[Choice]Buying a new Graphics card or CPU ?

[Aud21]

No problem, don't forget to use rivatuner and alter the fan speeds to 60% when playing games.. you'll never regret it keep it cool

ok thanks again. cant wait for xmas to come

 

[foothead]

6670 can handle all the latest game's , he will be fine on low/mid settings.. won't bottleneck either.

I'd suggest buy cpu after that g'card

A Pentium D will bottleneck the heck out of that card. It's just so obsolete. Look at any game from the last couple years, and the system requirements are going to be way beyond it.

Also, no way a 6670 is going to handle something like Crysis 2 smoothly at a normal resolution, even at low settings. I gave up on playing Crysis 2 on my 5770 ( slightly more powerful) because it couldn't maintain a smooth framerate. Think 30-40 fps with dips into the 20s at times. It might be okay for something like 1280x1024 or less, but definitely not 1680x1050 or 1080p.

EDIT: One more thing. DO NOT adjust the fan setting to 60% fixed. This is a very good way to damage your card. Leave it alone, the manufacturer knows what they're doing (well, unless it's XFX.)

 

[IAntDemo]

A Pentium D will bottleneck the heck out of that card. It's just so obsolete. Look at any game from the last couple years, and the system requirements are going to be way beyond it.

Also, no way a 6670 is going to handle something like Crysis 2 smoothly at a normal resolution, even at low settings. I gave up on playing Crysis 2 on my 5770 ( slightly more powerful) because it couldn't maintain a smooth framerate. Think 30-40 fps with dips into the 20s at times. It might be okay for something like 1280x1024 or less, but definitely not 1680x1050 or 1080p.

a 6670 plays crysis 2 fine , and it won't bottleneck it, no chance, it's still a decent cpu to play a few games, not as intense as the future will bring but i know he can play skyrim fine.. aslong as he plays it for 4 hours and gives it a rest i don't see any harm

 

[foothead]

Have you tried Crysis 2 on a PC with such a video card? It's unplayable. I had to finish on the HTPC with an XBOX controller.

As far as the CPU, it's severely outdated. See here: PassMark - CPU Benchmarks - List of Benchmarked CPUs Its score is 933. For comparison, the Athlon II 250, which is currently AMD's lowliest desktop CPU, gets 1714. The Athlon 64 X2 7750 (listed as BF3 minimum CPU) gets 1569. I know that passmark is not going to be a perfect reflection of gaming performance, but it should at least give a general idea.


Here's a list of recent popular games (the top 5 on newegg), and whether or not it meets the minimum (not recommended) CPU requirements:

In [brackets] is the minimum CPU listed in the official requirements, in (parentheses) is the passmark score of that CPU. Once again, the Pentium D scores 933.

☒Modern Warfare 3 [Athlon X2 4000+ (1097)]
☒Battlefield 3 [Athlon 7750 (1569)]
☒Saints Row 3 [Athlon 2400 (1206)]
☒ LA Noire [Athlon 4800+ (1312)]
☒Skyrim ["2 GHz dual core" I used an Athlon 64 x2 3800+ since that's about the lowest-end dual core @ 2GHz (1049)]

That's 0/5 for the minimum specs, which typically only give 30fps average at some small resolution (1280x720 seems standard). Ideally, you'd want at least 50% higher than that to get smooth gameplay.


Is anyone else having trouble getting alt codes to work on this site? I had to type them in the url bar and copy/paste. It's annoying.

 

[IAntDemo]

Have you tried Crysis 2 on a PC with such a video card? It's unplayable. I had to finish on the HTPC with an XBOX controller.

As far as the CPU, it's severely outdated. See here: PassMark - CPU Benchmarks - List of Benchmarked CPUs Its score is 933. For comparison, the Athlon II 250, which is currently AMD's lowliest desktop CPU, gets 1714. The Athlon 64 X2 7750 (listed as BF3 minimum CPU) gets 1569. I know that passmark is not going to be a perfect reflection of gaming performance, but it should at least give a general idea.


Here's a list of recent popular games (the top 5 on newegg), and whether or not it meets the minimum (not recommended) CPU requirements:

In [brackets] is the minimum CPU listed in the official requirements, in (parentheses) is the passmark score of that CPU. Once again, the Pentium D scores 933.

