Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: magatsu1 on October 02, 2003, 04:08:00 pm

Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: magatsu1 on October 02, 2003, 04:08:00 pm
Mr Financial Strife:
"Wahaaaa! Mr magatsu, I see you have a little spare cash for a change! I'll take that! Haahahhhahhaaa! Watch as I unleash my evil "computer obsolete" materia on your pc!"

That's right. My 1ghz (Athlon), 256mgb and TNT2 won't cut it anymore. Unreal 2 gave the poor sod a good kickin', and now Homeworld 2 has come along and kicked it in the teeth while it was down.

So I'm thinkin' of upgrading with:
Processor in the region of 2ghz
GeForce chipset (G4 or maybe even FX for DX9 support)
and a shed load more memory.

Place thoughts/observations here.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: diamondgeezer on October 02, 2003, 04:13:07 pm
Get an Athlon XP 1880 Thoroughbred or more and and a fat heatsink and overclock that mofo. I went from 1.53 to 2GHz.

And yes, I keep posting this fact, but it's a good story and I like telling it :)

Oh, and don't touch the GF FX cards with a pole. Way too expensive, unless you're desperate for DX9 suport, in which case get an ATI
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: magatsu1 on October 02, 2003, 04:22:15 pm
"Get an Athlon XP 1880 Thoroughbred or more and and a fat heatsink and overclock that mofo. I went from 1.53 to 2GHz."

wouldn't that invalidate my warranty ? (natch!):D
I'm thinking sticking with nVidia would mean an easier job upgrading ?

(heheh, "mofo". I like it)
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Drew on October 02, 2003, 04:38:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Way too expensive, unless you're desperate for DX9 suport, in which case get an ATI


on the contrary, i just found FX's cheaper than most ATI cards....

hes right tho, ATI's are better in general tho they are expensive...

on the memory issue, what OS are you using? If your using XP its a good idea to load as much memory onto that sucker as you can (i learned the hard way i only have 256 on my XP machine)
if not you can probabl settle for less :) imo
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Odyssey on October 02, 2003, 04:41:28 pm
Get a bank of Pentium 90's... Then play so many 2D games that it has the illusion of action-packed-3D-ness.
Alternatively, play some less demanding games. I can recommend many of the best games ever that'll run on a 386 (NOT 386Mhz... You know, the classification).
(I have serious issues with having to do everything fast ^_^)
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Unknown Target on October 02, 2003, 05:17:20 pm
Quote
Originally posted by magatsu1
"Get an Athlon XP 1880 Thoroughbred or more and and a fat heatsink and overclock that mofo. I went from 1.53 to 2GHz."

wouldn't that invalidate my warranty ? (natch!):D
I'm thinking sticking with nVidia would mean an easier job upgrading ?

(heheh, "mofo". I like it)



Mag, there's a "Quote" button at the bottom right of everyone's posts ;)
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 02, 2003, 08:17:20 pm
GF FXs.... No real reason to get one. The only ones that are any good are the FX 5900 and the new FX 5700 and 5950.

If you want to future-proof your computer, get either a 2100+ or a 2500+ (or a 1700+/1800+ if you can ensure a good stepping), some PC3200 RAM, and a nice NF2U400 based board. Those are basically what I have. Only I wish I had the PC3200 RAM.....
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: diamondgeezer on October 03, 2003, 05:36:26 am
3200 RAM's the next thing on the shopping list. As for the FX cards, they're just too damn expensive. The bottom of the range one, the 5200 - you could get a high-end GF4 Ti or Radeon for the price of it. ~So it really depends on the DX9 support, though like I said if your're that desperate get a Radeon.

Now me personally I've got my super-duper Ti4800 SE in there. It's loud as a freight train, but it's *****in' fast :D
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: magatsu1 on October 03, 2003, 11:53:22 am
Drew: I'm stuck with ME, though it hasn't been too bad.
UT: yeah, I know!
Odyssey: Maybe I'm just a graphics tart, but who here doesn't want Halo, Thief et' all ?
My PC "as is" sure as hell won't run 'em, and I'm tired of playing old games. ('part form the modded examples 'course) ;)
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Admiral LSD on October 03, 2003, 01:05:11 pm
Get a 2.4Ghz (or even the 2.6Ghz part) "C" Class Pentium 4 with the 800Mhz FSB and then wind the FSB up to about 250-255Mhz (giving you a Quad-Pumped FSB of 1Ghz and an overall clock speed of 3-3.2Ghz). They're designed for it (you shouldn't need to adjust the vcore or use anything but stock cooling) and it'll be faster than anything AMD has in the same price range. AMD really lost the plot when it released the Barton's, let's hope the find it with the Athlon 64 (although their new policy of phasing out the faster chips in favour of simply cutting the price seems to indicate otherwise) as someone has to keep Intel honest. Oh, and be sure to get a decent i875 motherboard and matched dual-channel RAM sticks.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: pyro-manic on October 03, 2003, 02:50:41 pm
I'm having the same problem. My mobo kicked it in april, and I've had no money until now, so I was thinking of a Barton 2800, and an Asus A7N8X v.2 Deluxe to replace my Athlon 1200 and Gigabyte GA7-DX (the graphics - a GF2Ti - will have to wait at least a month until I get paid again :(), but that P4 idea has got me thinking...

