What upgrade should I go for?

SSD makes lovely boot drives regardless of size. I managed to survive with a 40gb, but it was certainly worth it. Faster boot times and all the basic apps load faster.

However they cost still a lot for gb/$ so you can only install the game/s you play most on it. I wouldnt dump the money into using a ssd as storage because of the pricing, but the use as a bootdrive and small programs like msword, photoshop, etc makes it all worthwhile. Is like waiting for your 360 or ps3 to bootup with a mechanical drive which is slow, and ssd cuts those times into a half or an instant in some cases like opening firefox or itunes.

I will not be purchasing an SSD. It's a very boring and uninteresting upgrade.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5870,2422-19.html

Well a second 5870 or new vidcard certainly won't help you in GTA4 as previously already posted, the review above shows a Crossfire HD5870 provides roughly the same performance as a single HD5870.

...

Well a second 5870 or new vidcard certainly won't help you in GTA4 as previously already posted, the review above shows a Crossfire HD5870 provides roughly the same performance as a single HD5870.

Heyhuub

How about Metro 2033, Crysis, and Crysis Warhead?

[QUOTE="Heyhuub"]

...

Well a second 5870 or new vidcard certainly won't help you in GTA4 as previously already posted, the review above shows a Crossfire HD5870 provides roughly the same performance as a single HD5870.

BluRayHiDef

How about Metro 2033, Crysis, and Crysis Warhead?

edit: scratch that. ~13 fps gain in crysis it looks like. but you should definitely check out more reviews. i feel exactly the same about SSDs as you do, but to be honest, i'd rather get an ssd than another 5870 if i were you.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696698/Ati-Radeon-HD-5850/5870-Crossfire-vs-Nvidia-Geforce-GTX-285-SLI-Multi-GPU-Shootout/Reviews/?page=4

No upgrade is going to fix the user error that is making your computer underperform.

I'm going to get the second 5870 and then I'm going to smash the Heaven Benchmark to bits. That's been a dream of mine for a while.

I'm going to get the second 5870 and then I'm going to smash the Heaven Benchmark to bits. That's been a dream of mine for a while.

BluRayHiDef

5870's get like 23 fps average

Min: 6-7 fps

Max: 65-70 fps

GTX 460's get like 30 fps average

Min: 7-8 Fps

Max: 70-73 fps

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'm going to get the second 5870 and then I'm going to smash the Heaven Benchmark to bits. That's been a dream of mine for a while.

04dcarraher

5870's get like 23 fps average

Min: 6-7 fps

Max: 65-70 fps

GTX 460's get like 30 fps average

Min: 7-8 Fps

Max: 70-73 fps

You've posted no sources and haven't even listed the settings. Anyhow, in this benchmark, a 5970 (two 5870s) manages to average a frame rate of 42.7, while the GTX 480 earns a frame rate of 38.9. So, what you've said is incorrect.

[QUOTE="BeavermanA"]

What is causing you to desire more fps at 1920x1080? Take a look at this review of the 5870 vs 570 vs 6970. Don't see how spending $225-$350 is worth it unless Metro 2033 is the only game you own, even then it isn't worth spending that much money to play one game. 5870 still rocks at 1080p.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1085/pg9/gtx-570-vs-radeon-6970-and-6850-vs-radeon-5870-all-overclocked-review-crysis-warhead.html

BluRayHiDef

I can't max out GTAIV with more than 30FPS. I want 60FPS.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'm going to get the second 5870 and then I'm going to smash the Heaven Benchmark to bits. That's been a dream of mine for a while.

BluRayHiDef

5870's get like 23 fps average

Min: 6-7 fps

Max: 65-70 fps

GTX 460's get like 30 fps average

Min: 7-8 Fps

Max: 70-73 fps

You've posted no sources and haven't even listed the settings. Anyhow, in this benchmark, a 5970 (two 5870s) manages to average a frame rate of 42.7, while the GTX 480 earns a frame rate of 38.9. So, what you've said is incorrect.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] You wont smash Direct x 11 with dual 5870's heck a Single GTX 480 can still beat dual 5870's in the heaven benckmark with average framerate. Another 5870 is a waste since the 5000's dont do Direct x 11 all features all that well. Heck SLI'ed GTX 460's out do Crossfired 5870 there too.Like I said, I'm going to smash the Heaven Benchmark to bits.

5870's get like 23 fps average

Min: 6-7 fps

Max: 65-70 fps

GTX 460's get like 30 fps average

Min: 7-8 Fps

Max: 70-73 fps

04dcarraher

You've posted no sources and haven't even listed the settings. Anyhow, in this benchmark, a 5970 (two 5870s) manages to average a frame rate of 42.7, while the GTX 480 earns a frame rate of 38.9. So, what you've said is incorrect.

Considering the fact that the GTX 500 series is not the competition of the 5000 series, I don't think it's bad at all. The GTX 500 series should be compared to the 6000 series. So, your point is invalid. It's more than reasonable for a card which was released a year after the 5870 to do much better in terms of performance. Also, I'd rather get a 6970 instead of a GTX 570, if I consider getting rid of my 5870. It's performs just as well.

How can my point be invalid when the 6800's series seems to be a rehash of the 5000 series when it comes to overall performance. Hartsickdiscipl , here on these forums downgraded from a 5870 to a GTX 460 just to get a better experience with his games, and he's happy with it. Getting a 6970 is really a waste because it only offers what a 15%-20% increase over 6800's in non tesselation, which can be nearly matched with a Overclocked Nvidia GTX 460.

How can my point be invalid when the 6000's series seems to be a rehash of the 5000 series when it comes to overall performance. Hartsickdiscipl , here on these forums downgraded from a 5870 to a GTX 460 just to get a better experience with his games, and he's happy with it. Getting a 6970 is really a waste because it only offers what a 15%-20% increase 6800's, which can be nearly matched with a Overclocked Nvidia GTX 460. 04dcarraher

1. The 500 series is a rehash of the 400 series. So, yes, your point is invalid. You're seriously undermining the 5000 series cards by UNFAIRLY comparing them to 500 series cards, when they shouldn't be. The GTX 580 is just a rehashed 480. It's what the 480 should have been. Essentially, Nvidia had two chances to get the card right. They blew their first chance and got it right on their second chance. Hence, it really isn't fair to downplay the 5870 by comparing it to a card which Nvidia had TWO development cycles to get right.

2. I said that I'd rather get a 6970 as opposed to the 570 which YOU suggested. Seeing as how both cards perform equally (the 6970 performs better in higher resolutions), then if the 6970 is a waste, then so is the GTX 570, which YOU suggested. I like the way to downplayed the 6970, but failed to do the same to the GTX 570 which YOU suggested.

3. You're using an Argument from Authority approach, which is a logical fallacy. Just because one person (Hartsickdiscipl) decided to downgrade, doesn't mean that it was a good decision. He did what was best for him. As far as the stats are concerned, the HD 5870 is a better card than the GTX 460.

4. Check and mate. :)

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]How can my point be invalid when the 6000's series seems to be a rehash of the 5000 series when it comes to overall performance. Hartsickdiscipl , here on these forums downgraded from a 5870 to a GTX 460 just to get a better experience with his games, and he's happy with it. Getting a 6970 is really a waste because it only offers what a 15%-20% increase 6800's, which can be nearly matched with a Overclocked Nvidia GTX 460. BluRayHiDef

1. The 500 series is a rehash of the 400 series. So, yes, your point is invalid. You're seriously undermining the 5000 series cards by UNFAIRLY comparing them to 500 series cards, when they shouldn't be. The GTX 580 is just a rehashed 480. It's what the 480 should have been. Essentially, Nvidia had two chances to get the card right. They blew their first chance and got it right on their second chance. Hence, it really isn't fair to downplay the 5870 by comparing it to a card which Nvidia had TWO development cycles to get right.

2. I said that I'd rather get a 6970 as opposed to the 570 which YOU suggested. Seeing as how both cards perform equally (the 6970 performs better in higher resolutions), then if the 6970 is a waste, then so is the GTX 570, which YOU suggested. I like the way to downplayed the 6970, but failed to do the same to the GTX 570 which YOU suggested.

3. You're using an Argument from Authority approach, which is a logical fallacy. Just because one person (Hartsickdiscipl) decided to downgrade, doesn't mean that it was a good decision. He did what was best for him. As far as the stats are concerned, the HD 5870 is a better card than the GTX 460.

4. Check and mate. :)

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]How can my point be invalid when the 6000's series seems to be a rehash of the 5000 series when it comes to overall performance. Hartsickdiscipl , here on these forums downgraded from a 5870 to a GTX 460 just to get a better experience with his games, and he's happy with it. Getting a 6970 is really a waste because it only offers what a 15%-20% increase 6800's, which can be nearly matched with a Overclocked Nvidia GTX 460. 04dcarraher

1. The 500 series is a rehash of the 400 series. So, yes, your point is invalid. You're seriously undermining the 5000 series cards by UNFAIRLY comparing them to 500 series cards, when they shouldn't be. The GTX 580 is just a rehashed 480. It's what the 480 should have been. Essentially, Nvidia had two chances to get the card right. They blew their first chance and got it right on their second chance. Hence, it really isn't fair to downplay the 5870 by comparing it to a card which Nvidia had TWO development cycles to get right.

2. I said that I'd rather get a 6970 as opposed to the 570 which YOU suggested. Seeing as how both cards perform equally (the 6970 performs better in higher resolutions), then if the 6970 is a waste, then so is the GTX 570, which YOU suggested. I like the way to downplayed the 6970, but failed to do the same to the GTX 570 which YOU suggested.

3. You're using an Argument from Authority approach, which is a logical fallacy. Just because one person (Hartsickdiscipl) decided to downgrade, doesn't mean that it was a good decision. He did what was best for him. As far as the stats are concerned, the HD 5870 is a better card than the GTX 460.

4. Check and mate. :)

1. Once again, you keep making statements without any sources to back them up. Just because YOU say that Nvidia cards work better doesn't make it so.

2. The 6970 is a mere $20.00 more than the GTX 570. Considering the fact that its larger amount of memory helps it outperform the GTX 570 at really high resolutions, I'd say that its higher price tag (which isn't that much higher) is more than worth it. You're also forgetting about the fact that it can output to up to SIX displays simultaneously. For $20.00 more, I'd say that it's more than worth it. Sure, the GTX 570 has PhysX, but there are only a handful of games that use it, so it's a useless feature. Hence, your claim that the price to performance ratio of the 6970 "stinks" is invalid. It's well worth it's money.

3. Based on what I've been told and based on data which has been presented to me, the "issue" that I was having with GTA IV isn't actually an issue. It's typical of all setups because the game is poorly optimized.

4. Suggesting that I DOWNGRADE to a GTX 460 is absurd. It's bested by the 5870 in practically every benchmark. There's no way I would ever DOWNGRADE. That's would be a foolish decision.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

1. The 500 series is a rehash of the 400 series. So, yes, your point is invalid. You're seriously undermining the 5000 series cards by UNFAIRLY comparing them to 500 series cards, when they shouldn't be. The GTX 580 is just a rehashed 480. It's what the 480 should have been. Essentially, Nvidia had two chances to get the card right. They blew their first chance and got it right on their second chance. Hence, it really isn't fair to downplay the 5870 by comparing it to a card which Nvidia had TWO development cycles to get right.

2. I said that I'd rather get a 6970 as opposed to the 570 which YOU suggested. Seeing as how both cards perform equally (the 6970 performs better in higher resolutions), then if the 6970 is a waste, then so is the GTX 570, which YOU suggested. I like the way to downplayed the 6970, but failed to do the same to the GTX 570 which YOU suggested.

3. You're using an Argument from Authority approach, which is a logical fallacy. Just because one person (Hartsickdiscipl) decided to downgrade, doesn't mean that it was a good decision. He did what was best for him. As far as the stats are concerned, the HD 5870 is a better card than the GTX 460.

4. Check and mate. :)

BluRayHiDef

1. Once again, you keep making statements without any sources to back them up. Just because YOU say that Nvidia cards work better doesn't make it so.

2. The 6970 is a mere $20.00 more than the GTX 570. Considering the fact that its larger amount of memory helps it outperform the GTX 570 at really high resolutions, I'd say that its higher price tag (which isn't that much higher) is more than worth it. You're also forgetting about the fact that it can output to up to SIX displays simultaneously. For $20.00 more, I'd say that it's more than worth it. Sure, the GTX 570 has PhysX, but there are only a handful of games that use it, so it's a useless feature. Hence, your claim that the price to performance ratio of the 6970 "stinks" is invalid. It's well worth it's money.

3. Based on what I've been told and based on data which has been presented to me, the "issue" that I was having with GTA IV isn't actually an issue. It's typical of all setups because the game is poorly optimized.

4. Suggesting that I DOWNGRADE to a GTX 460 is absurd. It's bested by the 5870 in practically every benchmark. There's no way I would ever DOWNGRADE. That's would be a foolish decision.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] 1, Ya so? Nvidia still has better drivers and tend to work better with games 2. the 6970 is waste, I should have clearly stated that its price to performance ratio stinks and ATI dropped the ball on the 6900's... since they had a year to work on them 3. It seems your having an issue with an ATI card not performing ethier it being the card or the drivers or just user error. The 5870 is a slightly better card then the GTX 460. Since a Overclocled GTX 460 can perform nearly to a 6870... I suggested a Nvidia card because it would have a better chance in performing the way you want it too then just going to another ATI gpu. 04dcarraher

1. Once again, you keep making statements without any sources to back them up. Just because YOU say that Nvidia cards work better doesn't make it so.

