What video card can a 300 watt psu keep running

[Koharski]

toyota is right, if you are only barely meeting the minimum requirements in one area there is one reason to get all beefy in another. Parts should be balanced.

however, if he will be building another budget lever computer in the near future perhaps he could benefit from getting a more modern card right now? Then he would not have to buy another if he upgrades the cpu/mobo/ram

 

[Schmide]

With regards to CPU/GPU you should get the best performing part in the price range that will work in your system. (of course not overkill) The OP has onboard graphics so any dedicated card will be an improvement. The 9500/9600/4670 vary by $20 in cost and 25w power usage. The 9600gt is the best performing yet most power hungry by ~20w. The 4670 uses only ~5w more than a 9500gt yet performs close to a 9600gt. The 9500gt falls far behind performing almost half as good as the other two cards.

Certainly everyone would love to have the latest and greatest system, but if there is one component that can have the most improvement for the least effort and cost, it is the video card. If your system can run it, it is worth spending the extra $15 for the 4670 over the 9500gt hands down. In my opinion and experience all 3 of these cards will work with his power supply. By far the sub 50w 4670 is a great deal for near $50.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
With regards to CPU/GPU you should get the best performing part in the price range that will work in your system. (of course not overkill) The OP has onboard graphics so any dedicated card will be an improvement. The 9500/9600/4670 vary by $20 in cost and 25w power usage. The 9600gt is the best performing yet most power hungry by ~20w. The 4670 uses only ~5w more than a 9500gt yet performs close to a 9600gt. The 9500gt falls far behind performing almost half as good as the other two cards.

Certainly everyone would love to have the latest and greatest system, but if there is one component that can have the most improvement for the least effort and cost, it is the video card. If your system can run it, it is worth spending the extra $15 for the 4670 over the 9500gt hands down. In my opinion and experience all 3 of these cards will work with his power supply. By far the sub 50w 4670 is a great deal for near $50.

well I see your point about the cards since they are so closely priced. he just needs to know that he will not be getting anywhere near the performance that even the 9500gt is capable of. a system with a decent dual core and 9500gt would have better performance in any modern game than he would get with a 9600gt. his cpu was an entry level cpu in 2004 and now just doesnt have the power to do much when it comes to gaming. not only is it slow because of just one core its also very slow clock for clock compared to modern cpus even in single threaded games/apps.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: toyota

well I see your point about the cards since they are so closely priced. he just needs to know that he will not be getting anywhere near the performance that even the 9500gt is capable of. a system with a decent dual core and 9500gt would have better performance in any modern game than he would get with a 9600gt.

That really depends on the game. A 9600gt/4670 will run at much higher resolutions at higher framerates on games that are less CPU bound. Higher resolution has nothing to do with CPU power. Getting a 9500gt because you think it's a better balance makes little sense in my opinion.

The OP has absolutely no CPU upgrade path other than a complete new system. Ram can be upgraded but will have a very negligible effect.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

well I see your point about the cards since they are so closely priced. he just needs to know that he will not be getting anywhere near the performance that even the 9500gt is capable of. a system with a decent dual core and 9500gt would have better performance in any modern game than he would get with a 9600gt.

That really depends on the game. A 9600gt/4670 will run at much higher resolutions at higher framerates on games that are less CPU bound. Higher resolution has nothing to do with CPU power. Getting a 9500gt because you think it's a better balance makes little sense in my opinion.

