MSI nVidia Twin Frozr GTX 680 2GB OC in old cpu

[dynezidane]

hi, im planning to buy MSI nVidia Twin Frozr GTX 680 2GB OC from my friend and replace it with gts 250. from review in several sites, this brand is excellent. but im wondering if it is worth for me if im still using

asus p7h55-m
i3 540 (3.07 Ghz) (pin 1156)
gts 250
4 gb ram
tX 650 watt corsair
win 7 (64-bit)

does this spec can fully utilize MSI nVidia Twin Frozr GTX 680 2GB OC since i still using i3 1156?

cheers

 

[jerm1027]

hi, im planning to buy MSI nVidia Twin Frozr GTX 680 2GB OC from my friend and replace it with gts 250. from review in several sites, this brand is excellent. but im wondering if it is worth for me if im still using

asus p7h55-m
i3 540 (3.07 Ghz) (pin 1156)
gts 250
4 gb ram
HX 650 watt corsair
win 7 (64-bit)

does this spec can fully utilize MSI nVidia Twin Frozr GTX 680 2GB OC since i still using i3 1156?

cheers

Totally depends. Bear in mind that most games rely on GPU performance a lot more than CPU. Even if the GTX 680 is held back by the CPU, your gaming performance overall is going to shoot way up. And when you do upgrade the rest of your platform, you'll still have a solid GPU.

 

[willard]

The 680 is probably too much, I'd go with the 670.

The 670 will save you $100, perform every bit as fast in that old system, and still be very nearly as good as the 680 if and when you upgrade the rest of the system.

Also, get another 4GB of memory. It's dirt cheap these days (don't expect the record low prices to last much longer), and if you're contemplating a $500 video card, there's no excuse to be skimping on something so cheap.

And finally, if you want a CPU upgrade (you really need one to pair with such a powerful GPU) try to find a Core i7 860. They're all over ebay for ~$200, and are "fast enough" for 99.999% of games. If you're cool with replacing your motherboard at the same time, you can snag a 2500k for about the same price (on top of $100-$175 on a mobo), and get even more speed.

 

[geekapproved]

Just overclock your cpu and it'll be fine.

 

[Deemo13]

I would save the money and go for the GTX670 instead.

 

[apache_lives]

MSI = rubbish dont buy

i3 for gaming, they can keep up with the new 8-core AMD's sometimes - not too bad but still will underpower a 680...

 

[super-smashman]

A few games that will be suck with that CPU

Skyrim
World of Warcraft
Grand Theft Auto
Battlefield
Minecraft

CPU does take a backseat to GPU in most games but those are the ones I play that suffer when the CPU is downclocked. They also didn't run so well when I tried them with my two 680s on my friend's board.

 

[Deemo13]

Minecraft?

And yea GTAIV would take a hit. Skyrim maybe. BF3 also, but thats more GPU intensive.

 

[dynezidane]

thanks guy.i get gtx 680 which is 20$ more than gtx 670.thats why i rather pay 20$ more to get gtx 680. hope it is worth it.

 

[super-smashman]

Minecraft?

Oh absolutely.

Minecraft runs on one thread and barely wakes my 680s from idle when I'm playing. The game's performance is very much tied to the architecture of your CPU's cores.

 

[willard]

Oh absolutely.

Minecraft runs on one thread and barely wakes my 680s from idle when I'm playing. The game's performance is very much tied to the architecture of your CPU's cores.

So? Who cares if your game is running at 100 or 1000 frames a second, it's all the same above the refresh rate of the monitor. Minecraft gets to that point with even very modest hardware.

 

[super-smashman]

So? Who cares if your game is running at 100 or 1000 frames a second, it's all the same above the refresh rate of the monitor. Minecraft gets to that point with even very modest hardware.

Nobody said the framerate was above the monitor... You assumed that.

Lets say I have a multimonitor setup and it needs to draw this BIG 6.5 megapixel image. The CPU will be the limiting factor in a lot of games all of a sudden. That's why it can vary from 30-200+FPS depending on where you look because that one CPU thread is holding the cards back.

The point is that CPU absolutely matters. You can pair a row of 4 680s with a Pentium and you will have the worst experience in some games no matter what. Especially Minecraft.

 

[willard]

Nobody said the framerate was above the monitor... You assumed that.

I assumed that because I was talking about Minecraft. As far as I'm aware, most decent cards easily push it past the refresh rate of your monitor. I've seen people get several hundred FPS with good rigs (and crazy gaming rigs would probably push 1k+ I imagine).

Lets say I have a multimonitor setup and it needs to draw this BIG 6.5 megapixel image. The CPU will be the limiting factor in a lot of games all of a sudden.

No. The opposite happens. The GPU draws, not your CPU. The more it needs to draw, the harder it hits the GPU. The more graphically demanding the game, the less your CPU matters. This is why for a while Tom's Hardware did CPU comparisons in games by setting the resolution really low. It's not because anybody was actually doing that, it's because that's the only thing they could do to consistently make the CPU matter.

That's why it can vary from 30-200+FPS depending on where you look because that one CPU thread is holding the cards back.

Again, you have it backwards. Your framerate goes up when you look at the sky, walls, the ground, etc. because the load on the video card drops. It's not because there's some CPU thread holding back the GPU until you look at something uninteresting.

The point is that CPU absolutely matters.

No, the CPU occasionally matters. A decent quad core chip is more than enough for almost every game on the market.

If I were you, I'd dial back the condescension a bit. You clearly overestimate your knowledge here.