yes the case has a built in fan that takes air out of the case, that fan is located parallel to the videocard location (the fan is attached to the case, not to the video card). And the case has a big transparent plastic attached with plastic screws (to look inside of the case) which looks like i can remove it and add extra fans around the built-in one... tahts all i have in terms of air flow on my case
btw, its a cyberpower desktop.... i think they are the same ppl behind ibuypower
your PSU is just fine for what you want to do. its rated for crossfire, it will work for a single card.
what could be a good one for dual card? just curious because if i can get one of those now than its even better so i would later only upgrade the monitor
Your motherboard doesn't have the PCI Express bandwidth for an SLI/CrossFire setup. If you want the second card to run extra monitors that aren't doing anything graphically intensive, then it would work.
yes it has a PCI express 2.0 CrossfireX im looking at it right now
It has a PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot with full bandwidth, which is appropriate for a video card. It also has a second PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot, which is wired for PCI Express 1.0 x4 bandwidth. That's only 1/8 of the bandwidth of the first slot. You can put a video card in the second slot and it will work, but performance will be severely constrained by the lack of PCI Express bandwidth. It's not at all that two cards in CrossFire with that little bandwidth for one card would give you better performance than if you removed the second card. AMD doesn't disable CrossFire through their drivers, so they'll let you try it and see what happens. But it's not going to work well.
It looks like you've got room for one front fan, one side fan, and one rear fan. My guess is that the radiator is at the rear fan slot. Hopefully it's blowing air out the back of the case. There might not be fans in both of the other slots. If you add fans in whatever fan slots don't already have them, then that should be adequate airflow for any of the cards I linked to in post #6 of this thread.
My recommendation would be either the GeForce GTX 460 768 MB or the Radeon HD 6950, depending on your budget. I'd also add the XFX 650 W power supply, which is $58 after rebates, and would be sufficient for any video card setup that would be safe in that case.
You might want to measure to make sure that they're 120 mm fan slots. They probably are, but if they're some other size, then you'll need a different size of fan.
It looks like you've got room for one front fan, one side fan, and one rear fan. My guess is that the radiator is at the rear fan slot. Hopefully it's blowing air out the back of the case. There might not be fans in both of the other slots. If you add fans in whatever fan slots don't already have them, then that should be adequate airflow for any of the cards I linked to in post #6 of this thread.
yes it seems theres a fan also behind the radiator (keeping the radiator cool?) cos i feel a slight air blow when i put my hand close to the radiator (on the inside of the case).... the radiator is where the back fan goes just as you guessed.
The fan blowing on the radiator is blowing the hot air into the case? That's bad. You want it blowing the hot air out of the case. You can probably turn the fan around. It won't be as effective for keeping the processor cool, but the processor isn't the real concern here. It's the general temperature in the case.
The fan blowing on the radiator is blowing the hot air into the case? That's bad. You want it blowing the hot air out of the case. You can probably turn the fan around. It won't be as effective for keeping the processor cool, but the processor isn't the real concern here. It's the general temperature in the case.
well i got my computer turned on since this morning and its not even warm inside (5pm now) it sounds weird that fan / radiator setup... but it seems the fan is keeping the radiator cool while the fan on the side of the case is pulling the hot air out of the case.
i havent had any overheating problems since i bought the pc about a year ago or almost a year... and it spends most of the time turned on every day. tho im sure when i upgrade video card and PSU a could use more fans... better safe than sorry
At idle, your processor will only put out a few watts. That's not going to overheat anything, even if it didn't have a fan at all. At load, it could put out close to 100 W. Your new video card will be able to put out as much as 150 W or so, too, which is a lot more than your old card.
At idle, your processor will only put out a few watts. That's not going to overheat anything, even if it didn't have a fan at all. At load, it could put out close to 100 W. Your new video card will be able to put out as much as 150 W or so, too, which is a lot more than your old card.
yeah idle times shoudlt count as the pc is just likely resting lol, but yeah im getting that last PSU u recommended which looks fine for me and a good price hands down... im still checking on video cards cos i want to get the best deal to play the lates games without going over my low budget ($350) so i wont have to re-upgrade for a while (only the monitor next time)
If you want something faster than the Radeon HD 6950 that I linked, the next step up is a GeForce GTX 570 or a Radeon HD 6970, either of which will put you over your budget. A considerable chunk of the cost of the next step up is for more video memory, which won't be of any benefit to you at a low monitor resolution. 2 GB is nice for 2560x1600 and up, but few people have that big of monitors, and they tend to have much larger budgets than you.
