Everything's Perfect. Except....

[AAA]

Note: I would've ported this in the Advice/Suggections thread, but I felt the post on its own would be rediculously long.

Okay, so I'm thinking about buying a new graphics card. Unfortunately, I'm limited money wise to $150-$160 due to the fact that if after I earn anymore, i'm going to go on a spending spree cause I'm just not that serious with myself sometimes.

So, here's the situation:

I got a new computer about 2 weeks ago and it's works awesome. I'm displeased that my processor can't go over 2.6GHz without a sudden shut down after a while (I have a Phenom II X3 710 and I would've been SOOO happy if I had gotten the 720 Black Edition due to all of its, and I emphasize these quotes, "hidden" features) But, I'm stuck with it, so I have no room to complain.

a few hours ago, I ordered another 2GB module of RAM and a 650W Power Supply. Leaving me with these soon to be current components:

OS: Windows 7 Build 7000 - 64 bit
Processor: Phenom II X3 710
Graphics Card: Geforce 6150 SE (On-Board)
Ram: 2x2GB Crucial DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Motherboard: (look at my system specs)
Power Supply: SIGMA MONSTER 650W SLI Ready

I have ALL of the components needed to run all the games I want except for one big problem; My graphics card.

I'm stuck with an on-board frame-buffer-eater taking 256MB off my RAM module. No one wants that, do they?

I'm looking around for a graphics card and my little brother just happened to find a good deal going on with the newly released EVGA GeForce 250 512MB. He buys it, and like the little impatient boy he can sometimes be, he, like I said a moment ago, gets impatient and starts going on about how U.P.S. won't get there in time and starts going into a long 8 hour depression of sauntering and being pissy to everyone around the house.

8 Hours Later...

The package arrives and I'm watching this thing get put in, I help in plug it up real quick and we run her up.

BAM! This thing blazes through every game like it was made in 1993. Except for one game... (ofcourse) Crysis. He runs it all on very high with about an average between 10-20 FPS.

Now, I'm looking at this card and I'm wondering, with how long it would take me to get the money before Summer time (which would be before I start applying for a job.), will this thing be worth it in that amount of time? I want my card to support DirectX 11, which isn't coming out anytime within the next 3 months, I'm sure (If I'm wrong, please tell me). But if it is coming out within that time frame, I sure as hell am not hesitating to save for it.

The Final conclusion to my question is:

Should I grab this hot puppy, or wait for the DirectX 11 supportive cards (NVIDIA 300 Series) to come out so I can be satisfied with the immense awesomeness of Crysis on Very High settings and other future upcoming games?

I make the choice sound obvious. But, I need some reassurance...

(Also, would the power supply be able to support any of these new NVIDIA 300 series cards?)

[343guiltymc]

You could try the 4870 512MB, I doubt many games will support DX11 during launch so I wouldn't worry about it for at least another year.

[sdavis117]

NVidia has fallen behind in Graphics. I advise you to get an ATI card. Not only are they generally more powerful, but good deals exist for them.

For example, I found a 4800 for $50 a few days ago at a local computer hardware store..

[NullZero]

Have you tried enabling the 4th core on your phenom?

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2009/02/24/phenom-ii-x3-can-have-fourth-core-unlocked/1 (http://mightygadget.co.uk/hardware/phenom-ii-x3-could-have-4th-core-unlocked/1251)

It's possible that all tri cores are perfectly working quad cores, but with one disabled, although can be argued quite a bit. With the quality of manufacturing nowadays, it shouldn't be a faulty core. Idk

[AAA]

Have you tried enabling the 4th core on your phenom?

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2009/02/24/phenom-ii-x3-can-have-fourth-core-unlocked/1 (http://mightygadget.co.uk/hardware/phenom-ii-x3-could-have-4th-core-unlocked/1251)

It's possible that all tri cores are perfectly working quad cores, but with one disabled, although can be argued quite a bit. With the quality of manufacturing nowadays, it shouldn't be a faulty core. Idk


I looked up a great deal on how to do that, but I don't think my motherboard has the ACC option. I looked around for it, but I haven't been able to find it. I think my motherboard is a slightly older model. I updated my BIOS, but no luck. If anyone knows how else I can go about trying to enable the fourth core, I would be so appreciative!

