and you'll be able to play most games fine for a year or so. here


----------



## Pipps (Jun 18, 2009)

Thank you for such an incredibly helpful and informative guide. It is amazing to see how accessible high-end gaming hardware is when correctly selected.

I also definitely agree with you about the big, slow, 120mm fans, for both cases and CPU/GPU heatsinks. I think big and slow, for fans, is definitely the way forward.

Now, I must think long and hard about how I should move forward with my system!


----------



## Pipps (Jun 20, 2009)

Dear Sirs, another quick question, if I may:

The AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8GHz has been mentioned. It appears to be a very capable processor.

How would it compare it terms of performance to the Intel Pentium 4 631 3GHz - which is around half the price, but is listed as a 3.0Ghz rather than a 2.8Ghz?

How do AMD Phenom IIs compare to Intel P4s, generally?


----------



## AhokZYashA (Jun 20, 2009)

ok now the P4 only have 1 core
while the PII X3 have 3 cores...
that makes difference...
the P4 built on 90nm manufacturing process..
while the PII X3 is 45nm...
thats also a difference...

and PII X3 is more than 5 times as fast as P4's
and now clock speed is second thing...


----------



## erocker (Jun 20, 2009)

P4's are a old and outdated archetecture. AMD's old A64 CPU's are faster. Clock speed doesn't matter.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 20, 2009)

Thank you for clarifying this.


----------



## crazy pyro (Jun 20, 2009)

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAP-4850VX
Get that instead of the ASUS HD4850, it's cheaper (no postage to pay as Nova give you free postage on orders over £50), the stock cooling fan is the best one which comes fitted to the HD48XX cards as standard. That fan is also meant to be pretty quiet and the HD4850 doesn't put out much heat (put the fan speed down to 20% on my Palit card and it didn't go over 50 degrees C). I'm not gonna start recommending processors as I'm not that good with them + the GPU would be a bigger benefit for you.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 20, 2009)

P4 in general was a big cup of fail for intel, any decent old athlon would spank them most times in games, but in todays market amd has nothing that competes with the core architecture clock for clock, and I mean nothing


----------



## crazy pyro (Jun 20, 2009)

Phenom II competes well with Core 2 which is all he can afford, granted they can't compete with i7.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 20, 2009)

KainXS said:


> P4 in general was a big cup of fail for intel, any decent old athlon would spank them most times in games, but in todays market amd has nothing that competes with the core architecture clock for clock, and I mean nothing


Sir, what is your first choice of Intel processor?


----------



## AhokZYashA (Jun 21, 2009)

Core 2 Duo E7xxx or E8xxx would be great


----------



## trt740 (Jun 21, 2009)

gpu if you can find one of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103077 or these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150323 for what you need they are plenty.


----------



## crazy pyro (Jun 21, 2009)

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/512MB-Sapphire-HD4770-DDR5-21149-00-20R £78 + postage
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAP-4770 £79, free postage
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-196-AS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1434 £79+ Postage
I'd go for the Novatech deal unless you have a specific brand preference.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 22, 2009)

Darren said:


> ...You would be bottlenecked because your system will not be balanced, you are attempting to run 3 year old processor which was probably low-end on release with today's midrange video cards. I'm not saying that you can not enjoy those games you listed but I'm saying that you'll be enjoying them at a considerably lower frame rate, resolution, and detail than someone with a more modern processor.
> 
> ...It depends on the motherboard and whether it has enough features for you to apply an overclock. But if you were able to achieve an overclock of around 3.0 GHz it would eliminate most of the bottleneck and would probably perform between the Intel E5200 and E6600 which is around the speed of an AMD 6400+. But even these CPUs are not fantastically fast by today's standard but is enough for one to almost exploit the potential of the video cards we've suggest which are below £100.


Hi Darren, another quick question, if I  may. What would be the minimum Intel CPU which you would recommend that I upgrade to - either with or without the need to overclock - in order to eliminate this potential bottleneck when in use with a mid-range graphics card?

Edit: I am very much veering towards the HD4670/HD4770, as you have all convinced me that it would appear to offer the best reliability and bang-per-buck performance.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 22, 2009)

Pipps,

If you overclock your current e1400 to 3.0-3.2Ghz, your going to be performing just a tad bit faster than an e5200@ stock default clocks. Your cpu is fine.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 22, 2009)

Yay! Thank you!


