General Question

nerevars's avatar

Is it a wise choice to upgrade my GeForce GT 440 to GTS 450?

Asked by nerevars (216 points ) April 4th, 2014

I want to upgrade my gaming PC to catch up the current game needs. I just want to know if this is a wise choice or if you have any other recommendation like if I should save a little more to buy another far more greater GPU.

My other spec:
AMD Phenom II X4 965
GA-78LMT-S2P
8GB RAM

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

jerv's avatar

GTX or GTFO.

Seriously, given the price of the lower GTX-series compared to the performance, the GTS series isn’t worthwhile. Or, if you don’t mind AMD, the R7 is a good value. The R7 260X runs around $100–120 and is twice as powerful as the GTS450.

ragingloli's avatar

No. It would only be a marginal improvement from an underpowered GPU to another underpowered GPU.
Save a bit more and get a GTX, 5xx or above.

nerevars's avatar

@jerv I don’t know why, but the price in my local store is around (approx) $170
@ragingloli You mean it won’t really makes a difference?

ragingloli's avatar

@nerevars
“you mean it won’t really makes a difference?” yep

jerv's avatar

My go-to is Passmark as they have a quite extensive list of CPUs and Video cards

Your CPU scores a rather decent 4273. That is about where most Core i5s fall, so you are not weak there. By comparison, my i3–530 scores 2600. Still quite adequate for gaming, but definitely a lesser CPU than you have by quite a bit.

On the GPU side, here are the Passmark scores and prices of a few cards. ....
GT240 (my old card) = 643 – $38
GT 440 = 818 – $70
GTS 450 = 1539 – $85
GTX 465 (my card) = 2930 – (No longer available, but was $250 ~3 years ago)
R7 260X = 2976 – $120
R9 270 = 4230 – $170

Now, to show you what those numbers mean, my GTX465 can play World of Tanks on a mix of High and Ultra detail at 30–42 FPS on my 1920*1080 screen. The R7 260X is roughly equivalent, so it should perform about the same. My old GT240, which has ~¾ the power of your current card, would struggle to hit a stuttering, jumpy, unplayable 12 FPS, and turning things to Low only got me to 25–28 FPS.

The GTS450 may allow you a playable 30 FPS on Medium at the resolution I run, but for $40 more, you could have far better. More FPS at higher detail for not much more money… sounds like win to me!

I mention the R9 270 as that is a $170 card. Maybe that is what you saw? Either that, or that store really marks things up! I might pay a little more for an overclocked MSI R7 260X but if other places are selling the R9 270 for $170, then the only way I will shell out $170 is for an R9, not an R7. Though with nVidia putting out the GTX750 (Passmark score 3264) for $120, that is another alternative.

Video cards under $100 are rarely good for gaming. Video cards over $150 are generally not great values. The sweet spot for performance/price is right around $120.

nerevars's avatar

@jerv I think I’m gonna save up more and be patience to get GTX 750 instead.

Thanks all for the advice!

jerv's avatar

@nerevars No problem. I just hate seeing peopel suffer.

I can tell which players are using low-spec systems in my online gaming. In Ryzom, they hop and teleport in jerky steps instead of running across Atys, while in World of Tanks, they miss easy shots, don’t react in time to avoid enemy fire, and die quickly without doing much damage. In both cases, it’s an underpowered system (or a powerful CPU with a weak GPU, like an i5 running integrated graphics) that is the culprit. It not only is less pleasurable for the person with the weak system, it’s also a hassle for their teammates.

That said, I need a more powerful GPU than some people simply because I run a big screen. I have to push just over 2 million pixels, while someone running at 1600*900 only has 1.44 million pixels; they can get away with 25% less GPU power than I have, or get better framerates than I do with the same GPU. The most common resolution in use right now is 1366*768, which is 1.04 million pixels; about half of what I have, with predictable effects on how much video card you really need.

What resolution do you run at?

nerevars's avatar

@jerv 1366*768

If you wondering why I have a pretty decent CPU and ram but the GPU is so old. It’s because that my PC is handed down from my brother. I was upgrading the CPU, RAM and motherboard before the GPU is because I’m using my computer for other heavy stuff too.

jerv's avatar

Like I said, you got a decent CPU. And 8gb of RAM is adequate for most things; I do fine on just 6. A decent card and PSU, and you’ll be good until at least 2017. Name brand PSUs in the 600w range are almost overkill, but have plenty of headroom for expansion.

nerevars's avatar

@jerv Or I think I should upgrade my PSU too since what I have now is just 450W, and I think it kinda broken too. it’s been more than 4 years

jerv's avatar

Mine is older, but it’s a Cooler Master, so it’s built to last. 450w is enough to run a single card, especially since modern cards have lower power requirements than older ones. I was just concerned that you might still have a Brand X 250w unit. Then again, no-name PSUs generally only put out ⅔ their rating at operating temperature; they are rated at room temperature where their efficiency is higher while reputable name-brand ones are rated under actual-use conditions and actually put out more power than they claim.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther