Good highend card that can go with a E4400 at stock?

[craigo]

I agree. I tried a BIOS update through windows & got a power cut, had to RMA my MB.

Never again Windows...never again.

Just stick with the floppy or USB flash drive.

Do you think that flashing your bios via floppy or usb as apposed to using a windows based utility will save you from a power outage?

 

[DonInKansas]

I think you need to grow up. In life there is plenty of stuff we don't like but it doesn't mean you should avoid it. So with your logic you should buy a new car when the fuel runs out opposed to refilling the fuel? I don't care if you're a billionaire wasting money on an unnecessary motherboard to avoid a possible mandatory update is both stupid and irresponsible.

There's no reason to flame the OP because he doesn't want to overclock. If he wants to buy new stuff, it's his call. Not everyone is comfortable tinkering with their computer's settings. Offer an opinion, but please keep it civil.

 

[FatForester]

Do you think that flashing your bios via floppy or usb as apposed to using a windows based utility will save you from a power outage?

I was about to say the same thing. Unless if you've messed with Windows enough to make it severely unstable, no matter how you're doing it there is still the same amount of 'risk' involved.

Please give it a try, like I say you having nothing to loose.

Was that something rational? You obviously haven't been reading this thread.

 

[CDdude55]

I think you need to grow up. In life there is plenty of stuff we don't like but it doesn't mean you should avoid it. So with your logic you should buy a new car when the fuel runs out opposed to refilling the fuel? I don't care if you're a billionaire wasting money on an unnecessary motherboard to avoid a possible mandatory update is both stupid and irresponsible.

Well thats an option. You can buy a whole new car for several different reasons. In life there are plenty of stuff we don't like to do, but if you can avoid it, you should. Now, i would never buy a new car just because i ran out of fuel.(Thats because thats simple and you cant avoid that, you have to learn how to do that if you want a car.) The update is not mandatory is a BIOS update for 45nm support just so ya know. Also, name calling isn't exactly ''grown up'' so i am pretty sure if your such a grown up man you dont need to use ''stupid'' and ''irresponsible'' to get a point across. I just dont like taking risks with my hardware, but that doesnt make me stupid or irresponsible, even if you think so.

 

[ShadowFold]

Flashing the BIOS wont risk your hardware and save you 100$+..

 

[farlex85]

Well thats an option. You can buy a whole new car for several different reasons. In life there are plenty of stuff we don't like to do, but if you can avoid it, you should. Now, i would never buy a new car just because i ran out of fuel.(Thats because thats simple and you cant avoid that, you have to learn how to do that if you want a car.) The update is not mandatory is a BIOS update for 45nm support just so ya know. Also, name calling isn't exactly ''grown up'' so i am pretty sure if your such a grown up man you dont need to use ''stupid'' and ''irresponsible'' to get a point across. I just dont like taking risks with my hardware, but that doesnt make me stupid or irresponsible, even if you think so.

Thing is, your talking about just buying another board, so you wouldn't use the 680i immediately right? If somehow the worst happens and power decides to go out just in the middle of the 1-2 minutes it takes to update your bios, all that means is you have to rma the board and are w/o it for a week or so. Hardly a risky procedure, especially considering then you just buy a new boards anyway, and sell the old one, I'm assuming your current plan of action. And that's if the absolute worst happens, an overwhelmingly more likely scenario is you successfully update the bios and can now use 45nm chips. Easy as pie. Updating the bios could be said to be less risky and easier than installing windows (a bad analogy, but really, it'll take all of 5 minutes and is incredibly straightforward). There's no reason to buy a new board since you've made it abundantly clear oc'ing is not important to you, nor is new architecture, you just want to play games. By your own logic it would be silly not to attempt it, as you have no need for a new board. Then again, you seem to be defying logic..........

And sorry if I seem insulting, that is not my intention. I'm just trying to make you see things from many of our point of views, it just doesn't make much sense what your trying to accomplish here, and the best results are simply unattainable to you if you don't listen to reason. Anyway, my suggestion is a bios flash and a e8200 couple w/ a gtx 260 (if you don't need the few hundred mhz gained from oc'ing, you don't need the few hundred mhz from a e8500 or e8400, e8600 is overpriced). Be about $450, maybe a little more. Drop down the proc to a e7300 to save some more dough.