----------



## Darren (Jun 22, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Hi Darren, another quick question, if I  may. What would be the minimum Intel CPU which you would recommend that I upgrade to - either with or without the need to overclock - in order to eliminate this potential bottleneck when in use with a mid-range graphics card?
> 
> Edit: I am very much veering towards the HD4670/HD4770, as you have all convinced me that it would appear to offer the best reliability and bang-per-buck performance.



I'd overclock your current E1400 to around 3 GHz as JrRacingFan suggested, failing that I'd go straight up to midrange dual core such as the E7400 as they are fast enough to run today's games easily at stock and overclocks well if one wishes, at minimum i'd get a lowend processors which would outperform your current E1400 and overclock just as far such as the E5200. If the budget allows for Intel's extortionately priced processors go straight for the quad core range such as the Q9400 or the Q9500

I would avoid the 4670, at minimum you want the ATI 4830! Get the cheapest of the ATI 4770 or 4850, performance near enough the same.

Edit:

This should give you an idea of the performance of some of the recommended processors. 1234


Edit 2:




Pipps said:


> Which is preferable, out of the two?



I would get the cheapest of the two, I'd go with the 4770 if you can find it for more than £10 cheaper than the 4850, if there is just say £9 or less between the two cards I would get the 4850.

The ATI 4850 =  older, about 1-10% faster, DDR3, 55mn chip, 800 shaders, runs hottest.
The ATI 4830 = new, slightly slower than 4770 and 4850, DDR3, 55mn, runs warm, overclocks faster than 4850, 640 shaders, cheapest at only £70!
The  ATI 4770 = newest, performs near the same as 4850, DDR5, 40mn chip, usually cheaper than the 4850 but more than 4830, runs coolest.

Also remember that I am presuming that you are looking for a card below £85 with delivery I wouldn't pay more than that for either one of these cards. If you want to spend between £100-120 then I'd be looking more towards the ATI 4870 or GTX260 216 core.

Edit 3:




Pipps said:


> Edit: And would you consider the HD4830 better overall for my purposes, with my 2.0-OC-3.0 Ghz CPU, for £20 less than the HD4850?



As the ATI 4830 is up to £20 less for similar performance it is the best candidate price/performance. A slight optional overclock of the 4830 and it would perform the same or better than the 4850 or 4770 at stock. To be frank in a lot of games the 4830 can actually performs the same as the previously mentioned cards straight out of the box.

I currently own a 4830 so I'm trying not to be bias. I have the XFX 4830 and it was £74.00 but its only £70 now with free super saver delivery here with only one left in stock. 

It should last you a bit over a year, I doubt you'll struggle with games within that duration, just overclock the processor a bit then invest around £350-400 in a full system upgrade (CPU, GPU and maybe motherboard) in mid 2010.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 22, 2009)

Darren said:


> ...I would avoid the 4670, at minimum you want the ATI 4830! Get the cheapest of the ATI 4770 or 4850, performance near enough the same.


Which is preferable, out of the two?

Edit: And would you consider the HD4830 better overall for my purposes, with my 2.0-OC-3.0 Ghz CPU, for £20 less than the HD4850?


----------



## EnglishLion (Jun 22, 2009)

Beware of comparing your E1400 CPU to an E5200.  The E5200 has 2Mb of L2 cache and the E1400 has only 512Kb of L2 cache.  This can make a big difference in real life programs (often less in synthetic benchmarks).

The E1400 should be plenty good enough for your original requirement of HL2/CSS etc but I think it would be stretched way too far at any clock speed for something like GTA4.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

Hi Darren

Thank you for your continued help with my questions on graphics cards. It is a fiendishly complex subject!

I spent a great deal of time reviewing all of the many incredibly useful comments on this thread, and on the prices available to me in the UK market. In the end I felt that for the purposes of my ultra-quiet system's requirements, and on power consumption and heat production, with my casual-gamer demands on performance, the best bang-for-buck and system demand sweet-spot would be with the HD4670. This review was particularly useful, along with this data.

Then, whilst buying a few other components from an e-tailer, I had the opportunity to buy this Sapphire HD4670 for £55. I took it!

I am very grateful for all of the help and advice that everyone has so kindly provided on this thread. This is a magnificent forum for the ardent researcher and system builder. I am very pleased that you all steered me towards Radeon rather than GeForce. I believe I have achieved better value and efficient performance as a result.

Thank you!


----------



## Darren (Jun 23, 2009)

I'm a bit disappointed with your choice of card, and I'm slightly dubious of that review too. The review features two high end video card, seven super-high end video cards and only two midrange cards and as a result the 4830 and 4670 were always ranked in the two slowest on the graph, its not really ethical to review video cards priced £55-70 with cards that cost £200-400, ideally the review should of had more of a midrange selection such as the 9600 GT, 9800 GT/GTX+, GTS 250, 4850, 4770 etc.

