My current system is an Athalon 1.8 ghz, NVIDIA gForce 4200Ti, with 1gb of RAM.
If I upgraded to a NVIDIA gForce 6800, where would the new bottleneck of that system be?
I'm wondering if the CPU is still fast enough to handle a faster video card.
Upgrade question
-
mbilderback
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:50 am
- Location: Memphis
- Contact:
Well, for gaming, you should switch to an Intel chip just for the added dedication to FP's. But in the end, you should be fine. You're best big money upgrade would be to get a bootable hardware RAID controller so that you can stripe the drives and reduce HDD access time whether you use SCSI or U-ATA.
-
mbilderback
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:50 am
- Location: Memphis
- Contact:
Why the hostility? Intel designs a better FP chip, ergo, a better gaming chip since 3D rendering relies heavily upon the processors FP calculations. That's not to say that the AMD chip isn't nice. It's faster with any processes that don't require FP. Desktop applications and business workstations should be eating the AMD chipset up. But because Intel is the big name, companies buy them. Because AMD is cheaper, home users buy them. It should be the opposite. Business should buy AMD's and gamers should buy Intels.
-
mbilderback
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:50 am
- Location: Memphis
- Contact:
Wait a second...
Are you suggesting that a equally priced AMD chip is inferior in gaming to a Intel? That goes in the face of every single Hardware Reports Benchmark i have seen in the last 6 months. In fact, it is the exact opposite, the Intel chips are better for workstation related activities than gaming. I did a lot of research on this topic and decided on the 2.4 gig 3400+ Newcastle AMD 64bit processor for the new rig...
WHICH ARRIVES IN THE MAIL NEXT WEEK!!
Are you suggesting that a equally priced AMD chip is inferior in gaming to a Intel? That goes in the face of every single Hardware Reports Benchmark i have seen in the last 6 months. In fact, it is the exact opposite, the Intel chips are better for workstation related activities than gaming. I did a lot of research on this topic and decided on the 2.4 gig 3400+ Newcastle AMD 64bit processor for the new rig...
WHICH ARRIVES IN THE MAIL NEXT WEEK!!
-
mbilderback
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:50 am
- Location: Memphis
- Contact:
No, that's not what I said. Now this may be slightly dated material (I haven't shopped for a processor since P4 1.9s) but the fact was that cost being irrelevant, the highest end P4s would out perform the highest end AMDs in FP. That's all. Cost usually dictates that the AMD is a better buy.Troy wrote:Wait a second...
Are you suggesting that a equally priced AMD chip is inferior in gaming to a Intel? That goes in the face of every single Hardware Reports Benchmark i have seen in the last 6 months. In fact, it is the exact opposite, the Intel chips are better for workstation related activities than gaming. I did a lot of research on this topic and decided on the 2.4 gig 3400+ Newcastle AMD 64bit processor for the new rig...
WHICH ARRIVES IN THE MAIL NEXT WEEK!!
-
71-1085092892
Yes, the highest end Intel and the highest end AMD, even at the same clockrate, will see Intel at a slight advantage. But not enough to justify the extra cost of the Intel.
AMD has 64bit CPU's now. Does Intel, yet? My next MB/CPU will be 64. But for now, specifically, I'm looking at having my original question answered, concerning that video card.
AMD has 64bit CPU's now. Does Intel, yet? My next MB/CPU will be 64. But for now, specifically, I'm looking at having my original question answered, concerning that video card.
GORDON wrote:I'm wondering if the CPU is still fast enough to handle a faster video card.
I'm no graphics expert, but I looked around and found this. If it's true, then your video card isn't fast enough to reach the full potential of the video card.
From here: 07-01-2004, There is no CPU that exists right now that will bottleneck either the X800 or 6800. Though if you ask me, the X800 will hit its limitations in terms of CPU speed before the 6800
I remember hearing on TechTv that with the fast CPU's, buff memory, and 1337 video cards, the 7200rpm HD is usually the bottleneck. Upping to a fast drive is the only way to make a significant difference (which is why I mentioned it earlier).
4500 RPMPaul wrote:How fast is your hard drive?
It really made a big difference? I've got a 800MHz system with 640Megs RAM, and it doesn't act like it. The only piece I haven't upgraded in longer than I can remember is the hard drive.
Maybe it's time.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
-
71-1085092892
Well, I've been wondering for awhile now why, no matter what operating system and hardware I've got on the computer, it takes an average of 18 minutes to boot up from power-on, and most programs took ages to get going. I never realized before, but the HD is the only constant through all of that.
Hmmmm ...
Hmmmm ...
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I recently installed a new hard drive and was accidentally using very old hard drive cables and it was only running at 33 ATA instead of 133.... HUGE DIFFERENCE. The hard drive itself is usually the biggest bottleneck even if you have alot of ram on your computer cache has to get stored on the hard drive from time to time that Swap File can really mess with your performance. Hell I even went so far as to have my swap file (page file) load on a totally seperate hard drive apart from the windows system file which made a big difference in load times as well. 4500 to even a 7000 rpm speed hard drive is a pretty big change as well, definately time to replace that one buddy.
-
71-1085092892
18 minutes, is that an exaggeration?TPRJones wrote:Well, I've been wondering for awhile now why, no matter what operating system and hardware I've got on the computer, it takes an average of 18 minutes to boot up from power-on, and most programs took ages to get going. I never realized before, but the HD is the only constant through all of that.
Hmmmm ...
Well, specifically it's 17 minutes and 54 seconds last time I timed it.GORDON wrote:18 minutes, is that an exaggeration?
Is your system a laptop? I wasn't aware they made 4500rpm desktop drives.
And Zet raises a good point... always make sure you are running higher than ATA-33, and get your media drives (CDRom/DVDrom) on their own cable.
It's a desktop, but it's really old 'cause I've been using the same HD since the mid-90s.
I think the cable I'm currently using was scavenged from a really really old system, but I've got others around here somewhere. How can I tell which is which?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
18 minutes.... damn I bet the old hard drive sounds like a playing card in the spokes of a kids bike too.
I really can't tell the difference from looking at the cables either but if you been using the same HD since the 90s I'll bet its running as fast as it can.... which is really fucking slow. It should tell you some specifics on the hard drive itself if you want to check it out and when your system first boots up it should state what speed all your HDs and CDROMS are operating at right after the memory test.
I really can't tell the difference from looking at the cables either but if you been using the same HD since the 90s I'll bet its running as fast as it can.... which is really fucking slow. It should tell you some specifics on the hard drive itself if you want to check it out and when your system first boots up it should state what speed all your HDs and CDROMS are operating at right after the memory test.
Can't let it go...
the 64bit processors seem to be the deciding factor in the domination over the similary priced intel chip.. One of many benchmarks
the 64bit processors seem to be the deciding factor in the domination over the similary priced intel chip.. One of many benchmarks