My Motherboard supports my CPU, but it doesn't recognize it. It's another little issue that bothers me.

Here's the link to my motherboard for any information needed:
http://www.biostar-usa.com/app/en-us/mb/content.php?S_ID=387

EDIT!!: I looked at my Motherboard's CPU support again and it SUPPORTS MY CPU! So why is it coming out as "AMD Processor model unknown"????
Edit #2: Could this possibly be due to the tiny little fact that I'm running Windows 7 beta?


NVidia has fallen behind in Graphics. I advise you to get an ATI card. Not only are they generally more powerful, but good deals exist for them.

For example, I found a 4800 for $50 a few days ago at a local computer hardware store..

If i'm going to get anything from ATI, I want one no lower than the 4850, just due to from what I've seen.

There has been such an argument on the Radeon vs Geforce subject that it's gotten almost impossible to choose. Geforce is just as good and slightly cheaper from certain aspects. but ATI is also just as good, but I've seen FPS issues from time to time. If someone could give me a write up on something like that, it would help SO MUCH, because I've gotten to see nothing but rediculous attacks on both sides about which is better and, from what I've seen, (I feel very encouraged to think) it looks like benchmarks are so different, they're either from the computer specs or they were literally mishandled to make you think the one they like the most comes out on top. I need a more logical explaination as to why which one is better for the performance I'm looking for. along with a good price.

Note: I edited my post because the highest amount of money I'm willing to spend would be $150-$160

[343guiltymc]

From what I can tell the GTS 250 is a little better than the 4850, though it costs a little higher than the 4850 too.

[Abdurahman]

The 512mb GTS 250 can be gotten for 129.99 at Newegg, and that's the same price as a 512mb 4850.

[343guiltymc]

There is also the 4870: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4431359&CatId=3670

[AAA]

The 512mb GTS 250 can be gotten for 129.99 at Newegg, and that's the same price as a 512mb 4850.

That's the exact one I'm looking at that my little brother bought.


There is also the 4870: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4431359&CatId=3670

That's a great card, but the EVGA Geforce 250 512mb runs almost exactly as well and it's $40 cheaper. What features between them are so different?

[TheGhost]

The Final conclusion to my question is:

Should I grab this hot puppy, or wait for the DirectX 11 supportive cards (NVIDIA 300 Series) to come out so I can be satisfied with the immense awesomeness of Crysis on Very High settings and other future upcoming games?

I make the choice sound obvious. But, I need some reassurance...

(Also, would the power supply be able to support any of these new NVIDIA 300 series cards?)

You can always "wait" longer and longer for the next thing. At some point you just have to decide it's the right time and buy something. You also can't get upset that 3 months after you buy your card, they will put out another one that's better and costs less. It's just the way it works, and there isn't much you can do to control it.

[NullZero]

I don't know how Windows 7 can alter your BIOS settings without flashing it (you would be given warning as always if it had) so I don't think it's because you have that OS. I don't know, strange...

[AAA]

You can always "wait" longer and longer for the next thing. At some point you just have to decide it's the right time and buy something. You also can't get upset that 3 months after you buy your card, they will put out another one that's better and costs less. It's just the way it works, and there isn't much you can do to control it.

I wouldn't be upset if they did that. I accept it as an imminent way of the works, but I want a card that will last me into my own satisfaction. DirectX 11 and Shader Model 5.0 isn't THAT important, but it would be a great upgrade since I've been deeling with a Radeon 9250 for over 4 years and an onboard card that works just as well. My satisfaction towards a graphics card would be to run Crysis at atleast 25-30FPS on Very High. I would be entirely satisfied with it for 4 more years.

[LlamaMaster]

You can always "wait" longer and longer for the next thing. At some point you just have to decide it's the right time and buy something. You also can't get upset that 3 months after you buy your card, they will put out another one that's better and costs less. It's just the way it works, and there isn't much you can do to control it.
This. I've dealt with my crappy computer for years on the hope that better parts would come out. Only now have I finally ordered something...

Just do it.

[Warsaw]

NVidia has fallen behind in Graphics. I advise you to get an ATI card. Not only are they generally more powerful, but good deals exist for them.