In reality the 4670 is about 40-60% slower than the 4830 which isn't being reflected in the Techgage review for whatever reason which is enough to warrant the extra £15. 

TPU review


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 23, 2009)

I would have to agree, the 4830 would have been a much better buy, if you can RMA at and pick one up I would suggest doing so.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

Hi Darren. Thank you for pulling me up on this. A 40% performance increase for only £15 would certainly appear to be a worthwhile outlay, providing it is not to the detriment of system cooling.

So I took a look at the useful power consumption comparison figures within the review which you just mentioned.

It would seem from this more reliable TechPowerUp data that perhaps the TechGage review was overplaying what would appear to be only a minimal difference in idle temps and power usage, and a negligible difference in peak temps and power usage, when case fans would be spinning faster anyway. This review would seem to provide a far more credible appraisal of the relative performance and power consumption details.

So I amended my order to pay the extra £13.01 for the Sapphire HD4830! Edit: That's a tax-inclusive price of £69.

I have also heard that the HD4830 is basically just a capped version of the HD4850. So I am hoping that with a little overclocking, I should be achieving HD4850/HD4770 performance too!

I am looking forward to receiving the HD4830 tomorrow! Thank you for all of your help!


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 23, 2009)

for under £100 Id highly recommend the ATi/AMD 4770 Its faster then Nvidias 9800GT's & in few benches performed slightly better then ATi/AMDs own 4850 card.

so its definitely worth looking into. the 9800GT series has been out for a while. where as the 4770 has just been released so is more 'new generation' then the 9800GTs.

get a 4770


----------



## DreamSeller (Jun 23, 2009)

i've got the same 4670 im not very pleased with it... but atm i only play L4D
so if you only play HL2 thats ok but for games like crysis or such get at least a 4830


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> for under £100 Id highly recommend the ATi/AMD 4770 Its faster then Nvidias 9800GT's & in few benches performed slightly better then ATi/AMDs own 4850 card.
> 
> so its definitely worth looking into. the 9800GT series has been out for a while. where as the 4770 has just been released so is more 'new generation' then the 9800GTs.
> 
> get a 4770



A 4770 cannot be had for love or money in the UK any more!

Or a minimum of £85 delivered. Which is beyond the cut-off point which I am able to extend to.

I am confident that the HD4830 will satisfy my needs.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 23, 2009)

Pipps said:


> I have also heard that the HD4830 is basically just a capped version of the HD4850. So I am hoping that with a little overclocking, I should be achieving HD4850/HD4770 performance too!



The 4830 is indeed that, they are amazing OC cards, you should have no problems hitting 700mhz on the GPU itself, which will bring you beyond 4850 performance, they are great cards.



FreedomEclipse said:


> for under £100 Id highly recommend the ATi/AMD 4770 Its faster then Nvidias 9800GT's & in few benches performed slightly better then ATi/AMDs own 4850 card.
> 
> so its definitely worth looking into. the 9800GT series has been out for a while. where as the 4770 has just been released so is more 'new generation' then the 9800GTs.
> 
> get a 4770



Like he said those are available just about no where, and their performance is just a notch above 4830's that are found easily.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 23, 2009)

Pipps said:


> A 4770 cannot be had for love or money in the UK any more!



then your not looking in the right places....

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAP-4770

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/512MB-Sapphire-HD4770-DDR5-21149-00-20R

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/164568

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss...-keywords=4770+ati&sprefix=4770&tag=tec053-21

Do i need to put up more links???


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

Sir, that deal at Scan is an excellent price! Well played!

Though the HD4770 does appear to draw significantly more power than the HD4830, according to tests.

Would this be in line with your experience of it too?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 23, 2009)

Im not entirely sure why that is tbh. but with your 500watt PSU you should be able to run it no problem if thats what your worrying about.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

I would agree that the default performance of the 4770 would be higher than the 4830.

But it would appear that the relative power-per-watt performance would be in the 4830's favour. And would I therefore be correct in understanding that this would leave more scope for overclocking within the acceptable boundaries of my silent system's parameters?

It is not so much the overall power draw, but the effect which any extra consumption will have on heat and cooling, with is my priority.


