Upgrade to better GPU or to SSD?

[kimosabi]

Read fruitbat's posts in this thread on the graphics card. What "should" work is not related to actual testing.

[Biggs [CV]]

Tigerdirect has some good deals on GPUs for around $200. That 260 is not gonna cut it. GPUs has advanced alot in the last 2-3 years.

[mazex]

No discussion imo. An SSD disk can only improve the game if the threaded data loader does not work (which may be true now, but they will fix that). That CPU should also be OK but overclockling won't hurt. I vote 100% on a new GPU. 560ti if you are on a budget seems like a good advice as mentioned before in this thread.

I've had SSD disks in my two latest laptops and they are great for that as the disk is really the weak spot of a laptop. I love the Dell 6520 Sandy Bridge laptop with an SSD disk I just got at work, but at home my Raptor is just fine. Games should not load data continously so the IO-speed should really just be good for loading a map faster. If it gets suck waiting for for IO to often they have to pre-load more, and then RAM or VRAM is the issue as all disks are dinosaurs compared to those. So stuttering from a slow disk will just make those rare "hickups" a bit longer on a well optimized game, but for the "bread and butter" raw fps you need a good GPU on a game that is not CPU limited (which CoD does not seem to be - TODAY!)

[bw_wolverine]

Hopefully with the release of the GTX590 we'll see the 580 drop in price.

I've got a 1000w power supply, so I should be okay that way if I drop a big card in.

[Les]

I agree with what others have said, better to wait and see.

Looking at your specs though, that graphics card does stand out as the weakest link, compared to the other components, followed by the non-overclocked CPU. (SSD's can make a noticeable difference in loading times, but you'd still have to put their benefits behind what faster video-cards and CPU's can bring when comparing them all against each other.)

Overclocking is still a bit of a hit and miss affair, and you can still get right down into the finer points of it, but nowadays the motherboard manufacturers have made it a much more mainstream and accessible process. You could literally just change three settings in your bios and pretty much be guaranteed to get your CPU running at a stable mid 3.XX GHz, using any of several decent non-stock CPU coolers. Whether that would make a noticeable difference in your actual frame-rates though, who knows?

Not saying you should, but IMO if you did overclock that CPU and get something like a GTX580, at least you could turn around and say it's the game itself that's causing any performance problems, as you'd have taken the hardware side of it almost as far as it can can be taken at the moment. The only down side is, even with that system you probably will in fact still be getting software-limited frame-rates, depending on your in-game settings, but that's not the point.

Edit- Just saw your post about the 590. In my opinion the 590 won't bring down the prices of the 580's as much as it could have. From the reviews I've seen the 590's are a bit of a letdown. And while I know it's not the most economical of choices, I think getting a 580 now is a good move. It's still the fastest single-GPU nVidia card (can't remember if it beats its ATI equivalent or not) and it will be for some time yet, at least until late this year or early next year when the new generation of nVidia cards are due, and even then it should still be in the same ball-park (going by the usual incremental performance increases between generations.) If you got that 260 when it was still fairly new and you kept it this long (2 years?), you could do the same with a 560-580 bought now.

Just food for thought, the over-riding response still is, wait and see how they patch up CloDo and if it reveals any particular hardware-curable quirks. Not having a clear up-grade path to ensure the game runs as well as it could puts a damper on the whole up-grade idea imo. You'd have to have other reasons to do it at the moment.

[kimosabi]

GTX580 is indeed the fastest single gpu videocard on the market right now. Goes hand in hand with a moderately clocked/stock Nehalem.

[bw_wolverine]

@Les

That's a great breakdown of it. Thanks! And thanks to everyone who responded too.

I actually decided before I'd seen your post, Les, and I came to a very similar conclusion albeit based on a few other factors I didn't post.

I enjoy playing ArmA II pretty much weekly with friends and I think I'll stand to benefit a great deal from the GTX 580 with that title so I went ahead and ordered (actually found an instant rebate on an eVGA GTX 580 at ncix.ca). It certainly won't hurt to have it onboard when CloD unlocks on the 19th.

I'll worry about overclocking another day.

Now, to do some more database design freelancing to pay for this sucker

[CharveL]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm seriously considering upgrading for this game. I'd like to know what people think would be a better upgrade for me:

CURRENT SPEC (nothing is overclocked):
Intel i7 940 2.93gHz
nVidia Geforce GTX 260
HDD 10,000rpm Raptor
4 GB Ram Corsair

Price is a factor, but only insomuch as the SSD upgrade would be cheaper to get a top line one vs a top line graphics card (I think). If the performance increase to cost ratio is further in the graphics card direction, that's the way I'd go.

Just curious what people think.

With that CPU I don't think the cost/benefit factor of getting a $200 - $250 video card would make more difference to the game than an SSD would. I'm betting - at least for now and till the patch - the hitching problem would be alleviated with an SSD since hitching in games is usually due to hard drive swapping.

Plus CloD is CPU dependent far more than GPU given that you already have a GTX260 although you will see some improvement going to a better card for that same price range. Just that it's not the bottleneck, and may only buy you some slightly higher detail settings.

My Crucial 128gb SATA3 SSD is in the mail, but I'm running a GTX460 so it's even less worth me upgrading the card atm.

You're best off getting that CPU up to around 4ghz which will give you the greatest benefit in the sim.

[Les]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

...
I enjoy playing ArmA II pretty much weekly with friends and I think I'll stand to benefit a great deal from the GTX 580 ...

For what it's worth I recently went from a GTX285 to a GTX580 and it gave me something like a 20fps (don't quote me on that or get your hopes up) boost in ARMA2, basically making an unplayable game, playable. Of course I then went and upped the settings to make it unplayable again, but now have it in a playable, better-than-it's-ever-looked state. Which means I can finally see exactly how those diabolical AI are killing me, well, sometimes anyway, sneaky buggers.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm seriously considering upgrading for this game. I'd like to know what people think would be a better upgrade for me:

CURRENT SPEC (nothing is overclocked):
Intel i7 940 2.93gHz
nVidia Geforce GTX 260
HDD 10,000rpm Raptor
4 GB Ram Corsair

Price is a factor, but only insomuch as the SSD upgrade would be cheaper to get a top line one vs a top line graphics card (I think). If the performance increase to cost ratio is further in the graphics card direction, that's the way I'd go.

Just curious what people think.

Haven't read what other have suggested but I'd wait until CoD is relatively stable before even considering buying new hardware. I just feel like it's Forgotten Battles release all over again with CoD.