Page 1 of 3
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:37 am
by 71-1085092892
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:26 am
by mbilderback
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:20 am
by 71-1085092892
Fuck Intel.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:30 pm
by mbilderback
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:31 pm
by mbilderback
Ergo....visavie....CONCORDANTLY! :laugh:
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:04 pm
by Paul
How fast is your hard drive? A 5400rpm vs a 7200rpm makes an incredible difference with my 700MHz processor. I'm sure getting a 10,000rpm drive would make a big improvement.
(It'd also be hotter and louder.)
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:04 pm
by Troy
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!!
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:15 pm
by mbilderback
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!!
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:30 pm
by 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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:49 pm
by Paul
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).
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:53 pm
by TPRJones
Paul wrote:How fast is your hard drive?
4500 RPM
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:03 pm
by 71-1085092892
I don't think HD speed is going to matter. As long as you have enough RAM, most games don't need to continuously hit the HD. They load off the HD into memory... then run from memory.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:35 pm
by TPRJones
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 ...
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:02 pm
by Zetleft
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:23 pm
by 71-1085092892
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 ...
18 minutes, is that an exaggeration?
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:42 pm
by TheCatt
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:44 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:18 minutes, is that an exaggeration?
Well, specifically it's 17 minutes and 54 seconds last time I timed it.
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?
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:53 pm
by 71-1085092892
18 minutes. I think you almost have to have more than just slow HD problems.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:28 pm
by Zetleft
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.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:44 pm
by Troy
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