The OP has absolutely no CPU upgrade path other than a complete new system. Ram can be upgraded but will have a very negligible effect.

comments like that make NO sense. if your cpu is too weak or slow to deliver decent framerates in the first place then what difference does it make? 15-20 fps at 1280 is not going to get any better at 1680 or 1920. you arent even using common sense to realize how silly what you are saying is. I guess if the cpu doesnt matter at high res we can just buy a gtx295 and use a Celeron or Sempron to play games at 1920 or 2560? lol. I guess game developer should put on the box that the cpu doesnt matter if you are playing at a high res so dont worry about a minimum requirement. you are not getting through your head just how slow a Sempron is for modern games. if I disable one of my cores and downclock to 1.8 many games become very sluggish and some almost unplayable and even then my cpu is WAY faster than his Sempron.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

well I see your point about the cards since they are so closely priced. he just needs to know that he will not be getting anywhere near the performance that even the 9500gt is capable of. a system with a decent dual core and 9500gt would have better performance in any modern game than he would get with a 9600gt.

That really depends on the game. A 9600gt/4670 will run at much higher resolutions at higher framerates on games that are less CPU bound. Higher resolution has nothing to do with CPU power. Getting a 9500gt because you think it's a better balance makes little sense in my opinion.

The OP has absolutely no CPU upgrade path other than a complete new system. Ram can be upgraded but will have a very negligible effect.

comments like that make NO sense. if your cpu is too weak or slow to deliver decent framerates in the first place then what difference does it make? 15-20 fps at 1280 is not going to get any better at 1680 or 1920. you arent even using common sense to realize how silly what you are saying is. I guess if the cpu doesnt matter at high res we can just buy a gtx295 and use a Celeron or Sempron to play games at 1920 or 2560? lol. I guess game developer should put on the box that the cpu doesnt matter if you are playing at a high res so dont worry about a minimum requirement. you are not getting through your head just how slow a Sempron is for modern games.

What I'm saying makes total sense.

L4d averages 22,3 on a 3200 with a uber card. Certainly a little slow but that's an average. When you're getting mobbed by zombies there are tons of objects on your screen and the CPU is going to take a hit. When you're moving down a hallway with little objects in the scene you're going to get much better frames. Near 30 is playable for many people. Call of Duty 4 needs very little CPU and would do very well with his system. Playing that game would do well with his system and a 4670, I'd more than recommend it. I would bet a 3100+ and a 4670 would out preform a x2 and a 9550.

I personally still play ut2004 and I would much rather have a 3100 and a 4670 than a x2 and a 9550. Well at least for that game.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: toyota

well I see your point about the cards since they are so closely priced. he just needs to know that he will not be getting anywhere near the performance that even the 9500gt is capable of. a system with a decent dual core and 9500gt would have better performance in any modern game than he would get with a 9600gt.

That really depends on the game. A 9600gt/4670 will run at much higher resolutions at higher framerates on games that are less CPU bound. Higher resolution has nothing to do with CPU power. Getting a 9500gt because you think it's a better balance makes little sense in my opinion.

The OP has absolutely no CPU upgrade path other than a complete new system. Ram can be upgraded but will have a very negligible effect.

comments like that make NO sense. if your cpu is too weak or slow to deliver decent framerates in the first place then what difference does it make? 15-20 fps at 1280 is not going to get any better at 1680 or 1920. you arent even using common sense to realize how silly what you are saying is. I guess if the cpu doesnt matter at high res we can just buy a gtx295 and use a Celeron or Sempron to play games at 1920 or 2560? lol. I guess game developer should put on the box that the cpu doesnt matter if you are playing at a high res so dont worry about a minimum requirement. you are not getting through your head just how slow a Sempron is for modern games.

What I'm saying makes total sense.

L4d averages 22,3 on a 3200 with a uber card. Certainly a little slow but that's an average. When you're getting mobbed by zombies there are tons of objects on your screen and the CPU is going to take a hit. When you're moving down a hallway with little objects in the scene you're going to get much better frames. Near 30 is playable for many people. Call of Duty 4 needs very little CPU and would do very well with his system. Playing that game would do well with his system and a 4670, I'd more than recommend it. I would bet a 3100+ and a 4670 would out preform a x2 and a 9550.