If you want something faster than the Radeon HD 6950 that I linked, the next step up is a GeForce GTX 570 or a Radeon HD 6970, either of which will put you over your budget. A considerable chunk of the cost of the next step up is for more video memory, which won't be of any benefit to you at a low monitor resolution. 2 GB is nice for 2560x1600 and up, but few people have that big of monitors, and they tend to have much larger budgets than you.
i see, ill stick with the Radeon hd 6950 or a similar one from nvidia then... i havent tried AMD before so i dont know much about Radeons tho. But there are many positive reviews everywhere so maybe that would be my best shot for now
You can check how much heat is put out, power draw, and also performance. It may be this gives you better confidence in your choice, as you will know more about what your specific card does, what to excpect from it, and, how it effects your system.
As you go along, if you do upgrade more, it's nice to have a feel for, YOUR, systems strengths and weaknesses.
An affinity, in other words.
That what I do, and then I check my shit with the people in this forum. It works well, cause they know their stuff.
the 590 just came out all other card price droped, just before the 590 released i got my 570 half price, look carefuly on the net like http://ncix.com/
most of the card are going to drop even lower price soon,
i checked alot of review about the 500 series and Radeon. and the 570 was perfect for the price and performance.
~The only opinion that matters is your own.Everything else is just advice,~
The only nVidia card I can recommend right now are either the 460 for budget buyers (and only if it comes with a good rebate), and the 570. Any other price point, and the ATI equivalents are just better performance for the dollar.
So, to answer the OP, I don't recommend either of those cards.
Staying with nVidia on the lower end, this card is both cheaper, and faster, than the 550Ti, and includes all the same features (DX11, CUDA, Physx, etc): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390 Keep in mind this is the lower version of the 460, there are two other editions, an SE with 1G of RAM (that runs about the same speed, for about the same price), and the full GTX 1G edition (runs considerably faster, but usually about $30-50 more expensive).
Aside from that, jumping up to the nVidia 570 is around $350.
In either event, don't get 2G more RAM. You should have same size DIMMs to take advantage of dual channel architecture, so you'd need to go from 4G to 8G, and the advantages of going from 4 to 8 are practically nil unless you are an extreme multitasker (ie: running multiple video games at the same time), or use programs that explicitly call for lots of memory (64bit Photoshop with very large pictures, 64bit video editing, etc).
Originally posted by DeathTouch that 600 watt he linked earlier would do you. its a very nice PSU.
No, it's not. Where's the 80 PLUS certification? How tight is the voltage regulation? How much ripple? It's exactly the sort of cheap junk power supply that is the reason for asking, and it needs to be replaced. "Before you go anywhere i would look here first." What good does a British site do for an American buyer?
The other points, I can't argue against.
But.
80 PLUS certification, I put no stock into it at all. I don't know what it takes to get the various 80 PLUS certifications, but if you take a peek at the HardOCP power supply reviews, they do measure the efficiency, and I can't recall a single power supply they have tested (including those that pass, and that they have given awards to), that have actually lived up to their 80 PLUS certification claims.
I really like the idea behind 80 PLUS certification, but at least as of right now, it just appears to be marketing smoke with no real meat behind it.
Everything else Quiz said there - yup.
Also, in another post lower down, with regard to CPU power usage.
Most Intel CPU's fall into either 90W or 130W category (most all socket 1155/56 CPU's are 90, desktop 775 and 1366's are 130, including Gulftown 6-cores). There are some desktops with Mobile edition CPU's (iMac's, for instance), and those vary from 65-35W, but generally aren't found in enthusiast or gaming machines.
Most AMD quad core CPU's are 65-140W depending on the model (Phenom II being more efficient). The six-core CPU's are rated at 95 and 125W (depending on stock speeds).
Overclocking can nearly double that CPU power requirement, however, and exceed double if you are adjusting voltages.
80 PLUS certification, I put no stock into it at all. I don't know what it takes to get the various 80 PLUS certifications, but if you take a peek at the HardOCP power supply reviews, they do measure the efficiency, and I can't recall a single power supply they have tested (including those that pass, and that they have given awards to), that have actually lived up to their 80 PLUS certification claims.
I really like the idea behind 80 PLUS certification, but at least as of right now, it just appears to be marketing smoke with no real meat behind it.
Everything else Quiz said there - yup.
And yet, even with the standards that low, some power supplies still can't meet them. Being 80 PLUS certified doesn't automatically mean a power supply is great. Some 80 PLUS certified power supplies are decidedly mediocre. But being unable to pass certification usually means that a power supply is quite bad.
I guess there are a handful that don't get certified, that are kind of "meh", but not really that bad. Corsair could get their CX series certified if they really wanted to, for example. But it would probably involve things like telling the 80 PLUS organization that CX600 is just a model number and it's really a 500 W power supply, not 600 W. Some power supplies that passed 80 PLUS certification did do things like that.
