Well i play lots of games and on BF3 my card reaches really high temperatures like  80/79 ºcelsius

Its a lot if i use my fan it makes a lot of windy noise but in full power or 90 of power fan i can play at a normaly 48 50 ºc

So i was thinking of buying the GTX nvidia 570 and the case Coolermaster HAF-X Full tower, what do you guys think ?? my setup is :

CPU

CPU COOLER

RAM

8,00 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 666MHz (9-9-9-24)

ASUS VH222 (1920x1080@60Hz)

Hard Drives

Case

Thermaltake Element S

So you see why the reference GeForce GTX 470 had such a horrible reputation for being hot and loud.  The problem isn't your case.  The problem is the video card.  Replacing the case isn't going to help anything.

A GeForce GTX 570 is really just a respin of the same die as the GTX 470.  GF100 was a horrible, broken die.  The respin, GF110 isn't very good, either, but at least it's not really broken.  So it will get you maybe 20% more performance with similar power consumption.  It will also come with a better cooler to keep temperatures and noise down.

Still, I'd advise against a GTX 570 unless your main reason to upgrade is to get a quieter card that runs cooler.  Otherwise, a 20% performance boost isn't enough to justify the upgrade.

Agreed. You won't see enough of a performance increase to justify a $300 expense.

i should invest on a sdd disk then ?

Getting an SSD would be a very nice upgrade.  If you want more graphical performance, you'd need something a lot faster--and more expensive--than a GeForce GTX 570 to really justify the upgrade.  If the real goal is bringing down noise and power consumption, then you'd be better off looking at a 28 nm video card than power-hungry Fermi cards.

SSD is a good investment, yes. They are cheap right now.

But one thing I don't get (I am rather tired so maybe I am just stupid): You run your DDR 3 memory at 666 mhz?

Your FSB allows 1333 mhz memory speed, what type of ram do you have and what is the clocking speed in the bios?

I would not do that upgrade, you either could get a 680 GTX or just wait a while. 570 is somewhat faster in benchmark tests but not enough to be worth it.

I would rather get a I7 2600K CPU (or 2700K) and a new motherboard, it would improve your performance a lot more even if it cost more.

If you still are unsure about performance, just go to Toms hardware and check their charts.

Loke, DDR - Double Data Rate

Originally posted by Loke666

But one thing I don't get (I am rather tired so maybe I am just stupid): You run your DDR 3 memory at 666 mhz?

Your FSB allows 1333 mhz memory speed, what type of ram do you have and what is the clocking speed in the bios?

If you get "1333 MHz" memory, it runs at a real clock speed of 667 MHz, but everyone multiplies it by 2, mainly because everyone else does and you don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage.

A Lynnfield quad core is fast enough that there's no sense in replacing it yet for gaming purposes.  By the time you actually need something faster for any particular game, not only will Ivy Bridge have launched, but it will probably already have been discontinued.  So might Vishera, Haswell, Kaveri, and Rockwell, Broadwell, or whatever the successor to Haswell is today rumored to be called.

How about im thinking of buying the  :

Coolermaster HAF X 

SDD Disk

Nvidia GTX 580

a better Board not too expensive tho ( maybe you guys can  point me one) 

and in the next year , ill upgrade to another processor  and a  good soundcard.

What do you guys think

If you've got that kind of budget, then you might as well either grab a Radeon HD 7970 or else wait for the GeForce GTX 680 to come in stock and get that.

---

Originally posted by xenpt
How about im thinking of buying the  :
 
Coolermaster HAF X 
SDD Disk
Nvidia GTX 580
a better Board not too expensive tho ( maybe you guys can  point me one) 
 
and in the next year , ill upgrade to another processor  and a  good soundcard.
 
What do you guys think

---

Well, if you buy a motherboard now, it will only work with the CPU you have now. When you get a new processor later on, you'll need another motherboard again. Intel is awful at letting people reuse motherboards, it seems every one of their CPU upgrades is on a new socket.

My recommendation:
Get your SSD now.

Wait for the rest of the nVidia 600 lineup before considering your video again. Come back and ask about video and CPU and such in about 2 months. I know your itching to dump that 470, and I don't really blame you, but right now there isn't anything really compelling to upgrade to.

Yes it will make a huge difference, I used the Nvidia 470 GTX and bought a 570 GTX and have had no problems running ultra in BF3 where as the 470 couldn't run on low without stuttering to pieces. I would recommend buying atleast the 560 GTX or Ti or the 570 above so you can run ultra without stuttering or problems with video.

Originally posted by GamerFun

Yes it will make a huge difference, I used the Nvidia 470 GTX and bought a 570 GTX and have had no problems running ultra in BF3 where as the 470 couldn't run on low without stuttering to pieces. I would recommend buying atleast the 560 GTX or Ti or the 570 above so you can run ultra without stuttering or problems with video.

A GeForce GTX 560 is slower than a GTX 470.  That's not much of an upgrade.

You might have been having overheating problems with your old GTX 470, as they were prone to do that.

-----

"Wait for the rest of the nVidia 600 lineup before considering your video again. Come back and ask about video and CPU and such in about 2 months. I know your itching to dump that 470, and I don't really blame you, but right now there isn't anything really compelling to upgrade to."

AMD's entire lineup is out now, as is the top of Nvidia's lineup.  GK107 won't be an upgrade over a GTX 470, and if GK106 is an upgrade, it won't be a very big one.  The only thing left to wait for is a lower bin of GK104, or the GTX 680 itself.

---

Originally posted by Quizzical
-----
"Wait for the rest of the nVidia 600 lineup before considering your video again. Come back and ask about video and CPU and such in about 2 months. I know your itching to dump that 470, and I don't really blame you, but right now there isn't anything really compelling to upgrade to."
AMD's entire lineup is out now, as is the top of Nvidia's lineup.  GK107 won't be an upgrade over a GTX 470, and if GK106 is an upgrade, it won't be a very big one.  The only thing left to wait for is a lower bin of GK104, or the GTX 680 itself.

---

To see how the rest of the prices settle out... the new 670 may be competitive (I'm surprised we haven't seen them yet, I know initially the 670 was the GK104, but I figured we'd see lower bins rebranded by now - maybe yield is that bad), and it may also juggle the 7800 prices around to where they are more attractive.

Originally posted by Ridelynn

 

---

Originally posted by Quizzical
-----
"Wait for the rest of the nVidia 600 lineup before considering your video again. Come back and ask about video and CPU and such in about 2 months. I know your itching to dump that 470, and I don't really blame you, but right now there isn't anything really compelling to upgrade to."
AMD's entire lineup is out now, as is the top of Nvidia's lineup.  GK107 won't be an upgrade over a GTX 470, and if GK106 is an upgrade, it won't be a very big one.  The only thing left to wait for is a lower bin of GK104, or the GTX 680 itself.

---

 

To see how the rest of the prices settle out... the new 670 may be competitive (I'm surprised we haven't seen them yet, I know initially the 670 was the GK104, but I figured we'd see lower bins rebranded by now - maybe yield is that bad), and it may also juggle the 7800 prices around to where they are more attractive.

If you've got tons of chips, but yields are so awful that nearly everything has to go to salvage parts, you don't launch the top bin first and then nothing else for a while.  I think the reason Nvidia soft launched the GTX 680 when they did was to try to convince people to stop buying AMD cards and wait for Kepler instead.  Paper launching one card serves that purpose just as well as paper launching two cards.  If Southern Islands weren't out yet, Nvidia would have waited until they had enough GK104 chips to do a hard launch.

You run a relative handful of wafers before you know if yields are good enough to justify a commerical launch, but you don't want to pay for thousands of wafers in preparation for a commercial launch only to find that yields are terrible and you just lost millions of dollars on them.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by GamerFun

Yes it will make a huge difference, I used the Nvidia 470 GTX and bought a 570 GTX and have had no problems running ultra in BF3 where as the 470 couldn't run on low without stuttering to pieces. I would recommend buying atleast the 560 GTX or Ti or the 570 above so you can run ultra without stuttering or problems with video.

A GeForce GTX 560 is slower than a GTX 470.  That's not much of an upgrade.

You might have been having overheating problems with your old GTX 470, as they were prone to do that.

-----

"Wait for the rest of the nVidia 600 lineup before considering your video again. Come back and ask about video and CPU and such in about 2 months. I know your itching to dump that 470, and I don't really blame you, but right now there isn't anything really compelling to upgrade to."

AMD's entire lineup is out now, as is the top of Nvidia's lineup.  GK107 won't be an upgrade over a GTX 470, and if GK106 is an upgrade, it won't be a very big one.  The only thing left to wait for is a lower bin of GK104, or the GTX 680 itself.

Sorry bro but you are wrong in my books. I've tested both and have both, the 470 GTX could not hold up against BF3 at all, my 560 GTX is better than the 470 GTX however the 560 Ti version ran on medium just like the 470 did.

The 470 GTX is no where better than the 560, not in any way, shape or form.

I've done a lot of tests and the 470 failed on all of them. My 470 ran fine it just couldn't hold up with BF3, not even on low. My 560 GTX has no problems at maxxed custom ultra.

Originally posted by GamerFun

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by GamerFun

Yes it will make a huge difference, I used the Nvidia 470 GTX and bought a 570 GTX and have had no problems running ultra in BF3 where as the 470 couldn't run on low without stuttering to pieces. I would recommend buying atleast the 560 GTX or Ti or the 570 above so you can run ultra without stuttering or problems with video.

A GeForce GTX 560 is slower than a GTX 470.  That's not much of an upgrade.

You might have been having overheating problems with your old GTX 470, as they were prone to do that.

-----

"Wait for the rest of the nVidia 600 lineup before considering your video again. Come back and ask about video and CPU and such in about 2 months. I know your itching to dump that 470, and I don't really blame you, but right now there isn't anything really compelling to upgrade to."

AMD's entire lineup is out now, as is the top of Nvidia's lineup.  GK107 won't be an upgrade over a GTX 470, and if GK106 is an upgrade, it won't be a very big one.  The only thing left to wait for is a lower bin of GK104, or the GTX 680 itself.

Sorry bro but you are wrong in my books. I've tested both and have both, the 470 GTX could not hold up against BF3 at all, my 560 GTX is better than the 470 GTX however the 560 Ti version ran on medium just like the 470 did.

The 470 GTX is no where better than the 560, not in any way, shape or form.

I've done a lot of tests and the 470 failed on all of them. My 470 ran fine it just couldn't hold up with BF3, not even on low. My 560 GTX has no problems at maxxed custom ultra.

Either you had a broken card or were overheating or something.  Go read some reviews:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4344/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-top-to-bottom-overclock/1

Out of 10 games, the GTX 470 beats the GTX 560 in 7, ties in 2 (which card wins depends on the settings), and loses in 1.

Also just want to bring something to the attention of the OP. I believe I've seen you frequent the GW2 forums and it seems like that will be your next main game. A 470 will most-likely max that game. If you're going to be doing a lot of instances and/or structured PvP then an SSD would be a great upgrade imo--I'd highly recommend the Crucial M4 decent dollar/gb, faster than most, and it seems to be one of the more reliable SSDs on the market.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by GamerFun

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by GamerFun

Yes it will make a huge difference, I used the Nvidia 470 GTX and bought a 570 GTX and have had no problems running ultra in BF3 where as the 470 couldn't run on low without stuttering to pieces. I would recommend buying atleast the 560 GTX or Ti or the 570 above so you can run ultra without stuttering or problems with video.

A GeForce GTX 560 is slower than a GTX 470.  That's not much of an upgrade.

You might have been having overheating problems with your old GTX 470, as they were prone to do that.

-----

"Wait for the rest of the nVidia 600 lineup before considering your video again. Come back and ask about video and CPU and such in about 2 months. I know your itching to dump that 470, and I don't really blame you, but right now there isn't anything really compelling to upgrade to."

AMD's entire lineup is out now, as is the top of Nvidia's lineup.  GK107 won't be an upgrade over a GTX 470, and if GK106 is an upgrade, it won't be a very big one.  The only thing left to wait for is a lower bin of GK104, or the GTX 680 itself.

Sorry bro but you are wrong in my books. I've tested both and have both, the 470 GTX could not hold up against BF3 at all, my 560 GTX is better than the 470 GTX however the 560 Ti version ran on medium just like the 470 did.

The 470 GTX is no where better than the 560, not in any way, shape or form.

I've done a lot of tests and the 470 failed on all of them. My 470 ran fine it just couldn't hold up with BF3, not even on low. My 560 GTX has no problems at maxxed custom ultra.

Either you had a broken card or were overheating or something.  Go read some reviews:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4344/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-top-to-bottom-overclock/1

Out of 10 games, the GTX 470 beats the GTX 560 in 7, ties in 2 (which card wins depends on the settings), and loses in 1.

I don't need to read reviews, I've done my own research and tested them. My 470 could not keep up in BF3 at all until I changed it out for the 560 GTX SC.

Originally posted by GamerFun

Originally posted by Quizzical

Either you had a broken card or were overheating or something.  Go read some reviews:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4344/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-top-to-bottom-overclock/1

Out of 10 games, the GTX 470 beats the GTX 560 in 7, ties in 2 (which card wins depends on the settings), and loses in 1.

I don't need to read reviews, I've done my own research and tested them. My 470 could not keep up in BF3 at all until I changed it out for the 560 GTX SC.

You're comparing a broken GTX 470 to a working GTX 560.  Of course the part that still works will beat the one that is broken.  The particular models in question aren't even relevant to the comparison.  Do you really not understand why that comparison isn't relevant if someone wants to know how a working GTX 470 compares to a working GTX 560?