633 posts shown.
Timothy Kim60 said:I have no idea how you arrived at such drastic conclusions regarding the frame rates; I already provided those benchmarks just a few pages back when you originally inquired.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...ossFire/5.html
Based on this data, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare should pull over 50 fps, which implies reaching 70 fps at maximum settings will be a tall order, though the game will certainly run smoothly enough.
crimsonstag84 said:The average was calculated by including those specific titles that struggle with CF/SLI, which meant the performance gain occasionally hit zero percent 😬
Generally speaking, however, the ratio improves significantly when games actually "know" how to utilize CF, and most modern titles certainly do 😉
Lawrence Phillips said:What’s the most powerful graphics card an i5 3350P can handle without hitting a major bottleneck?
An EVGA GeForce GTX 770?
Honestly, just ignore the question entirely; there is simply no point in throwing money down the drain for such a negligible jump in performance.
Benjamin King2 said:If you aren't running at full HD resolution, things might be fine, but once you hit 1920x1080, having only 1 GB of VRAM is going to be a massive handicap.
Larry Ortiz5 said:There is absolutely no way it hits 70 fps. Besides, Battlefield 4 won't be nearly as demanding; you'll likely need something more powerful than a 770 to see those numbers.
Lawrence Phillips said:Just sell 7770 and add about $667 more to get a Nvidia GTX 760. They already told you that your processor can handle it.
If money isn't an issue.
Timothy Kim60 said:A Vapor-X model would also serve you well. At the end of the day, the crucial factor is that it is an AMD Radeon HD 7770
. They are quite affordable now, given how prices continuously plummet as technology inevitably ages
.
Timothy Kim60 said:@Brian Campbell36/">@@Brian Campbell36
While Vapor X certainly offers superior cooling, does it truly make sense to shell out $400 for an HD7770 when $300 at that particular retailer (or even looking through the options listed under $267) you can find an identical 7770 equipped with perfectly adequate cooling for a card in this class?
Lawrence Phillips said:Considering the possibility of an upgrade is certainly on the table, but I am in no hurry to pull the trigger tomorrow. To be perfectly honest, my sincere hope is to stretch the lifespan of my current setup for as long as humanly possible.
I believe I follow the underlying logic here. Suppose my primary objective is to squeeze every bit of performance possible out of this E8400—perhaps even pushing the clock speeds to their limit. My broader strategy involves projecting exactly when I might need to overhaul the entire configuration or consider a complete system upgrade. In doing so, I want to evaluate how the graphics card I am purchasing today will actually stack up against whatever hardware happens to be dominating the market at that future point in time.
If we assume that, even under the most optimistic scenarios, we are looking at nearly doubling the performance of a graphics card, how can one realistically determine whether it is more prudent to invest in a current platform where the existing card can still be utilized, or if it would be wiser to simply pivot toward an entirely different platform paired with a completely new GPU?
I am personally hoping that my current setup can limp along for at least another year—assuming the rest of the components don't decide to give up the ghost entirely—given that I wouldn't call myself a demanding gamer. My ultimate plan involves waiting until tomorrow or the day after, when I finally overhaul this entire rig, to pick up a new motherboard and processor, and then perhaps hunt down a used Radeon R9 7790 on Craigslist to plug into the new build.
If we assume that the AMD Radeon HD 7790 represents the absolute performance ceiling for an E8400—say, when pushed to 3.6 GHz—then the 7790 becomes my definitive choice. 🙂
Lawrence Phillips said:Is the 7790 a massive overkill for an E8400? And would there be any actual benefit if I pushed the clock speed up to 3.6 GHz?
My goal here is to squeeze a little more life out of my current setup, while perhaps planning a future build that supports CrossFire and includes another 7790 for later.
I am aware that the AMD Radeon HD 7770 would pair well with the E8400, but I cannot ignore that slight price difference of about twenty dollars for what looks like a significant leap in performance with the 7790.
When discussing "overkill," let us set aside modern titles that demand quad-core processors entirely.
Thanks.
Lawrence Phillips said:Wouldn't common sense dictate that the upper card would just be blowing hot air directly onto the lower one?
You already have that 7770 card sitting right underneath $267. If I were you, I would take that price difference and invest it in a more substantial case with superior airflow—though I haven't the slightest idea what kind of chassis you are currently running.
The power supply seems adequate enough to me, though I am certainly not the foremost expert on the subject.
Lawrence Phillips said:I am reconsidering my position after having taken a closer look at the reviews. If you happen to own a motherboard that actually supports CF, then by all means, go for it.🙂
Even so, one would inevitably find themselves contemplating whether a more budget-friendly version of the 7770 might have been a more logical choice.🤷
Lawrence Phillips said:$400 Would you consider trading two 7770s for a CF?🤷
crimsonstag84 said:Is there any particular reason why one would even bother looking at this specific catalog page? It seems to be a listing for DVI and DisplayPort adapters, though I find myself wondering if anyone actually finds these types of technical specifications useful when they are presented in such a fragmented manner. Does anyone truly believe that scrolling through a digital catalog like this provides any real clarity on compatibility?
Timothy Kim60 said:+1