XFX r5 230 2gbvs Galaxy 9500 1gb gt

Hardware Hub GPU
1

Hello, currently I'm running off a 5 year old Galaxy 9500 gt in my new gaming computer that i'm saving up for a new beefy gpu. Anyway this card performs exceptionally well considering it's... you know. I have an XFX r5 230 hanging off to the side and was wondering if I'd squeeze some extra performance out of it. Also, my 9500 is overclocked at about a 12 % boost.

P.S. Im running at 900p

Here's my specs:

MSI Z170A PC MATE Motherboard
Intel core I3 6100
8gb ddr4 corsair memory @ 2533
Galaxy 9500 gt with 12% over clock
120gb crucial ssd
750watt bronze psu

2

jesus. and how much are you willing to spend on a GPU?

3

Yeah, it's kind of funny. But don't underestimate older cards, you can do some good things.

I'm saving up for a for a Gigabyte r9 390 G1 gaming

But will the xfx perform better?

4

honestly I can't tell you. thought from a specification standpoint I'd stick with the 9500GT. it should be a tiny bit faster despite the 512MiBs of DDR3. though in all honesty considering you have a modern day system (with an i3) and a GPU that is capable of running a potato in High settings (No offense)

forget the R9-390, with an i3, it would be like putting a rocket on a bicycle. it'll go fast.. till it explodes.

considering finding an old R9-270 or an R9-265. they are dirt cheap right now. and will fly unholy circles around both those R5-230 and the 9500GT.

5

There is very little sense in that. The single-thread performance is where it matters, and the i3 has plenty of that. It won't bottleneck a 390 by any measurable amount.

(Honestly the per-core performance of that i3 is higher than an i7-5960X at full turbo. Clock rate yo.)

As for the performance between the 9500 GT and R5 230, I would have to say that the R5 230 would perform better simply because it has more driver support. The two cards are close in theoretical performance, but since the R5 230 has drivers as new as 3 days ago (literally, Crimson 16.1.1) I'd give it the upper hand, even if it's not by much.

P.S. You may have only had the 9500 GT for 5 years, but the age of the design is going on 7 years. :P

Edit: Driver date. Time flies.

6

agreed. but it's still a dual core. he's better off dealing with a minor bottleneck then a massive one he's going to get with a 390 plus an overclock.

7

Dual-core with HT. Although that won't necessarily make games like FarCry 4 happy, it does help the overall CPU performance. I still believe in pairing power with power, and going quad or more on the CPU with any high end GPU, but it's not imperative to do so.

The only games I can think of that decrease in performance with dual-core CPUs are games that are CPU intensive, not GPU intensive. As long as the game only needs the GPU, than you can pack the biggest, fastest one into any modern dual-core PC and it'll perform just fine.

Worst case scenario is the CPU gets upgraded later on and the R9 390 will still be kicking, and may possibly even get a slight boost in performance from the beefier CPU.

8

depends on what he plays. though I personally would of gone with a lower end GPU then with a high end graphics card and an i3. though in all fairness. most modern day ultra books are dual core and people try gaming on those. so worse case scenario the delta in performance between a dual core and a quad-core won't be that high.

9

it's a dual core with HT it's about equivelent to AMDs 6350. it won't be ideal but it'll work.

10

Duel core with 4 threads. The 6100 is fully capable and notices a 10 frame difference from the 6600k in benchmarks.

Also, I forgot to mention. The 6100 is also temporary. I fully intend to get the 6600k soon. This build is meant for upgrading in the future without a problem. Im not on here for my build guide, I know exactly what works well with what. I need to know about the gpu's at hand right now. So please, concetrate on that.

11

Just saying, this 9500 gt has probably 8000 hours in gaming, and I still reach around 120 frames max setting on minecraft. It impresses me all the time. I can only imagine how well this rig will run with the 390.

12

Reminds me of the day I get my new rig a good 7? years ago. Q9550, 9600 by because I needed to play crysis. Was a good system.

13

This thing has been passed around about ten different computers and I've lent it too friends. Etc. It will live forever.

14

Mine was still going but I need more power do it was swapped out for a 560 down the line. I also had a beefy 9800 by but it didn't in my case

15

Stick with the 9500GT. Do not go with the R5 its grunt compared to the 9500GT is in a different ballpark. As if you are going to grab an a 390 with the i3 6100 there will be a bottleneck but I would suggest you grabbing it anyways as other have told you otherwise. The performance difference if an owner has an r9 390 with a better cpu will be like 20-30 fps at most if you have decided to stick with your i3 6100.

16

r5 230 is actually significantly worse than a 9500.

17

Don't run an AMD card on a low end cpu, you won't have any fun, try nvidia

18

Use the integrated on your i3 its probably better.

19

It is, I'd just rather treat the chip as good as possible. Not as good architecture for gaming.

20

I don't think you really understand this i3 6100 as well as you think you do. It is just barely worse than the 6600k, this will not bottleneck like you think it will. But I will stick to the 9500, thank you all.