-----
Note that Hard OCP tests power supplies under far harsher conditions than 80 PLUS. 80 PLUS (actually Ecos Consulting) tests them at room temperature, while Hard OCP tests at 45 C. 80 PLUS testing can mess with rail distributions to find one that gives better efficiency, while Hard OCP does their fixed rail distribution. I'd assume that 80 PLUS testing uses some sort of voltage stabilization system to keep the voltage at 120 V; pulling high loads from the wall often means that the voltage drops, and efficiency will be lower at 110 V than at 120 V. Manufacturers that send a power supply to 80 PLUS can cherry pick them a bit, as the results will vary a little from one unit to the next.
Comments
@Quizzical
yes the case has a built in fan that takes air out of the case, that fan is located parallel to the videocard location (the fan is attached to the case, not to the video card). And the case has a big transparent plastic attached with plastic screws (to look inside of the case) which looks like i can remove it and add extra fans around the built-in one... tahts all i have in terms of air flow on my case
btw, its a cyberpower desktop.... i think they are the same ppl behind ibuypower
this is the case i have (not the whole tower, only that same case)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229206
yes it has a PCI express 2.0 CrossfireX im looking at it right now
It has a PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot with full bandwidth, which is appropriate for a video card. It also has a second PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot, which is wired for PCI Express 1.0 x4 bandwidth. That's only 1/8 of the bandwidth of the first slot. You can put a video card in the second slot and it will work, but performance will be severely constrained by the lack of PCI Express bandwidth. It's not at all that two cards in CrossFire with that little bandwidth for one card would give you better performance than if you removed the second card. AMD doesn't disable CrossFire through their drivers, so they'll let you try it and see what happens. But it's not going to work well.
It looks like you've got room for one front fan, one side fan, and one rear fan. My guess is that the radiator is at the rear fan slot. Hopefully it's blowing air out the back of the case. There might not be fans in both of the other slots. If you add fans in whatever fan slots don't already have them, then that should be adequate airflow for any of the cards I linked to in post #6 of this thread.
My recommendation would be either the GeForce GTX 460 768 MB or the Radeon HD 6950, depending on your budget. I'd also add the XFX 650 W power supply, which is $58 after rebates, and would be sufficient for any video card setup that would be safe in that case.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150523
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817207007
And then pick up however many fans you have the slots for:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811999099
You might want to measure to make sure that they're 120 mm fan slots. They probably are, but if they're some other size, then you'll need a different size of fan.
yes it seems theres a fan also behind the radiator (keeping the radiator cool?) cos i feel a slight air blow when i put my hand close to the radiator (on the inside of the case).... the radiator is where the back fan goes just as you guessed.
The fan blowing on the radiator is blowing the hot air into the case? That's bad. You want it blowing the hot air out of the case. You can probably turn the fan around. It won't be as effective for keeping the processor cool, but the processor isn't the real concern here. It's the general temperature in the case.
well i got my computer turned on since this morning and its not even warm inside (5pm now) it sounds weird that fan / radiator setup... but it seems the fan is keeping the radiator cool while the fan on the side of the case is pulling the hot air out of the case.
i havent had any overheating problems since i bought the pc about a year ago or almost a year... and it spends most of the time turned on every day. tho im sure when i upgrade video card and PSU a could use more fans... better safe than sorry
At idle, your processor will only put out a few watts. That's not going to overheat anything, even if it didn't have a fan at all. At load, it could put out close to 100 W. Your new video card will be able to put out as much as 150 W or so, too, which is a lot more than your old card.
yeah idle times shoudlt count as the pc is just likely resting lol, but yeah im getting that last PSU u recommended which looks fine for me and a good price hands down... im still checking on video cards cos i want to get the best deal to play the lates games without going over my low budget ($350) so i wont have to re-upgrade for a while (only the monitor next time)
If you want something faster than the Radeon HD 6950 that I linked, the next step up is a GeForce GTX 570 or a Radeon HD 6970, either of which will put you over your budget. A considerable chunk of the cost of the next step up is for more video memory, which won't be of any benefit to you at a low monitor resolution. 2 GB is nice for 2560x1600 and up, but few people have that big of monitors, and they tend to have much larger budgets than you.
i see, ill stick with the Radeon hd 6950 or a similar one from nvidia then... i havent tried AMD before so i dont know much about Radeons tho. But there are many positive reviews everywhere so maybe that would be my best shot for now
thanks for all the info and assistance
I don't think anyone posted this link in the thread, but it may help you decide which card you want, since you've narrowed it down . http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts/benchmarks,123.html.