 

[CDdude55]

Thing is, your talking about just buying another board, so you wouldn't use the 680i immediately right? If somehow the worst happens and power decides to go out just in the middle of the 1-2 minutes it takes to update your bios, all that means is you have to rma the board and are w/o it for a week or so. Hardly a risky procedure, especially considering then you just buy a new boards anyway, and sell the old one, I'm assuming your current plan of action. And that's if the absolute worst happens, an overwhelmingly more likely scenario is you successfully update the bios and can now use 45nm chips. Easy as pie. Updating the bios could be said to be less risky and easier than installing windows (a bad analogy, but really, it'll take all of 5 minutes and is incredibly straightforward). There's no reason to buy a new board since you've made it abundantly clear oc'ing is not important to you, nor is new architecture, you just want to play games. By your own logic it would be silly not to attempt it, as you have no need for a new board. Then again, you seem to be defying logic..........

And sorry if I seem insulting, that is not my intention. I'm just trying to make you see things from many of our point of views, it just doesn't make much sense what your trying to accomplish here, and the best results are simply unattainable to you if you don't listen to reason. Anyway, my suggestion is a bios flash and a e8200 couple w/ a gtx 260 (if you don't need the few hundred mhz gained from oc'ing, you don't need the few hundred mhz from a e8500 or e8400, e8600 is overpriced). Be about $450, maybe a little more. Drop down the proc to a e7300 to save some more dough.

Well, i have decided to keep my 680i board a long while ago. But i dont want the best, i understand what some of you guys are saying(The whole ''get the best out of your money'' stuff ). But some of you guys need to stop forcing that ''stuff'' on me I understand that OC brings better performance, but hell most people probably forgot the title of the thread. I just what to get across to everyone that NO, i don't OC, NO, my BIOS isn't updated but hey maybe i will one day. But as of NOW whats the best option for what i want to do.

 

[farlex85]

Well, i have decided to keep my 680i board a long while ago. But i dont want the best, i understand what some of you guys are saying(The whole ''get the best out of your money'' stuff ). But some of you guys need to stop forcing that ''stuff'' on me I understand that OC brings better performance, but hell most people probably forgot the title of the thread. I just what to get across to everyone that NO, i don't OC, NO, my BIOS isn't updated but hey maybe i will one day. But as of NOW whats the best option for what i want to do.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, Gtx 280 for a budget of $450. All you'd need right now is a gtx 260/4870 and that's all you would need for a bit, but gtx 280 would last longer. The option I suggested above is much better for gaming though, money aside.

 

[onetymeohnly]

Like I said in my first post in this thread, Gtx 280 for a budget of $450. All you'd need right now is a gtx 260/4870 and that's all you would need for a bit, but gtx 280 would last longer. The option I suggested above is much better for gaming though, money aside.

I'm pretty n00b so please bear with me. I'm a e4400 user with a xfx 8600gt xxx at 1600x1200 and I was thinking of upgrading the card to a gtx260/280 to gain some better leverage playing the high-end graphic games such as Far Cry 2. I went with e4400 around ~2years ago because I read that the e6xxx series wasn't that much greater than the 4400 (and 4400 was cheaper), including the fact that e4400 had perfectly fallen under my budget when choosing the cpu for my new mobo. I'm not too familiar with the terms, but I'm guessing that "bottleneck" refers to a loss in performance due to inferior hardware. Is it absolutely horrid that I don't upgrade my cpu to use a gtx260? If possible, I'd like to just upgrade my card to a gtx260 and keep it like that for I don't know, 5-6 years. If I lose something like 20 fps than the gtx260 can output, that's something that's fine with me as long as it still outperforms the 8600gt (basing on COD4 framerates around the net, each card on good machines, 260gtx @122fps@1680x1050res, 8600gt @~40FPS@1600X1200). Thanks in advance.

Edit: My mobo supports q6600. I'm hoping that I won't have to upgrade because then there would have been no point in building a budget gaming rig. I got the 8600gt as a gift. Though, if the q6600 becomes dirt cheap someday, then I'll reconsider. The highest core2duo my mobo supports is e6700.

http://processormatch.intel.com/CompDB/SearchResult.aspx?BoardName=dq965gf

 

[Darren]

I'm pretty n00b so please bear with me. I'm a e4400 user with a xfx 8600gt xxx at 1600x1200 and I was thinking of upgrading the card to a gtx260/280 to gain some better leverage playing the high-end graphic games such as Far Cry 2. I went with e4400 around ~2years ago because I read that the e6xxx series wasn't that much greater than the 4400 (and 4400 was cheaper), including the fact that e4400 had perfectly fallen under my budget when choosing the cpu for my new mobo. I'm not too familiar with the terms, but I'm guessing that "bottleneck" refers to a loss in performance due to inferior hardware. Is it absolutely horrid that I don't upgrade my cpu to use a gtx260? If possible, I'd like to just upgrade my card to a gtx260 and keep it like that for I don't know, 5-6 years. If I lose something like 20 fps than the gtx260 can output, that's something that's fine with me as long as it still outperforms the 8600gt (basing on COD4 framerates around the net, each card on good machines, 260gtx @122fps@1680x1050res, 8600gt @~40FPS@1600X1200). Thanks in advance.

Edit: My mobo supports q6600. I'm hoping that I won't have to upgrade because then there would have been no point in building a budget gaming rig. I got the 8600gt as a gift. Though, if the q6600 becomes dirt cheap someday, then I'll reconsider. The highest core2duo my mobo supports is e6700.



http://processormatch.intel.com/CompDB/SearchResult.aspx?BoardName=dq965gf

The e4400 is still a capable processor I'd either get a Q6600 or a E8400 if your are content with changing the CPU. The 8600 GT isn't a powerful card and never was and any mainstream graphics card would probably be 3-4x faster. You haven't stated your budget yet but the cheapest and fastest card (best band for your buck) is the ATI 4850 and if you've got money to spend the ATI 4870 X2 is up your ally. Also expecting a graphics card to last 5-6 years is farfetched, you wouldn't expect a gaming card to last a day longer than 3 years of playing new games at high/medium settings and after 3 years the card would most likely be demoted to old games, office applications, etc.

I'd suggest you establish a budget and open a new thread and clearly state your full specification and then let us help you.

 

[Black Panther]

2 months have passed.... did you get a new card CDdude55? I'm curious lol...

Saw your system specs but I don't remember if you had the 8600GTS or if you bought that one.

 

[CDdude55]

2 months have passed.... did you get a new card CDdude55? I'm curious lol...

Saw your system specs but I don't remember if you had the 8600GTS or if you bought that one.

Still have the same card.(8600 GTS)

But have a QX6700 instead of a E4400 now.

 

[onetymeohnly]

The e4400 is still a capable processor I'd either get a Q6600 or a E8400 if your are content with changing the CPU. The 8600 GT isn't a powerful card and never was and any mainstream graphics card would probably be 3-4x faster. You haven't stated your budget yet but the cheapest and fastest card (best band for your buck) is the ATI 4850 and if you've got money to spend the ATI 4870 X2 is up your ally. Also expecting a graphics card to last 5-6 years is farfetched, you wouldn't expect a gaming card to last a day longer than 3 years of playing new games at high/medium settings and after 3 years the card would most likely be demoted to old games, office applications, etc.

I'd suggest you establish a budget and open a new thread and clearly state your full specification and then let us help you.

My mobo doesn't support the E8400 so I'd have no choice but to get a Q6600. 3 years of new games sounds more reasonable, yes. After all, the Unreal 4 engine is right around the corner, right? As for my budget, let's say around $600 would suffice. Also, thank you for answering my post, I appreciate it.

--edit--
Getting a new mobo that supports the E8400 goes for < $140, but then I'd still have to buy the E8400 that's ~ $180 = ~320 without video card, a 4870 x2 is something like $500, a 260gtx goes for something like ~$360 and a 280gtx goes for >400, Q6600 Kentfield is around 200. If I can avoid a new mobo and processor I'd save a lot of money. Then again it seems to be inevitable to buy a new processor to support a newer card.

If I work with my current mobo and decide to buy the Q6600 that would be 200 without card, beating a new mobo that supports E8400 + the E8400 itself by about ~$120 which I can then spend towards a new card.

 

[DrPepper]

My mobo doesn't support the E8400 so I'd have no choice but to get a Q6600. 3 years of new games sounds more reasonable, yes. After all, the Unreal 4 engine is right around the corner, right? As for my budget, let's say around $600 would suffice. Also, thank you for answering my post, I appreciate it.

--edit--
Getting a new mobo that supports the E8400 goes for < $140, but then I'd still have to buy the E8400 that's ~ $180 = ~320 without video card, a 4870 x2 is something like $500, a 260gtx goes for something like ~$360 and a 280gtx goes for >400, Q6600 Kentfield is around 200. If I can avoid a new mobo and processor I'd save a lot of money. Then again it seems to be inevitable to buy a new processor to support a newer card.