For example, I found a 4800 for $50 a few days ago at a local computer hardware store..

wut

GTX295 > HD4870 X2
GTX260 Core 216 > HD4870
GTS250 (9800GTX+) > HD4850, and performs almost as well as the HD4870
GTX285 > 2x HD4850 in Crossfire
GeForce 9600 GT > HD4670, and is almost equal to the HD4830 in performance

I think nVidia cards still generally perform better, it's just ATi at this point has better bang for the buck. However, the GTS250 has leveled that playing field somewhat.

As for waiting, I say definitely wait for the next series (GTX300 or HD5000), or at the very least wait for ATi's refreshed HD4000 series (RV740). The only way you are going to get to run Crysis consistently at those frames (or slightly better) on those settings at a resolution of 1680x1050 is by purchasing an HD4870 X2, GTX295, GTX285, or some dual card setup. If you decide to go that route, which card you get really depends on two things: how much money do you want to save, and how much power can you spare from the PSU.

The thing about buying now is that prices are low across the board with the exception of the GTX295, which is itself down to ~$500 from its $600 entry price.

[AAA]

The only way you are going to get to run Crysis consistently at those frames (or slightly better) on those settings at a resolution of 1680x1050 is by purchasing an HD4870 X2, GTX295, GTX285, or some dual card setup. If you decide to go that route, which card you get really depends on two things: how much money do you want to save, and how much power can you spare from the PSU.

The thing about buying now is that prices are low across the board with the exception of the GTX295, which is itself down to ~$500 from its $600 entry price.


That's also a touchy part of the subject during benchmarks vs My own performance of getting the 250, I don't know what it is about those high resolutions, but I'm only looking for resolution up to 1280x1024. My brother runs at 1440x900. So, I'm thinking in terms of using his resolution for future preference incase I do get a new Monitor with DVI support. But, the current system is 1280x1024 VGA. I think it's plenty to run Crysis at the settings I'm looking at for a 18-25-30FPS with the 250. Am I correct?

Power supply is another thing I'm not that worried about. Chances are that the 300 series and the 5000 series will support 650W on the new low-end builds of the series. I'm not looking for a dual card setup. I don't think it would even be a necessary option for what I'm willing to settle for.

[Warsaw]

1440x900 is basically the wide-screen equivalent of 1280x1024 (it has 36 more pixels than 1280x1024). 1440x900, however, looks terrible on a screen capable of 1920x1200, or even on one that does 1680x1050 (the latter of which is basically the resolution to aim for when measuring performance of a graphics card).

As long as you don't want to run 4x AA or anything, then yes, I think a 250 might handle it at 1280x1024 or 1440x900. There are ways to improve performance though, such as the Natural Mod which makes High look as good as Very High without a performance hit (and actually improves performance). It applies more to ATi cards though than nVidia.

[AAA]

As long as you don't want to run 4x AA or anything, then yes, I think a 250 might handle it at 1280x1024 or 1440x900. There are ways to improve performance though, such as the Natural Mod which makes High look as good as Very High without a performance hit (and actually improves performance). It applies more to ATi cards though than nVidia.

Yeah, he hit 10-20FPS on Very High and 0x AA Res 1440x900.

Why's that?... and yeah, that Natural mod is awesome, thanks for the info about performance with it, I didn't know if it hit the graphics card performance wise or not

[Abdurahman]

Use C.U.D.A.A.T.S. too. It's this modification for crysis that does wonders for your performance. Use them both together!

[Warsaw]

Yeah, he hit 10-20FPS on Very High and 0x AA Res 1440x900.

Why's that?... and yeah, that Natural mod is awesome, thanks for the info about performance with it, I didn't know if it hit the graphics card performance wise or not

It was tailored to even the odds between nVidia-equipped computers and ATi-equipped computers, since nVidia has the advantage in Crysis.

[AAA]

Use C.U.D.A.A.T.S. too. It's this modification for crysis that does wonders for your performance. Use them both together!

Doesn't it use the supposedly fake method of creeping up on graphic qualities as opposed to the real thing?

[Abdurahman]

Well I don't know about that but if it is true then My game looks like very high with the performance of high! Who cares about shortcuts lol.