Admiral: are the P4s good for overclocking and stuff? I haven't done it before, but that sounds pretty good to me. Will I have to get new memory, or will my old PC2100s do? I got 2 256Mb sticks, and I can't afford new ones at the moment (like I said, I gotta wait till I get paid again).
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: HotSnoJ on October 03, 2003, 03:05:44 pm
What ever you do get a mobo that had dual-channel DDR. :nod:

AMD is better for gaming IMHO since it can handle complex things that 3D game need. Intel gets the "speeds" it gets because it just forces stuff through many, many times (including FSB). So AMD is a better choice.

IMHO anyway.

I don't know much about graphics cards but I found this awhile ago and am thinking of getting one myself http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=587444&Sku=C261-6043.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Admiral LSD on October 03, 2003, 03:09:25 pm
The "C" class are perfect for overclocking. They're really just 3Ghz chips sold at lower clock speeds and so will ramp up to 3Ghz without any trouble whatsoever. Just set the FSB to about 250Mhz and you're away, no need for vcore adjustments, extra cooling, nothing. There really hasn't been an easier chip to overclock since the Celeron 300A.

As for RAM, your existing sticks may work but then again they may not. Dual channel RAM works best if the sticks are matched performance-wise. Some chipsets, nForce2 in particular, are extremely picky about this but I wouldn't know how the Intel chipsets fare in this regard.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: aldo_14 on October 03, 2003, 04:29:47 pm
I just bought an FX5600 to go with new compy stuff, and I've no complaints - my 3dmark scores went from 1300 to 8500 since I rebuilt me Pc innards.  Of course, i did previously have possibly the worst card on the market.....
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: magatsu1 on October 03, 2003, 04:30:18 pm
I'd be inclined to put more money into a decent graphics card than the processor. A decent card would make a high end processor somewhat un-necessary. IMO.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: aldo_14 on October 03, 2003, 05:05:07 pm
Depends a lot on what you;re doing with it..... I mean, stuff like physics and AI is probably going make processors become a lot more important than they may have been regarded as before.

Although, I did sacrifice getting a really good processor (got a mid-range-ish Athlon 2400) ot spend a few bob more on the gfx card... but I figure I ended up with a fairly balanced system.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: IceFire on October 03, 2003, 07:47:13 pm
You've got to balance your processor, memory, and video card requirements.  The latest games use that high end processor to do the physics calculations while the video card does the visual rendering.  The split is almost total these days...games with high physics loads on a slow processor and a fast video card are still slow.

So you'd be best to sort of get something inbetween for both.

Right now I'm recommending the FX cards less and less.  The recent DX9 tests show their current inadequacy.  There are issues that need to be resolved....DX9 needs to be updated for them to work better (the current DX9 does not support the architecture that nVidia is employing to get the maximum out of their cards) and nVidia needs to implement new drivers.  Nonetheless, the ATI cards are a good choice these days.

A Radeon 9700 Pro is still a top performer (I have one :D) and its price is very low...if you can find one.  Same will be for the 9800 Pro because the 9800 XT just came out and its quite a bit faster too.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 03, 2003, 08:00:05 pm
Actually, go for a 9800 Non-Pro (Note: Not the 9800SE). Same performance as a 9700 Pro, but cheaper.

Between a 2500+ and a 2.4C for overclocking: They both overclocka hell of a lot.

Will PC2100 RAM cut it? Only if you are using a AXP with a rating of 2400+ or below.

