PCIe not 2.0x , can I run 9500 GT

Microsoft Windows 7 home premium
December 6, 2009 at 22:30:26
Specs: Windows 7 home premium 64 bit, P4 660 3.6/3Gig RAM
I just built a system to replace my aging computer (general family use, my dream machine will have to wait)
Question: How effective will be using a 9500 GT video card with the Gigabyte G41-ES2L MB be (PCIe16 is not 2.0x that the card is rated at)?
Spec's: Gigabyte G41-ES2L, E2160 (Used, I got free), stock Intel Quad heatsink/fan (new,'thrown-in' with other hardware), WD 500G Black SATA, Lite-on DVD SATA, Apevia Java 500-Watt PS, Crucial 4Gig Ballistix 800 kit, Cool Master Elite, 2x120mm fans, Windows 7 Home premium 64Bit. -- onboard Graphics for now.
Only Minimal gaming and some graphics programs
I like the way it is running but had a small issue on simple games (invoked an extra feature and it got very jumpy for a few seconds). Most of our use will not be gaming, but its nice to play sometimes! I tried some minor overclocking, but I probably will not do much of that, though I will probably upgrade the processor down the road a little (the 'Duo's and Quad's should come down more soon). There's a decent buy on a card: EVGA GeForce 9500 GT Video Card - 512MB DDR2, PCI Express 2.0, SLI Support, (Dual Link) Dual DVI, HDTV, VGA Support
BUT I want to know if this card will work well on this board? Will it just slow down a little from it's potential? I could probably 'get-a-way-with' something lesser, but they're not that much cheeper anymore.
Any advice please? And Thank you in advance!
(where better to post a graphic's question than in gaming?)
PS I have posted before and applied the advice and revised my prior plans accordingly.

See More: PCIe not 2.0x , can I run 9500 GT

Report •


#1
December 7, 2009 at 01:56:17
9500gt is not good idea go for ati radeon hd 4670 512mb with gddr3 and it will work PCIe x16 slot. Gigabyte g41-es2l Intel g41 +ich7? u should look for mobo that has intel chipsets p45,p43,g45,g43. U can hit 2.8 or 3ghz with pentium dual core e2160 if u have good mobo. Apevia java 500w cost $38?i suspect u have cheap crappy psu.

Report •

#2
December 7, 2009 at 03:39:06
I was planning to use P45 or G45 for myself for better build but when I was having trouble with the general family computer, I had to get something quicker and cheeper and thought that maybe on this board the graphics would do for a while... like I said, I'm not really gaming. And to tell the truth, it's not really bad, it runs better than any factory built rig I've ever tried. I still believe that for this purpose (general) this is a good system and I really could wait for the graphics for a while.
Really, is the problem with the interface (PCIe vs PCIe 2.0)? What would it act like (work reasonably)? Anything non-ATI (had a weak experience with a card recently)? [[ I think it was a 9250 AGP card on a Gateway P4 2.6 400 478 socket AGP4 1GIG]] ---- Thank you
Update: I just looked at the 4670 cards, the're also PCIe 2.0 and the ones that are available right now
at least are showing only moderately good ratings by users (TigerDirect and Newegg both) whereas many of the 9500 GT users are showing higher overall ratings with less incidences or DOA's mixed in????

Report •

#3
December 7, 2009 at 04:46:58
I understand that many prefer ATI cards and I hear a lot about the 4670. I understand that the P45 would have built a better rig than the P41 -- especially for serious gaming. I already have what I have and will save for the future rig but for this purpose, I'm asking so I understand and I can make an informed choice.
IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH USING PCIE 2.0 card on PCIE 1.0 16x slot!!! AND WILL THE 9500 GT RUN REASONABLY WELL ON THIS BOARD!!! THEN AFTER THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED..... AND without personal prejudice.... WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND and WHY!!!
I really do appreciate your help, but please hear the questions (all) and pay attention to MY personal needs AND what the system will be used for. I am posting for serious advice, I understand it will not be a 'gaming rig' but I want something that the family can all use without major complaints on a daily basis. I am more likely to run a downloaded copy of some updated version of an old arcade game than a modern full blown 3D shoot them up and most of the time, not even that.
added: what about the 9600 GT or GSO also?

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
December 7, 2009 at 10:06:53
1st of all, you shouldn't double post. The result will be that one or both of your threads will be deleted, so I'm going to post the same response to both threads.

EDIT: I can't post duplicate responses so this sentence *should* cure that problem.

There's built-in backwards compatibility in PCI-express so any one of the 3 cards you mentioned will work with your board. Just so you know, 9600GT > 9600GSO > 9500GT. The 9500GT is the worst of the 3 & really isn't much of a gaming card.

"There's a decent buy on a card: EVGA GeForce 9500 GT Video Card"

What do you consider a decent buy? $50-60? You can get a Radeon HD 4670 for about the same price & it's a much better card. It's performance is comparable to the 9600GSO but it doesn't require the 6-pin PCIe plug.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...


Report •

#5
December 7, 2009 at 21:23:03
Jam,
Sorry about the double post, The first person to answer seemed to be just preaching his prefferences rather than answering the question. If he had read carefully, he would have seen I already built the system and it was not really for gaming, so he did not need to go on about the motherboard. He also gave his recommendation without and explanation and did not see that other people can make an intelligent decision if given enough facts.
History, I have been avoiding the Radeon cards due to a not so spectacular experience. I was upgrading my old Gateway (2002) Pentium 4 rig, I found a faster P4 (2.4Gig 400 to replace the 1.4 Gig one cheep), maxed out the memory at 1Gig, and replaced the original G-Force2 MX200 video card with a HIS Radeon 9250 AGP 8 running on an AGP4 slot (spec's said no problem) .... web pages loaded fast as did word, etc so I thought "Great new life" But soon enough, it started having trouble with 'simple' stuff like Asteroids and another arcade type game. ---> 2 months later and I started having other problems with the system and I said 'enough good money after bad, and rushed to replace it before it died.
This is the system I built. On your advice the 9500 card is definately out. I will consider the 9600's or the 4670 if you believe in it (I wouldn't have believed that the 8 year old card though slower but had less trouble with the peak demand of some of these remade arcade games than the newer card)
Thank you for the advice and your time. (no one likes to be preached at when they ask a straight forward question) Thanks again

Report •

#6
December 7, 2009 at 23:54:04
Yeah but who's fualt was it really ATI or the 3rd party vendor that built it?

You jumped too quick to judge ATI just because you had a bad card, that happens from time to time. Everyone that has had their share of pc builds have ran into bad parts from time to time.

Iron Sharpens Iron.


Report •

#7
December 8, 2009 at 04:38:20
Your probably right, it was either a bad card or the card was expecting something from the older system it wasn't getting ontime.... Any thoughts on this one:
GIGABYTE GV-R467D3-512I Radeon HD 4670 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 $69.99 less $10.00 (if rebate works) 2yr/3yr warrantee
also still looking at:
XFX PVT96GYGF3 GeForce 9600 GT 512MB 256-bit DDR3 $89.99 lifetime warrantee (note 256bit)
(system specs above) both companies appear good and there were others of course but less choices than there was a few weeks ago.
Thank you.

Report •

#8
December 8, 2009 at 04:44:23
The Geforce 9600GT is the better card it has 256bit memory vs the Radeon 4670 128bit memory, but the Geforce 9600GT also requires an additional power connection from the psu where the Radeon 4670 doesn't.

Iron Sharpens Iron.


Report •

#9
December 8, 2009 at 21:03:09
Thank you, It's nice to have my thoughts confirmed. The 6 pin plug is not problem, The 500watt PS (from Tiger Direct #A107-1117, see above) does include this plug and the 12v busses are 16A and 18A so I think I should be ok there. It's about 20.00 more for the XFX GeForce 9600GT than for the Gigabyte 4670 that I liked also from NewEgg... Final decision within 2 days (better number, better warrantee, I guess it's 1st choice at this point)
Thanks again
Added: Anyone use these yet on Windows 7 64bit?? Any problems with drivers?

Report •

#10
December 9, 2009 at 14:49:39
"The 500watt PS (from Tiger Direct #A107-1117, see above)"

Apevia? You didn't buy it yet, did you? Get this 400W Corsair instead:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...


Report •

#11
December 9, 2009 at 17:25:14
Like I said above, this machine has been running for a number of days already. Yes I purchased it, Yes I am using it. The reviews from others using it were very good and I thought it looked well made (good tight plugs, good grade wire insulation without being too stiff, mesh covering over wires, solid case, quiet fan, etc,) The system is running well, the only thing I am still working out is networking the Windows 7 to the Windows XP computers in my house, and that the onboard graphics are weak.

Report •

#12
December 12, 2009 at 21:47:51
Ended up purchasing the:
XFX PVT96GYGF3 GeForce 9600 GT 512MB 256-bit DDR3
The included disc did not include an installer compatable with Windows 7 64bit but windows supported it well enough to get the proper drivers downloaded and installed. Surprisingly, it did not have a port for the expected 6 pin connector (even though I have the connector on my PS.). It is running very good so far though I do not expect to use its fullest potential. Thanks everyone for the advice, it did really help.

Report •

#13
December 21, 2009 at 06:53:36
Update for anyone who cares:
The video card was a great upgrade, it runs much better than the onboard video (I guess I really should have gone straight with the next motherboard up without the onboard video (P43 or P45?) oh well) Great machine for my purposes at this time. I had tried minor overclocking before getting the video card (10% to 15%) since all over I read that the E2160 was great for overclocking and the Gigabyte boards were easy overclocking boards, but I was not getting stable results.... It turns out that the Intel onboard graphics was apparently being affected and did not tolerate it. I have run multiple applications at once for about 2 hours (41c to 43c temp) and it seems stable at about 12% OC, when I have more time, I will try a little higher. When I get to about 20% or 25% If my temps are still reasonable, I will really stress test it and if all goes well, I will probably just leave it there. [I am running a stock fan from a Quad core and I mainly just want a 'Quick stable machine' for the family]
If anyone cares: Windows 7 home premium 64bit running on 4Gig DDR2 800 Dual Channel runs great - quick on this rig, not too annoying Good work Microsoft, now DON'T SCREW IT UP!!!

Report •


Ask Question