☒Modern Warfare 3 [Athlon X2 4000+ (1097)]
☒Battlefield 3 [Athlon 7750 (1569)]
☒Saints Row 3 [Athlon 2400 (1206)]
☒ LA Noire [Athlon 4800+ (1312)]
☒Skyrim ["2 GHz dual core" I used an Athlon 64 x2 3800+ since that's about the lowest-end dual core @ 2GHz (1049)]

That's 0/5 for the minimum specs, which typically only give 30fps average at some small resolution (1280x720 seems standard). Ideally, you'd want at least 50% higher than that to get smooth gameplay.


Is anyone else having trouble getting alt codes to work on this site? I had to type them in the url bar and copy/paste. It's annoying.

I think I did mention that he will need to buy the cpu next.. as to the whole post.. it will still play.. it's good enough, I can bet anything it will play fine.. he just won't be able to play high settings, and most bench marks are tested high to get the most out of it..

Heres one

Crysis 2 - Apagón DX9 PC gameplay AMD Radeon HD 6670 - YouTube

His cpu is 2mb cache, duel core and also 2.9ghz

It is almost the same, many people say skyrim won't run well on a laptops, I installed it for my friend and configured his graphics, hes playing that smooth, but low.. and skyrim has more of an intense engine then crysis 2.

I did say don't play for long aswell to the poster and my friend, he'll need to give it a break..

He is updating his cpu anyway so it won't make much of a difference, he can play, i hope he gets the card and plays and posts here his review

 

[foothead]

You're confusing benchmarks with the minimum requirements. Yes, benches are run at high settings generally. I never posted benches though, nor will you find any for recent games on a Pentium D. The specs I listed are what the manufacturer recommends to run the game on bare minimum settings, generally at 30 fps average and a very low resolution. As I said before, this is nowhere near ideal "smooth" gameplay, which, depending on the game/engine typically varies between 40 and 60 fps, though it is somewhat subjective.

As far as that video: did you even watch it? It's a slideshow at points, and that's only at 1280x720 resolution. Also, the Athlon II 245 is not even close to comparable to a pentium D. There are massive architectural differences, which make the Athlon far superior. See my numbers posted earlier.

I'm trying to give the OP a realistic idea of what to expect. Please, by all means, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong somewhere, but make sure you have a solid, quantitative, source to back it up. No subjective things like talking about skyrim running on a mysterious non-specced laptop that is almost definitely superior to what we're talking about here.

 

[Aud21]

ok thanks

 

[IAntDemo]

You're confusing benchmarks with the minimum requirements. Yes, benches are run at high settings generally. I never posted benches though, nor will you find any for recent games on a Pentium D. The specs I listed are what the manufacturer recommends to run the game on bare minimum settings, generally at 30 fps average and a very low resolution. As I said before, this is nowhere near ideal "smooth" gameplay, which, depending on the game/engine typically varies between 40 and 60 fps, though it is somewhat subjective.

As far as that video: did you even watch it? It's a slideshow at points, and that's only at 1280x720 resolution. Also, the Athlon II 245 is not even close to comparable to a pentium D. There are massive architectural differences, which make the Athlon far superior. See my numbers posted earlier.

I'm trying to give the OP a realistic idea of what to expect. Please, by all means, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong somewhere, but make sure you have a solid, quantitative, source to back it up. No subjective things like talking about skyrim running on a mysterious non-specced laptop that is almost definitely superior to what we're talking about here.

I think when I look online for statistics I see graphs.. just like you've been posting.. but when I go to my friends house I see it for my own eyes, so for the ''non-specced'' laptop yes it's pretty noticeable to see him play it fine.. his laptop isn't anything special.

It's funny you say that he won't be able to play it yet I'm saying he will.. which tbh with 3.4ghz oc I don't see any problems, I have a cpu that was made in 2007 and since his is overclocked it kinda improves it towards mine.. shame I have the windsor and not black edition lol, I also play games just fine now and his graphics card is double as good as mine..

really tho, you're taking benchmarks which are recorded in high settings.. and drafting them off here..

you think he won't play smooth? ok we will see ,if he plays on low res he won't need to render that many graphics and i doubt his cpu will bottleneck on low res, on high it will it's pretty obvious but don't forget that he can tune the graphics so it won't bottleneck..just turn a few things down and the graphics won't need to render to much and his cpu can still catch up for the time..

really tho , theirs no point in trying to debate over something this silly, it is silly to do so as it's pretty clear his pc will run it.. to me it's clear as I've worked with them for 10years and know for a fact it will play it..