Does A64 compare with P4s? Quite well, with the A64 FXs (the renamed Opteron 148s) kicking the P4 3.2Cs ass.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: pyro-manic on October 04, 2003, 05:27:46 pm
Yeah, but an  Athlon64 FX costs the wrong side of £600, plus £150+ for the mobo. VERY bad unless you're loaded....
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 05, 2003, 03:11:29 pm
True. If you were going to go for one of the new A64s, I'd suggest the 3200+. That would only put you out the same amount as an equivalent P4.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: magatsu1 on October 05, 2003, 03:17:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Yeah, but an  Athlon64 FX costs the wrong side of £600, plus £150+ for the mobo. VERY bad unless you're loaded....


jeez, you can get a "high street package" (ie; PC World etc)  for not much more...
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: aldo_14 on October 05, 2003, 03:22:27 pm
Quote
Originally posted by IceFire
You've got to balance your processor, memory, and video card requirements.  The latest games use that high end processor to do the physics calculations while the video card does the visual rendering.  The split is almost total these days...games with high physics loads on a slow processor and a fast video card are still slow.

So you'd be best to sort of get something inbetween for both.

Right now I'm recommending the FX cards less and less.  The recent DX9 tests show their current inadequacy.  There are issues that need to be resolved....DX9 needs to be updated for them to work better (the current DX9 does not support the architecture that nVidia is employing to get the maximum out of their cards) and nVidia needs to implement new drivers.  Nonetheless, the ATI cards are a good choice these days.

A Radeon 9700 Pro is still a top performer (I have one :D) and its price is very low...if you can find one.  Same will be for the 9800 Pro because the 9800 XT just came out and its quite a bit faster too.


The whole video card debate is kinda of dodgy, though... i'd agree that the top end ATI cards seem to be the best, but I wasn;t so sure about mid range - everything I've heard seems to hint that the FX566 has a marginal edge over it's ATI equivalent.  there's also the factor of card specific optimisations with certain games, which might be a factor... I think Half Life 2 will be optimised for ATI cards (owing to the fact it's being bundled with the new cards  - albeit as 'buy for free' voucher), but doom 3 for nVidia.....
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Admiral LSD on October 06, 2003, 09:50:43 am
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
True. If you were going to go for one of the new A64s, I'd suggest the 3200+. That would only put you out the same amount as an equivalent P4.


So it costs the same amount as a 2.6Ghz P4? ;)
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: phreak on October 06, 2003, 11:11:46 am
well with recent developments, it looks like any nVidia card is out of the question.  unless its fake of course.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 06, 2003, 04:24:57 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Admiral LSD


So it costs the same amount as a 2.6Ghz P4? ;)
It costs the same as 3.2C, which has the same performance in games :p
Now if only they had a better implementation of SSE2, and it would handle as well as the 3.2C in rendering....
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Admiral LSD on October 08, 2003, 04:51:54 am
So in other words, if you buy a 2.6C P4 and overclock it to 3.2 you're still getting better value for money than either a "proper" 3.2C (which is a joke anyway as all the C class are "proper" 3.0-3.2Ghz chips) or an Athlon 64 3200+?
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 08, 2003, 03:19:19 pm
Yes, but really only if you already have a Socket 478 motherboard and you want to have 1 GB of memory. Socket 478's lifetime is running out, while Socket 754 will last for a while and doesn't require dual channel ram. Not to mention you can pull of a good 30% overclock of the 3200+ if you have good ram, which will put you at 2.6 GHz, beating the overclocked 2.6C P4.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: übermetroid on October 08, 2003, 11:15:20 pm
So what is the ATI equal of the FX5600?  And what is a great motherboard for it?


This is price line as of a few days ago.
$109   _-_   GeForce FX 5600 128MB
$59    _-_   nForce2 chipset
$71    _-_   Athlon XP 2500 333
:confused:
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 09, 2003, 02:41:29 pm
Depends on what you're doing for it. If you want a motherboard incredibly stable at stock speeds, get a Gigabyte. If you want a motherboard that overclocks really well, get an Abit. If you want a balance, get an Asus. If you want a cheap (price-wise, not quality) get a Biostar.
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: magatsu1 on October 09, 2003, 04:34:10 pm
so like, how do you overclock a cpu ?
Title: that time again (financial strife beckons)
Post by: Grey Wolf on October 09, 2003, 04:44:25 pm
You go into the BIOS, usually by hitting the delete key ("Del") during boot. Then you go into either Adv. Chipset Options, Frequency/Voltage Control, or possibly another one of the menus (varies depending on the motherboard, check your manual). Then you find the FSB option. Increase it by about 5. Save your changes and let the computer boot into Windows. Then run either SuperPi or 3DMark2001SE to test stability. If it is successful, go back into the BIOS and increase the FSB by 5 more. In the event that you no longer can increase the FSB, try raising the voltage on the RAM and the VCORE (be careful with this) or increasing the multiplier.  If at any time the computer fails to boot open up the case and reset the CMOS jumper.