Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
that is with an external gpu HD 7770. the APU onboard itself, 35-60 at medium depending on the action. the 7770 will provide better power than the apu by itself.
inside the apu is the Radeon HD 8670D gpu. So a 7770 would do you better.
I think A8-6600K is similar to phenom 955? Am i right?
that card medium to high with 45-60 fps (the cpu is slow and its architecture not very good for gaming).
If you wanna max CS-GO and hold a solid 60 fps (thats with Vsync as monitors refresh-rate is the maximum frame-rate it can display regarldless of the counter) you need a GTX 660ti or better.
The 7770 is not a 'really weak card,' it's a mid range card IMO.
http://www.hwcompare.com/11910/geforce-gts-450-vs-radeon-hd-7770/
I have a GTS 450 myself, which is much worse than the 7770 as you can see. I get 120 fps with 1920x1080 resolution and get 120 fps with low settings. A 7770 would get more than that, as you can see on the link provided.
An i3-4130 would be better than an AMD cpu for a relatively similar price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116946
its a weak card the 7770 indeed is very weak. the thing has 1gb half the time, and if you're lucky to get a 2gb model i wanna know where. Also the 7770 is intended for res of 1600X900 that tells you how weak the damned thing is. also if your monitor is 60hz you only get 60 fps even if your counter in game says 120 the monitor is physically only capable of 60 fps at 60hz.
As for you getting 120 if you're monitor is indeed 60hz youre putting stress on your card for nothing and your architecture is better than the 7770
Edit: on res 1024x768 (becouse of 75hz monitor)
Dude.. a GTX 660ti would be OVERKILL for CS.
http://www.hwcompare.com/13173/geforce-gts-450-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti/
As I said earlier, my GTS 450 gets 120 fps with low settings on 1080p resolution. The GTX 660ti is 149, 309, and 75% better than my card.
no a GTX 660ti would not be overkill, especially when maxing it out youll drop to the 40s during the heaviest of gameplay. The GTX 670 has a better chance of maxing it out with light 20 fps drops at the most.
I know of how hardware works due to the fact i build and sell PC's for a living and real world performance is all that matters and that 7770 and 650 are both gonna have trouble maxing CS-GO with that CPU and keeping the frame-rate stable at 60 (unless you got a 120hz monitor).
Ive used both the 7770 and the 650 before and both are rather lacking in the grunt department. Turn off the AA and shadows and you can net a healthy 1080p with a good 50-60 fps.
Your card ive used as well (when we still sold em) and it too had a hell of a time running some games maxed out (its a GTS card, intended for medium gaming)
I don't see what you mean about the 2GB model, the one listed on hwcompare is 1GB. http://i.imgur.com/p7Ysc05.png
2GB is what you'd need for playing games at ultra with high resolutions. Maybe OP doesn't want that/can't afford that. Not everybody can afford a 7990 or a R9 290X, sorry.
No my defintiion of weak is on how the card performs as technology as well in real life performance tests (benchmarks are not this). Also i use a GTX 670 a lil weak these days compared to the massive 770 and 780ti but its still good enough to max out practically all games aside from features like AA and anti stropic (both of which i can keep at X2 and still maintain 60-90 fps on my 120hz monitor).
2GB is actually only going to help with monitors and games that use 1.5gb of V-ram (which there is alot of em).
Also it was a bad fallacy to post the two most powerful cards from the Radeon line-up considering most buy the 7970 these days and the cheaper 7870 if they can afford that. Only crazy people go for the 7990 and the Titan.
Thing is, if OP is buying a $120 CPU and thinking about buying a 7770, it's very clear that he doesn't intend on enthusiast gaming. As a so called PC builder, you should see that clear as day. This GPU would allow him to have 8X AA low settings 1080p with 150+ FPS. I've tried maxing out CS and it doesn't look different from low settings tbh. What does a 120hz monitor have to do with keeping fps at 60? You don't know what you're talking about do you?
I see his money issues, its why i stated what i stated so he may better save his cash and buy a better set up down the road. I would never push parts upon a customer as that is just bad business i instead try to show them why their card is not gonna do what they expect of it.
As for his GPU doing X8 on low, that is unlikely given architecture and real world performance. If hes wanting 1080p his hardware can go medium to high for the 650 and for the 7770 low to medium with a frame-rate of 60 fps with a 1600X900 res. Thats literally all his gpu's are capable of if he wants a solid frame-rate.
A 120hz monitor makes a huge difference in smoothness thanks to that refresh-rate i was merely stating you're not getting 100+ fps unless you have a 120hz monitor.
Oh CS-GO maxed out looks quite different from textures to a whole bunch of stuff. But thats beside the point. The OP if hes got a 60hz monitor and can get 60 fps with medium and low or medium to high than his GPU is doing all it can possibly do. I suggest if the OP avoid a laptop or has a desktop already save a lil cash and grab a 7870