I personally still play ut2004 and I would much rather have a 3100 and a 4670 than a x2 and a 9550. Well at least for that game.

his cpu is slightly slower than a 3200 A64 so he will be getting even shittier performance in L4D. also his cpu is much slower than those dual core cpus they used in CoD 4 tests. heck even just one core of those dual core cpus is much faster clock for clock than what he has. CoD4 absolutely takes advantage of dual cores so he would be looking at less than half of what you see at that 1024 res. so the 2 games you use for your argument would have him in the low 20s to low 30s at best no matter how high he went with a video card. those are averages so just imagine the single digit minimums. maybe you are starting to get it now?

 

[Schmide]

I don't know where you're going. The CPU has to do the same amount of calculations whether the video card runs at 1024x768 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. The geometry doesn't change.

I've personally played COD4 and L4d on a 1950pro and a sempron 3400 it plays ok at 1280x1024

FFS no his system isn't going to be the best, but why would you want to argue for a lesser card is beyond me?

Edit: Whether and sempron

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
I don't know where you're going. The CPU has to do the same amount of calculations whether the video card runs at 1024x768 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. The geometry doesn't change.

I've personally played COD4 and L4d on a 1950pro and a celeron 3400 it plays ok at 1280x1024

FFS no his system isn't going to be the best, but why would you want to argue for a lesser card is beyond me?

where I am going is the same place I have been the time. lol. again those are games that you are using to prove your point and they would hardly be called playable by most people. if he wants to spend 75 bucks to get 20-30fps average(single digit minimums) for best case scenario in only a few games and still not be able to play most other modern games then I dont dont know what else to say...

 

[Schmide]

Dude I have a guy in my clan that plays cod4 on a p4 2.6ghz with 512mb ram and a 6800gt. You can be a benchmark ho all you want, it can be done and my advice is sound. Get the 4670 if you don't have enough money to do a full upgrade. The OP will notice a difference and be able to play some games. I've seen Mass Effect on a P4 3.0 and an 9800gt and it looked good. You can find fault in everything, but can you give constructive advice?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Dude I have a guy in my clan that plays cod4 on a p4 2.6ghz with 512mb ram and a 6800gt. You can be a benchmark ho all you want, it can be done and my advice is sound. Get the 4670 if you don't have enough money to do a full upgrade. The OP will notice a difference and be able to play some games. I've seen Mass Effect on a P4 3.0 and an 9800gt and it looked good. You can find fault in everything, but can you give constructive advice?

well I know people that play games on their 6150 graphics too. so maybe he should just do that. you are only talking about a few modern games being BARELY playable at best so to me it is just a waste of money. with an entry level cpu from 2004 and 1gig of memory he is past the point of really getting anything out of the pc if he wants to play modern games.

 

[Schmide]

BTW the 4670 is $55 AR and I've seen them as low as 45. The 9500 is currently $40 AR. (all at the egg) It's a no brainier in my opinion.

 

[Schmide]

So summing up.

You advise a 9500gt ($40) and some ram ($40) or play on a 6150.

I advise a 4670 ($55). Just so we're clear.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
BTW the 4670 is $55 AR and I've seen them as low as 45. The 9500 is currently $40 AR. (all at the egg) It's a no brainier in my opinion.

I think no brainer is definitely the right term for it. lol

thats a great card for the money but its not going to do much for him in basically any modern game with his outdated cpu and 1 gig of memory.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Schmide
So summing up.

You advise a 9500gt ($40) and some ram ($40) or play on a 6150.

I advise a 4670 ($55). Just so we're clear.

Im saying I would not spend any money on that rig because it clear to see that most of it will go right down the drain. yes if I had to pick the 4670 or 9500gt with just 10-15 bucks separating them then I would agree with you and get the 4670. sadly I still dont think his old psu with 15 amps is up to the task though. anyway I have my opinions and you have yours.

 

[Schmide]

I've played many a game on similar hardware. L4d, Mass Effect, COD4. They all play fine. Dipping into the 15-20fps area is not a game ending event. Averaging 25fps isn't either. It may be annoying but it will work.