If I work with my current mobo and decide to buy the Q6600 that would be 200 without card, beating a new mobo that supports E8400 + the E8400 itself by about ~$120 which I can then spend towards a new card.

A Q6600 is well worth it over a E8400. It means you don't have to change your mobo and more to spend on a gpu or just get a 4870X2 and a psu that will power it and don't listen to anyone who says your cpu can't handle it and later on if you need the extra power get a quad.

 

[niko084]

A Q6600 is well worth it over a E8400. It means you don't have to change your mobo and more to spend on a gpu or just get a 4870X2 and a psu that will power it and don't listen to anyone who says your cpu can't handle it and later on if you need the extra power get a quad.

No overclocking and for gaming... A pure waste with a weak 2.4 clocked quad.

Get a e6850 and a 4850 or 9800gtx+.

 

[Darren]

My mobo doesn't support the E8400 so I'd have no choice but to get a Q6600. 3 years of new games sounds more reasonable, yes. After all, the Unreal 4 engine is right around the corner, right? As for my budget, let's say around $600 would suffice. Also, thank you for answering my post, I appreciate it.

--edit--
Getting a new mobo that supports the E8400 goes for < $140, but then I'd still have to buy the E8400 that's ~ $180 = ~320 without video card, a 4870 x2 is something like $500, a 260gtx goes for something like ~$360 and a 280gtx goes for >400, Q6600 Kentfield is around 200. If I can avoid a new mobo and processor I'd save a lot of money. Then again it seems to be inevitable to buy a new processor to support a newer card.

If I work with my current mobo and decide to buy the Q6600 that would be 200 without card, beating a new mobo that supports E8400 + the E8400 itself by about ~$120 which I can then spend towards a new card.

Get the Q6600 (Go edition if you can find it) and keep your existing motherboard and then put the money saved towards a better graphics card. I'm not sure about the country you are in so prices may vary, but generally speaking the ATI 4850 is cheaper than the 260 GTX and performance is nearly the same. Alternatively I'd get the a single 4870 (not X2). Any money left over I'd invest in some ram sticks to make 4 GB total (Your motherboard supports up to 8 GB of ram).

No overclocking and for gaming... A pure waste with a weak 2.4 clocked quad.
Get a e6850 and a 4850 or 9800gtx+.

I disagree with this slightly the Q6600 at stock speeds can match a low E8xxx series and would blow a E6850 out the water. The Q6600 is not weak and is a veteran despite only being clocked at 2.4 Ghz. Clock speeds are not everything.

 

[DrPepper]

No overclocking and for gaming... A pure waste with a weak 2.4 clocked quad.

Get a e6850 and a 4850 or 9800gtx+.

Please don't be so naive. I sit my quad at stock now because it doesn't make a difference at 3.8 compared to 2.4.

 

[niko084]

I disagree with this slightly the Q6600 at stock speeds can match a low E8xxx series and would blow a E6850 out the water. The Q6600 is not weak and is a veteran despite only being clocked at 2.4 Ghz. Clock speeds are not everything.

You are trying to say that a q6600 @ 2.4 can touch a e6850 @ 3.0 in "games"... You are nuts silly sideways... Games will not use the quad so its extra cores mean little to nothing. Now if the Q6600 @ 2.8 it maybe a bit closer, @ 3.0 it would win, but at stock clocks it would get its rear handed to it. This is why everyone says if you want gaming just get a dual.

 

[niko084]

Please don't be so naive. I sit my quad at stock now because it doesn't make a difference at 3.8 compared to 2.4.

You obviously have a serious bottleneck elsewhere...

Maybe you shouldn't be so naive... I clocked mine from 2.13 - 3.2 and got about 40% in video encoding, in crysis, I would probably be lucky to see a 10% increase. As I said for games a quad is pretty much a waste its common knowledge don't try to fight it.

 

[DrPepper]

You obviously have a serious bottleneck elsewhere...

Maybe you shouldn't be so naive... I clocked mine from 2.13 - 3.2 and got about 40% in video encoding, in crysis, I would probably be lucky to see a 10% increase. As I said for games a quad is pretty much a waste its common knowledge don't try to fight it.

I spent a whole night with my friend's pc as he has an identical system apart from a 4870X2 and apart from encoding and compression there were "very few" <-- (important) gains in fps. As for a bottleneck in my system, as far as I'm aware there isn't, It's because most games don't benefit from the cpu as much as they used to.

