Thursday, June 25th 2009

Consider a GPU Upgrade Before CPU: NVIDIA

Ahead of the bulk of the crucial summer shopping season, NVIDIA sent a circular urging consumers to focus their PC upgrades on GPUs, rather than CPU and its platform. It thinks that if you have a reasonably good platform from last year or the year before, a GPU upgrade serves as a better price for performance increment when it comes to games. A slide explaining NVIDIA's advice was leaked (perhaps ahead of its formal publication, as it seems to be targeted at end-users and not intermediate customers or distributors).

Quite simply, the slide shows how upgrading the GPU is a more cost-effective way of increasing performance of a gaming PC, compared to upgrading the platform (CPU, compatible motherboard and memory). The side specifically targets the Intel Core i7 platform, and pits the upgrade path against upgrading the graphics components, keeping the rest of the PC constant, based on the common Core 2 Duo E8400. The price of this base system along with a GeForce GTS 250 GPU is measured at $506. A $159 upgrade to GeForce GTS 250 SLI sends the average FPS (application not mentioned) up to 54 from 42, likewise as you look further up the options NVIDIA provides. Upgrading the rest of the platform is making no performance impact on this application. The general idea conveyed is that for a gaming PC with recent generation hardware, better graphics is a better incremental upgrade. Choose with your wallet.
Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

84 Comments on Consider a GPU Upgrade Before CPU: NVIDIA

#76
imperialreign
leonard_222003What kind of max out ? 16Xaa ? this is ridiculous.
Sometimes you can have 3 cards in SLI/Crossfire and still have a bad framerate , problems are THE DRIVERS AND GAME OPTIMIZATIONS !!!
I believe we took Nvidia's slideshow to seriously already , they said something obvious and limited in information about what games could benefit from this and what games won't.
no - I mean in-game settings . . . 90% of the time, I don't even touch AA/AF as it's not truly noticeable 95% of the time.

1920x1200 is a hard resolution for most games to run at . . . sure 1 4870 can run at that res, but your quality settings will be marginal. 2 4870s can run that res, and your IQ will be better, and your overall framerates will be better . . . but they can still dip low. 3 helps out even further, but things can still tank occasionally.

I prefer my FPS rates to remain above 40-50 FPS, depending on game.

TBH, we shouldn't need driver optimizations for games - that merely says that the developers didn't spend enough time optimizing their software for the hardware (pure example: Crysis - runs poorly on ATI cards, even with countless driver updates).

Continuing to rely on driver optimizations simply means that game devs can become lazier and lazier in how they code their projects. I for one would rather see games running more optimized than they already do, and we wouldn't necessarily have to update our video drivers every month in hopes of better performance.
Posted on Reply
#77
ste2425
[I.R.A]_FBibut all know we dont know with what "app" they got this ... maybe its custom built nvidia app?
i think a monkey made it on paint with 'NVIDIA' painted on the back of its neck, above a bar-code
Posted on Reply
#78
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
I am waiting for Ati or Nvidia to make a platform that uses their awesome gpus as a cpu. I know they can do it. Anyone know if they got any links out there with news about them doing this at all?
Posted on Reply
#79
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
wont happen on AMD front.
Posted on Reply
#80
Ketxxx
Heedless Psychic
imperialreignno - I mean in-game settings . . . 90% of the time, I don't even touch AA/AF as it's not truly noticeable 95% of the time.

1920x1200 is a hard resolution for most games to run at . . . sure 1 4870 can run at that res, but your quality settings will be marginal. 2 4870s can run that res, and your IQ will be better, and your overall framerates will be better . . . but they can still dip low. 3 helps out even further, but things can still tank occasionally.

I prefer my FPS rates to remain above 40-50 FPS, depending on game.

TBH, we shouldn't need driver optimizations for games - that merely says that the developers didn't spend enough time optimizing their software for the hardware (pure example: Crysis - runs poorly on ATI cards, even with countless driver updates).

Continuing to rely on driver optimizations simply means that game devs can become lazier and lazier in how they code their projects. I for one would rather see games running more optimized than they already do, and we wouldn't necessarily have to update our video drivers every month in hopes of better performance.
Well said. :toast: Sadly our protests fall on deaf ears most of the time :( Its absolutely absurd how poorly coded games have been getting for a long time now.
Posted on Reply
#81
hat
Enthusiast
Yeah, the most AA I use is 4x, same for AF.
Posted on Reply
#82
ste2425
hatYeah, the most AA I use is 4x, same for AF.
crnt use either kills my performance, all textures shadows etc i can have very high or maxed but aa or af and it becomes a slide show, i gues my cpu doesnt help
Posted on Reply
#83
Ketxxx
Heedless Psychic
When it comes to AA/AF I tend to use 2xAA 8xAF, above that the only noticeable difference is in the loss of FPS :p
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 8th, 2024 02:21 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts