RuneStorm
http://www.runestorm.com/forums/

graphics card question.
http://www.runestorm.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=67434		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  LtCLifff [ Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Hey guys. I have been looking at upgrading my system, and getting a new graphics card seems like the way to go. I have looked around, and decided that the 8800gts is for me. However. I am not sure wether my cpu is going to bottleneck the perfomance of the card.

Operating system: MS Windows XP Home Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)
CPU Frequency (Mhz): 2793
Main Memory (MB): 2048
DirectX installed: Yes
DirectX version: 9.0c
Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 8600 GT
Shader Model: 3.000000
Graphic Driver Version: 16218
Video Memory (MB): 256

Intel(R)
Pentium(R) 4 cpu 2.80GHz
2.79GHz
Author:  Bjossi [ Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Ditch the Pentium 4. P4 + 8800 GTS is like trying to use a bicycle to power Los Angeles.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:21 am ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
:D I thought as much. Would I gain much of an improvemnt in performance if I got a new dual core proccesser? (And no graphics card)
Author:  DK [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:32 am ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Yes. That's pretty much all you need... and prolly 2-4GBs of RAM.
Author:  Tyster [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:46 am ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
I would think that 2GB of memory should be plenty for the current high-end games. If we consider a specific game, such as Crysis, then they recommend a dual core 2.2GHz processor or faster (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/10/10 ... revealed/1). According to another site (http://www.crysisdemo.com/crysis-system ... ements.htm), you need with an Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2Ghz, which can be bought for about $120, or an AMD dual core 4400+ (2.3GHz), which can be bought for about $50. other AMD suggestions would be the 5600 (2.8GHz) for $80 or the 6000+ (3.1GHz) for about $92. Some Intel suggestions would be the Core 2 Duo E7200 Wolfdale (2.53GHz) or the Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0GHz).

Anyone know if Crysis can efficiently use 3 or 4 cores? If so, it might be worth considering the Intel Q6600, but I heard that you cannot overclock it as much, these days, compared to half a year ago.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:15 am ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
I have a lubly jubly 3 gigs of ram already :D

Are you saying, that with a a new dual core proccesser I would be able to play stuff like crysis?

Anyway. Thansk alot for your help guys! Im a bit of a noob when it comes to computery stuff :D
Author:  Tyster [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:20 am ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Yes, any of the CPUs I mentioned above (or similar) will should be able to run Crysis. The dual core 2.3GHz AMD or 2.2Ghz Intel CPUs are above the minimum requirements and meet the suggested requirements, but going up to 3.0 GHz should yield a noticeable increase in performance. Spending $66 on a dual core AMD CPU @2.6GHz should be fine. Spending $80 on a 2.8GHz AMD dual core CPU should be even better.
Author:  Bjossi [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
LtCLifff wrote:
Are you saying, that with a a new dual core proccesser I would be able to play stuff like crysis?


The Pentium 4 is the biggest pile of garbage Intel has ever put out in their history of processor manufacturing.

You would indeed be getting one hell of a performance increase by going for a C2D or C2Q. Both got new processing architecture (at the time at least) that makes each clock cycle get more work done, not to mention that there are 2 - 4 cores available for duty. Almost all modern games are optimized for at least 2 cores.

Even if you bought a quad core and only 2 cores were doing any work, you could simply run one of those science projects on your PC and let them utilize CPU2 & 3 while you use CPU0 & 1 for yourself.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:40 am ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Thats great news :D Thanks guys!
Author:  ShadowBlade [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
P4 the worst thing? mine runs all the new games just fine.. have had no problem with it.. certainly had no beef from it.. i have had bad experience with an AMD...

anyway, Quad Cores at the moment are used by very few games, and only some high-end software.. they'll start to use all 4 CPU's in the near future though i guess.. but it will be slower than dual cores for current stuff
Author:  Bjossi [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
ShadowBlade wrote:
P4 the worst thing? mine runs all the new games just fine.


That's good, if it performs well what you want it to do, but calling it a good processor would be lying. Take special notice of the clock-to-clock comparison charts, the only reason P4 does better than its older brother is because it can reach higher clock frequencies. And they used this tech for as long as reaching 4 GHz numbers, that is what I call milking the cow until blood starts coming out. . .

Anyway, I don't know what happened inside the company during those days, but they finally came to their senses and the first Core 2-based processor saw the daylight. A processor that put the AMDs of that time to shame, same is happening now with AMD's Phenoms and the Core 2 Quads. Nehalem versus next gen AMDs will be one interesting battle.
Author:  Tyster [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:38 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Bjossi wrote:
the only reason P4 does better than its older brother is because it can reach higher clock frequencies.

Is that a bad thing? Whether a chip works faster becasue it has more efficient piping, faster frequency, or can ustilize the power of the force, I thought the price and how fast it can do stuff (and wattage/heat) is what counts for the consumer. Are you trying to say that it Intel should have been able to make a faster chip for the asme money/speed/heat trade-offs, or are you just saying that Intel had been put to shame by AMD until the Core 2 Duos?

Anyways, back on track, Intel dual core CPUs are generall 10%-15% faster than AMD 64 X2 CPUs. It will be up to you to decide how much money you are willing to spend and how much you want performance. If you decide to go with Intel and end up spending around $160 for a CPU, then you might consider just going up to $200 for the Q6600. Otherwise, spending $70-90 on a faster AMD dual core CPU shoulod be fine for UT and Crysis, but then your video card would be the bottleneck. Either way, there's a good chance you will have to buy a new motherboard, which wil cost $50-$100. Can you give us the CPU interface you have? if not, the CPU or motherboard model?
Author:  Bjossi [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Tyster wrote:
or are you just saying that Intel had been put to shame by AMD until the Core 2 Duos?


Yes. AMD did better for a while before the C2Ds, but not all the way back to the early 1990s, that would be a stretch.

And what I meant above is that P4s are better than the P3s for the sole reason of maximum clock frequency, that is quite obvious both from the clock-by-clock chart and the reviewer's comment, after all the P3 was obviously getting more work done than an equally fast P4. Which is a wtf moment similar to the 4850 doing better than the 4870 in some situations.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
The PC is a Dell Dimension 5000 (I know some hate them). I think my biggest problem is that it is a BTX form factor. I fear I may be into a new case and I begin to see a slippery slope??!
Author:  Tyster [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Hmmm, not a slippery slope so much as an expensive inconvenience. Let's say ypu go for the cheaper hardware that will still run UT3 fine... $40 for the case, $70 for the mobo, $70 for the CPU = $180. I know from previous posts you have an ok video card, hard drive, sufficient memory, I assume your power supply can handle a good 500W? if not, tack on $45. It has been my experience that changing the power supply on a pre-made computer is generally an annoyance becasue companies like Dell and HP find some sort of pleasure in using only hardware that has some wort of proprietary design or is at least incompatible with most other hardware.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
Would the DDR RAM work with a new Motherboard?

Also. I can already play UT3 fine. I am more interested in games like crysis, stalker, far cry 2 etc.
Author:  Bjossi [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
LtCLifff wrote:
Would the DDR RAM work with a new Motherboard?

Also. I can already play UT3 fine. I am more interested in games like crysis, stalker, far cry 2 etc.


Dual data rate has been supported for god-knows-how-many years, all modern processors and mobos support the newest standard; DDR2. Though DDR3 is not too far away so if you hold out a bit longer you could take advantage of the price drops.
Author:  Tyster [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
However, if you really really want a new motherboard that supports DDR right now, then it can be done. They do still exist in stores - and ebay. However, spending $80 on a nmew motherboard that supports an out-dated memory may help only inn the short term, since DDR is slower than DDR2 or DDR3. I don't know exactly how that would affect frame rate. Anyone know of a list of memory benchmarks?
Author:  Bjossi [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  graphics card question.
I can't find any memory benchmarks with a quick google search, the processors and GPUs dominate that area.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/