2. The 6970 is a mere $20.00 more than the GTX 570. Considering the fact that its larger amount of memory helps it outperform the GTX 570 at really high resolutions, I'd say that its higher price tag (which isn't that much higher) is more than worth it. You're also forgetting about the fact that it can output to up to SIX displays simultaneously. For $20.00 more, I'd say that it's more than worth it. Sure, the GTX 570 has PhysX, but there are only a handful of games that use it, so it's a useless feature. Hence, your claim that the price to performance ratio of the 6970 "stinks" is invalid. It's well worth it's money.

3. Based on what I've been told and based on data which has been presented to me, the "issue" that I was having with GTA IV isn't actually an issue. It's typical of all setups because the game is poorly optimized.

4. Suggesting that I DOWNGRADE to a GTX 460 is absurd. It's bested by the 5870 in practically every benchmark. There's no way I would ever DOWNGRADE. That's would be a foolish decision.

1. You suggested that I get a GTX 570. In fact, you've admitted to it in the very post I'm responding to right now.

2. When you ask "And yet you want to upgrade to something thats only slightly better then what you have now?", I'm assuming that you're referring to the 6970. If that's the case, then I should mention that the GTX 570, which YOU suggested, is also "only slightly better" than what I have now. Why do you downplay the 6970, but suggest the GTX 570, when the 6970 performs just as well as the GTX 570 and even better in higher resolutions for the aforementioned reasons? If you're going to ridicule me for considering the 6970, then don't suggest the GTX 570, because it's not a better card than the HD 6970.

3. You really come across as biased toward ATI. I reject your claim that Nvidia cards UNANIMOUSLY perform better than ATI cards in games. Show me an irrefutable source, and I'll accept it. However, your mere opinion is not convincing enough.

First off, I suggested a GTX 570 because it might actually fix your issues while giving you the boost Direct X 11. Because ATI are known for driver issues. Next Im not biased toward ATI , I suggested ATI cards to plenty of people. And you need proof Nvidia cards can peform better then ATI cards or can have less issues? All you need to do is look on these forums and the internet and see all the problems people get with new ATI drivers or need hot fixes for games to work. An example was BF BC2 load times with ATI cards, or people seeing performance losses with 10.9 drivers

First off, I suggested a GTX 570 because it might actually fix your issues while giving you the boost Direct X 11. Because ATI are known for driver issues. Next Im not biased toward ATI , I suggested ATI cards to plenty of people. And you need proof Nvidia cards peform better then ATI cards or can have less issues? All you need to do is look on this forums and the internet and see all the problems people get with new ATI drivers or need hot fixes for them to work. 04dcarraher

Well, I personally think that the HD 6970 is the better option, when compared to the GTX 570.

Since you mentioned DirectX ll and insist that the GTX 570 is the better option, why don't we show some benchmarks for DirectX 11 games (and Crysis) which show that the 6970 is just as good, if not even better. As I said, I reject your claim that ATI cards are worse than Nvidia. Aside from the "issue" I had with GTAIV, I've had no problems with ATI drivers that affected gaming performance.

Link 1 6970 defeats 570 at all resolutions.

Link 2 6970 defeats 570 in all resolutions, except for 1024x768.

Link 3 6970 defeats 570 in all settings in WHICH AA IS ENABLED. Otherwise it loses.

Link 4 6970 defeats 570 in all settings in WHICH AA IS ENABLED. Otherwise it loses.

Hmm, after looking at these benchmarks, as well as a few others from this review, it seems as if the 6970 consistently beats the 570 when AA is enabled. Hence, considering the fact that most people play with some level of AA enabled, I'm going to conclude that the 6970 is the overall better card. The extra memory really helps it kick the 570 in the butt. This is a strange finding that I've never noticed, I'm going to look at some other benchmarks from other sites to verify this.

Well to be fair 5870x2 > 5970 anyways, since the the latter are the underclocked slapped together variants of the former. However to get better tesellation its better to go with 68xx/69xx series in cf and sell your 5870. Which shouldnt be hard to sell at a good price, since I sold something on amazon pretty quickly someone nabbed it after a couple days.

Well to be fair 5870x2 > 5970 anyways, since the the latter are the underclocked slapped together variants of the former. However to get better tesellation its better to go with 68xx/69xx series in cf and sell your 5870. Which shouldnt be hard to sell at a good price, since I sold something on amazon pretty quickly someone nabbed it after a couple days.

Bikouchu35

Yea. I think I'm just going to get a 6970. Then, I'll sell my 5870 on eBay or here on campus. The extra memory seems to really help out when the AA is cranked up. Also, it just looks like a really sexy card. :)

I suggest trying to get this one just for the sexy case.