You're just reposting till you can ''correct'' yourself on each reply to my post.. give up, it will PLAY IT!!! AND WON'T BOTTLENECK ON LOW RES

 

[foothead]

Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about here. I'm going to break this post up and explain why.

I think when I look online for statistics I see graphs.. just like you've been posting.. but when I go to my friends house I see it for my own eyes, so for the ''non-specced'' laptop yes it's pretty noticeable to see him play it fine.. his laptop isn't anything special.

"Not anything special" doesn't mean much. If his laptop was made anytime after 2008 or so and isn't total garbage, it's going to have a better CPU than a Pentium D. Heck, when it came out, the Pentium D was pretty much rejected by gamers because it performed poorly. Also, a laptop will generally have a lower resolution than a desktop monitor, though this usually matters more for the GPU, not the CPU.

It's funny you say that he won't be able to play it yet I'm saying he will.. which tbh with 3.4ghz oc I don't see any problems, I have a cpu that was made in 2007 and since his is overclocked it kinda improves it towards mine.. shame I have the windsor and not black edition lol, I also play games just fine now and his graphics card is double as good as mine..

You're hung up on clock speeds. Your Windsor is vastly superior to a Pentium D, despite being clocked lower. The reason is that the architecture is totally different, with the AMD giving much more performance per clock, especially in gaming due to the superior chipset.

really tho, you're taking benchmarks which are recorded in high settings.. and drafting them off here..

No, no, no, no, no. (Was that enough 'no's?) I'm using passmark scores to compare the relative performance of CPUs so I can see whether or not they match the manufacturer's MINIMUM requirement. The minumum requirement being the lowest specifications that will run the game. That means low settings, and generally a very small resolution.

you think he won't play smooth? ok we will see ,if he plays on low res he won't need to render that many graphics and i doubt his cpu will bottleneck on low res, on high it will it's pretty obvious but don't forget that he can tune the graphics so it won't bottleneck..just turn a few things down and the graphics won't need to render to much and his cpu can still catch up for the time..

As I said before, he is far below the minimum requirements for modern games. Old stuff will run fine, but anything new/graphically intensive will not be able to run smoothly, even on the lowest settings. Expect a slideshow.

really tho , theirs no point in trying to debate over something this silly, it is silly to do so as it's pretty clear his pc will run it.. to me it's clear as I've worked with them for 10years and know for a fact it will play it..

There is reason to debate. You are misleading the OP into believing that his system will be capable of something that it won't. He's going to go spend his money on a new video card, only to install it and be disappointed when the CPU bottlenecks the heck out of it.

Also, I have no idea what this "it" is that you're so adamant about this system being able to run. If you mean DOOM II, then you're probably correct, but something like Battlefield 3 is not going to be anywhere close to playable (that is unless you consider 10-15 fps playable.) Did you even look at the numbers I posted earlier?

You're just reposting till you can ''correct'' yourself on each reply to my post.. give up, it will PLAY IT!!! AND WON'T BOTTLENECK ON LOW RES

I hope you mean low settings? The CPU does little to none of the actual video rendering work in modern games, that gets passed on to the GPU. You could play at 5760x1200 resolution, and the CPU toll will not be much higher than at 1280x1024. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "bottleneck." A bottleneck is when a single slow component cannot keep up with other, faster components, thus forcing them to wait for it to finish. A bottleneck is still a bottleneck at low resolution/low settings, all that does is reduce the work that the bottlenecking component has to do, thus increasing performance at the cost of quality. The rest of the components are still capable of better performance, were they not held back.



The OP is probably very confused at this point, so I'll summarize. A HD 6670 + the pentium D will work for some gaming. Stuff from 2008 will run perfectly fine. Games from 2011 may run, but do not expect smooth gameplay at any settings. Once you upgrade the CPU as well, it'll be okay though. Still, don't expect miracles. The core 2 duo is quite old.