You can check how much heat is put out, power draw, and also performance. It may be this gives you better confidence in your choice, as you will know more about what your specific card does, what to excpect from it, and, how it effects your system.
As you go along, if you do upgrade more, it's nice to have a feel for, YOUR, systems strengths and weaknesses.
An affinity, in other words.
That what I do, and then I check my shit with the people in this forum. It works well, cause they know their stuff.
the 590 just came out all other card price droped, just before the 590 released i got my 570 half price, look carefuly on the net like http://ncix.com/
most of the card are going to drop even lower price soon,
i checked alot of review about the 500 series and Radeon. and the 570 was perfect for the price and performance.
~The only opinion that matters is your own.Everything else is just advice,~
The only nVidia card I can recommend right now are either the 460 for budget buyers (and only if it comes with a good rebate), and the 570. Any other price point, and the ATI equivalents are just better performance for the dollar.
So, to answer the OP, I don't recommend either of those cards.
Staying with nVidia on the lower end, this card is both cheaper, and faster, than the 550Ti, and includes all the same features (DX11, CUDA, Physx, etc):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121390
Keep in mind this is the lower version of the 460, there are two other editions, an SE with 1G of RAM (that runs about the same speed, for about the same price), and the full GTX 1G edition (runs considerably faster, but usually about $30-50 more expensive).
Going on the upper end, this ATI 6950 is about $40 cheaper, and will run equivalently:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150523&cm_re=6950-_-14-150-523-_-Product
This card is about $20 cheaper, and has a very high probability of unlocking to a full 6970 (which is roughly equivalent to the 570, so you're effectively getting a $350 video card for $240)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161355&cm_re=6950-_-14-161-355-_-Product
Aside from that, jumping up to the nVidia 570 is around $350.
In either event, don't get 2G more RAM. You should have same size DIMMs to take advantage of dual channel architecture, so you'd need to go from 4G to 8G, and the advantages of going from 4 to 8 are practically nil unless you are an extreme multitasker (ie: running multiple video games at the same time), or use programs that explicitly call for lots of memory (64bit Photoshop with very large pictures, 64bit video editing, etc).
I think you're looking at higher end cards than this. But if you want an interesting $150 card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102932
Radeon HD 5850, $150, free shipping, no rebates, It looks like it's a new SKU, too, as it doesn't have any reviews.
The other points, I can't argue against.
But.
80 PLUS certification, I put no stock into it at all. I don't know what it takes to get the various 80 PLUS certifications, but if you take a peek at the HardOCP power supply reviews, they do measure the efficiency, and I can't recall a single power supply they have tested (including those that pass, and that they have given awards to), that have actually lived up to their 80 PLUS certification claims.
I really like the idea behind 80 PLUS certification, but at least as of right now, it just appears to be marketing smoke with no real meat behind it.
Everything else Quiz said there - yup.
Also, in another post lower down, with regard to CPU power usage.
Most Intel CPU's fall into either 90W or 130W category (most all socket 1155/56 CPU's are 90, desktop 775 and 1366's are 130, including Gulftown 6-cores). There are some desktops with Mobile edition CPU's (iMac's, for instance), and those vary from 65-35W, but generally aren't found in enthusiast or gaming machines.
Most AMD quad core CPU's are 65-140W depending on the model (Phenom II being more efficient). The six-core CPU's are rated at 95 and 125W (depending on stock speeds).
Overclocking can nearly double that CPU power requirement, however, and exceed double if you are adjusting voltages.
And yet, even with the standards that low, some power supplies still can't meet them. Being 80 PLUS certified doesn't automatically mean a power supply is great. Some 80 PLUS certified power supplies are decidedly mediocre. But being unable to pass certification usually means that a power supply is quite bad.
I guess there are a handful that don't get certified, that are kind of "meh", but not really that bad. Corsair could get their CX series certified if they really wanted to, for example. But it would probably involve things like telling the 80 PLUS organization that CX600 is just a model number and it's really a 500 W power supply, not 600 W. Some power supplies that passed 80 PLUS certification did do things like that.
-----
Note that Hard OCP tests power supplies under far harsher conditions than 80 PLUS. 80 PLUS (actually Ecos Consulting) tests them at room temperature, while Hard OCP tests at 45 C. 80 PLUS testing can mess with rail distributions to find one that gives better efficiency, while Hard OCP does their fixed rail distribution. I'd assume that 80 PLUS testing uses some sort of voltage stabilization system to keep the voltage at 120 V; pulling high loads from the wall often means that the voltage drops, and efficiency will be lower at 110 V than at 120 V. Manufacturers that send a power supply to 80 PLUS can cherry pick them a bit, as the results will vary a little from one unit to the next.