----------



## crazy pyro (Jun 23, 2009)

It's a 45nm chip, it SHOULD run cooler than the HD4830.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Jun 23, 2009)

4770 is 40nm

definetly cooler


----------



## Darren (Jun 23, 2009)

Pipps said:


> I have also heard that the HD4830 is basically just a capped version of the HD4850. So I am hoping that with a little overclocking, I should be achieving HD4850/HD4770 performance too!



Indeed, the 4870, 4850, and 4830 are very similar in their layouts and transistor counts. The 4830 and 4850 tend to be the most similar with the only major variation being that the 4830 has 640 shaders and the 4850 having 800 shaders. The missing 160 shaders do very little to hinder performance so they are sneaky and reduce the memory/core bus as well, you can easily move the memory/core above and beyond the 4850s and have it pushing out more bandwidth.



FreedomEclipse said:


> then your not looking in the right places....
> 
> http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAP-4770
> 
> ...



With the exception of Scan.co.uk the 4770s are selling for £80 and above, that is still at least £12 more expensive than the 4830. It seems like a small amount and its worth the extra £12 but he has already increased his budget already from £55 (4670), if he keeps increasing his budget he may as well say fuck it and buy a GTX 285. Pipps will be happy with his 4830 and at £68 its a absolute bargain and a small overclock will have him at 4770s or 4850s performance if he chooses.

On a side note, the 4770 is suppose to consume less power, I'm confused why reviews are not showing that though, never mind.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 23, 2009)

Darren said:


> if he keeps increasing his budget he may was well say fuck it and buy a GTX 285



from £55-80 is a small jump, From £80 to roughly £270 or maybe even more for a GTX for a 285 is an even bigger jump. plus the 285 is way overkill fo what he wants it for - In any case he could overclock the 4830 but there was no need to launch an attack on me because I suggested a 4770.

My recommendations are based on the fact that he hasnt overclocked his CPU therefore hes probably not too confident about jumping into the deep end. hence the 4770 will suit him perfectly & if he decides to overclock it might clock a little better due to being 40nm.

The choice is his at the end of the day, he asked a question - this is my response.


----------



## crazy pyro (Jun 23, 2009)

Overclocking your GPU is however FAR simpler than your CPU Freedom.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> ... there was no need to launch an attack on me because I suggested a 4770.


I am sure Darren was not launching any sort of attack at you. It is one of those statements which could easily be taken the wrong way in writing, but face to face, would have been delivered with emphasis and sympathetic mirth, and would've been obvious to have not been intended to cause any offense whatsoever.

It's a good job Darren is humorously sympathetic to my budget, too. As unfortunately that budget doesn't stretch as far as I would like!


----------



## KainXS (Jun 23, 2009)

its simpler until you hit your gpu's limit with a certain voltage but if your gpu can't up the voltage with software which mostly all can't then its harder since you have to hardmod the card

and his cpu is very easy to overclock, most(if not all) of the E21XX and E14XX series can do a 100% overclock with almost no increase in voltage


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

KainXS said:


> ... most(if not all) of the E21XX and E14XX series can do a 100% overclock with almost no increase in voltage






Edit: Please show me how!


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 23, 2009)

Pipps said:


> Edit: Please show me how!



http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=22916
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=30480
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=22916

a few guides that will teach you the basics of overclocking. after reading these you should roughly know how it works. anymore questions just ask


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

Brilliant! Thank you!


----------



## Darren (Jun 23, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> from £55-80 is a small jump, From £80 to roughly £270 or maybe even more for a GTX for a 285 is an even bigger jump. plus the 285 is way overkill fo what he wants it for



My point is that once you allocate a budget you should stick to it, perhaps increase it slightly but you can not keep increasing the budget constantly otherwise we'd all have expensive high end cards such as the GTX285 and we'd be broke because we didn’t stick to our budget. I agree the 4770 would of been the better choice but his budget doesn't allow for it despite him increasing his budget previously.

I did not mean it as an attack or anything 

Pipps I'd recommend that you look at those overclocking guides that FreedomEclipse found for you, perhaps create a new thread if you are confused about any aspects of overclocking or if you need any OC'ing assistance.


----------



## Pipps (Jun 23, 2009)

That is great! Thank you, Darren!


----------



## EnglishLion (Jun 23, 2009)

KainXS said:


> and his cpu is very easy to overclock, most(if not all) of the E21XX and E14XX series can do a 100% overclock with almost no increase in voltage



Well my E2160 is currently @ 85% overclock and doing quite nicely, not sure about the E14xx series though.

http://www.mods-n-clocks.co.uk/forums/oc85.jpg


----------



## Pipps (Jun 25, 2009)

English Lion, that is a brilliant overclock!


----------