 

[niko084]

I spent a whole night with my friend's pc as he has an identical system apart from a 4870X2 and apart from encoding and compression there were "very few" <-- (important) gains in fps. As for a bottleneck in my system, as far as I'm aware there isn't, It's because most games don't benefit from the cpu as much as they used to.

As I said that is true... But a 2.4 is still a 2.4 it doesn't mean jack that its a quad if the application wont use it.. So why not take the extra power, save money and get better performance in games even if its only minimal and save the power on your psu. Quads are still far from standard so most your games will not totally utilize them.

Take a peak at benches from applications that are processor intensive -
http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do?type=cpu&id=919_1&id=1002_1

e6850 pretty much just beats the q6600 across the board.

Minus the obvious errors in their graphs there.

 

[DrPepper]

I tend to dismiss external benchmarks, just my opinion on them in general same with reviews becuase I don't trust the people who made them but say he gets the quad then in future he decides to overclock when he is more confident. That's what I did when I went from my AMD 6000to the q6600, I overclocked when I got a bit braver. I still think though he should get a gpu atm (4870X2) and get a cpu later on.

 

[niko084]

I tend to dismiss external benchmarks, just my opinion on them in general same with reviews becuase I don't trust the people who made them but say he gets the quad then in future he decides to overclock when he is more confident. That's what I did when I went from my AMD 6000to the q6600, I overclocked when I got a bit braver. I still think though he should get a gpu atm (4870X2) and get a cpu later on.

That's why I suggested both, keep withing the price lines, wont need a new psu for the 4870x2 which is a disgusting waste of money that will be all but the same a 3870x2 is now, a large power hungry card that cost way too much that is beaten by a card that uses less power and is smaller.

Also a 4870x2 would be heavily bottle necked by his cpu in any game that could use it.

The new ati cards are right around the corner yet again and the new one for $250 will probably stomp the 4870x2 which is why unless you are benching those cards are always a complete waste of money, unless you are one that has more money than you know what to do with.

***
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=74704
Exactly why I have not even upgraded to a 4870, let alone that my 4850 underclocked can do Warhead 1080p enthusiast with 2x AA.

 

[Darren]

You are trying to say that a q6600 @ 2.4 can touch a e6850 @ 3.0 in "games"... You are nuts silly sideways... Games will not use the quad so its extra cores mean little to nothing. Now if the Q6600 @ 2.8 it maybe a bit closer, @ 3.0 it would win, but at stock clocks it would get its rear handed to it. This is why everyone says if you want gaming just get a dual.

That is exactly what I'm saying, in games the Q6600 might lose in a few benchmarks but then again the e6850 will lose to a few game benchmarks too, and in real terms the performance difference will vary depending on the game and the difference in frame rate would be insignificant between the two CPUs in games, mainly because games require GPU rather than CPU. The Q6600 also boasts future proof-ability and an advantage in non game related tasks.

To be frank if you look online you'll see plenty of benchmarks where the Q6600 at stock competes with the E8200 and sometimes beats the E8400/500. The Q6600 is no slouch and to think it will bottleneck a GPU is outright ridiculous. In your defence I wouldn't dismiss the e6850 as its an excellent CPU and if it's cheaper it would allow the thread starter to put the money saved on other components such as a better GPU or memory.

 

[niko084]

That is exactly what I'm saying, in games the Q6600 might lose in a few benchmarks but then again the e6850 will lose to a few game benchmarks too, and in real terms the performance difference will vary depending on the game and the difference in frame rate would be insignificant between the two CPUs in games, mainly because games require GPU rather than CPU. The Q6600 also boasts future proof-ability and an advantage in non game related tasks.

To be frank if you look online you'll see plenty of benchmarks where the Q6600 at stock competes with the E8200 and sometimes beats the E8400/500. The Q6600 is no slouch and to think it will bottleneck a GPU is outright ridiculous. In your defence I wouldn't dismiss the e6850 as its an excellent CPU and if it's cheaper it would allow the thread starter to put the money saved on other components such as a better GPU or memory.

Very rarely does the q6600 beat out the e6850 in games... The e8200 is a 2.66 remember, that's close enough so the extra cores running background windows processes can make up the difference. The idea is that most games do not use 3-4 cores, a lot still wont really use 2 cores, and a standard of games to use 3-4 cores will not come about until quad cores are pretty much a standard, in which case a 6 or 8 cores will be out and odds are the q6600 will pretty much be dead and gone. Now that pretty much goes with the e6850 at that point. My idea is simply that it gives the boost in most games, and that it saves a decent amount of money that could be put into ram/ video card or anything else.