Best HL2 upgrade for an AMD XP 2400+

[lnin0]

I have an AMD XP 2400+ with 512mb RAM and a 9500Pro (agp 4x mobo). I got a 17" LCD recently and the native resolution is 1280x1024. Unfortunatly my system can't push that res smoothly with good detail in the newer games like FarCry, Doom3 and, more than likely, HalfLife2.

So, my question is, what would be a better upgrade in the $400 range. A 6800GT video card or a cheaper $300 card like the 6800 or X800 pro with the extra $ going to bump the RAM up another 256mb ( I only have two slots - both filled with 256 so I would pull one and add a 512).

Will the 16 pipes help more than the additional 256mb system ram when trying to push 1280x1024?

I saw the thread saying video cards make a bigger difference than CPU and from my past experience I whole heartedly beleive this (unless someone shows me otherwise). Since my board only accepts socket A and until I can afford an AMD 64, new ram etc I would rather just keep the HL2 upgrades within reason.

Thanks
Tired of Playing Windowed

 

[otispunkmeyer]

6800gt much better buy than the x800pro

 

[dc5]

get a 6800gt. then upgrade your cpu/ram in the future. however, you won't be able to get the full perforamnce because your cpu will bottleneck your video card.

 

[James3shin]

68g tizzle fo shizzle

 

[IceMole]

no question, 6800GT

 

[Delorian]

I'd get a gainward golen sample GT for around 415-425. These are warrantied up to ultra speeds and come with a nice cooling setup, good deal for the money

 

[jiffylube1024]

6800GT for 4 bills would be the best upgrade. However, if you said you can find an X800 Pro for $300 then go for it; any more than that, though, and you're better off spending a bit more for the GT.

Do NOT get the 6800 plain though. X800 Pro or 6800GT are far better choices.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

OC'd XP chips have proven in benchmarks to be competitive with A64 and P4 in terms of not bottlenecking the GPU.

I'd say get whichever is cheaper and use the difference to get a good HSF for your processor and crank it up to 2.4.

 

[Kazrath]

Get a 6600GT (Six-Six-zero-zero)and 512MB ram

This will overall boost your system performance

The Vid card alone will do you jack poo. 512MB ram is to little for high end games. Once you get a chance get another 512MB stick of the exact same stuff and run with 1GB.

Just dropping a 6800GT will still leave your system highly unbalanced. For $400 i would recommend going the route I suggested. And it will balance out what your systems technology level is at.

The system should be sufficent for a good 1 - 1.5 years. Then in all honesty you are gonna wanna just build a new system.

-----
Don't get anything yet.. Your 4X AGP I didnt notice and none of the guys above caught it either... let me check specs for 4X compatibility. 6800GT would be worthless to you.

 

[Cawchy87]

I couldn't disagree more with the last statement. I can run any game on my p4 2.0 ghz with a 9800pro. But, my highly overclocked xp 2400 can't run anything with a 9600pro in there. Oviously the video card makes a HUGE differance in game play.

Check out this: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...9930&enterthread=y

If you can get an x800pro for 300 bucks that is an awsome deal and you should get it.

If you are going to spend 350-400 for a card, get a GT.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Kazrath
Get a 6600GT (Six-Six-zero-zero)and 512MB ram

This will overall boost your system performance

The Vid card alone will do you jack poo. 512MB ram is to little for high end games. Once you get a chance get another 512MB stick of the exact same stuff and run with 1GB.

Just dropping a 6800GT will still leave your system highly unbalanced. For $400 i would recommend going the route I suggested. And it will balance out what your systems technology level is at.

The system should be sufficent for a good 1 - 1.5 years. Then in all honesty you are gonna wanna just build a new system.

-----
Don't get anything yet.. Your 4X AGP I didnt notice and none of the guys above caught it either... let me check specs for 4X compatibility. 6800GT would be worthless to you.

Bull manure. 512MB, while not ideal, is fine for games, and a 6800GT with 512MB is much better than a 6600GT and a gig.

As for 4X AGP; all 4X AGP motherboards can run 8X AGP cards, so that is not a problem. The only issue is with 3.3V (1X and 2X AGP cards) in a 4X AGP slot.

 

[Kazrath]

Okay, there's a major problem

The only way you could get a 8X vid card to work in a 4X slot is if it is universally compatible with AGP 2.0 rating. Generally the newer AGP slots allow reverse compatibility but the cards are not reverse compatible with older slots.

Basically getting an 8X card "Might" work but could be unstable or not work at all.... or worse case you coudl fry it (AGP 2 is 1.5V as apposed to AGP 3 wich is .8V)

So you are stuck with an AGP 4X card.

Again I am going to recommend going to at least 768MB ram. (My old 1.33 Tbird recieved significant increase in performance by just this upgrade from 512MB)

As far as a solid 4X AGP card I'll have to look around a little more

 

[Kazrath]

I love arguing with people who have absolutly no clue how a computer works and just throws out the biggest and best.

I bet you are the same people that think a bigger wattage PSU makes your computer run faster. Seriously when you start speaking things that are even remotely correct I will start listening.

He has some major bottleneck issues with his system. Dropping a Big video card. Which as I posted just above this one is NOT compatible with his hardware will DO NOTHING for him.

On top of that he is using a relitivly slow processor.

"Having 1 fast leg will not let you win a marathon."

 

[Kazrath]

blah, Hard to find non compromising specs. It appears the Geforce 6800gt will work.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Kazrath, coming in here and calling the regulars idiots is not the way to gain favour here.

As recently as a couple weeks ago, this very topic has been discussed in this thread where the effects of a new graphics card vs a new CPU were argued. The conclusion was a unanimous "spend more on the video card than the CPU for the biggest improvement in games."

As for AGP 4x; it is only ".8V" because it does two transfers per AGP 4x clock; it's not a radically different standard requiring a new AGP slot like the jump from 2x to 4x AGP, but an extension to AGP 4x design. As part of the official AGP 8x spec, AGP 8x cards must be backwards compatible to AGP 4x.

You are getting the 3.3V/AGP 1x/2x standard and the 1.5V AGP 4x/8x specs confused. It's only old cards like a Voodoo 3 AGP that fry AGP 4x or 8x equipped motherboards.


As for 768MB of RAM, what did you get a tangible improvement in? Load times perhaps, but it is not a significant boost for framerate in games. I went from 512MB to 1GB and received a 0-5% improvement in games; a far cry from the improvement going from an old card to a 6800GT or even from a 6600GT to a 6800GT, which smokes the latter at 1280X1024 with AA and AF. The biggest improvement by going over 512MB is getting rid of 'lags' or 'hiccups' in modern games when they have to access the HD/pagefile. So, in this sense, the extra RAM is useful for the overall smoothness of the game, but you will still get a much faster experience with a 6800GT over a lesser card.


The "I love arguing with people who have absolutly no clue how a computer works and just throws out the biggest and best. " argument is worthless if you don't have facts to back it up.


As for his CPU; it is getting long in the tooth (2 Ghz Athlon XP, 256K L2 on a 133 MHz FSB), and if anything he woul be MUCH better served buying an Athlon XP mobile chip and putting it in there than getting another 256MB or 512MB of RAM.

 

[dtrostli]

The extra 256 of RAM wont increase your performance a 1/4 of what a 6800GT would go out an buy it. Dont worry about your cpu and RAM. My rig is similar (Athlon XP 2800+, 512 RAM) and I recently went from a GeForce 5200fx to a 9800 XT... and my video card is still the bottleneck of my system. Good luck.

 

[Mike11]

dotn be a fool get a x800 for 329 and save yourself the 80 bucks, its not much slower, maybe 4 - 5 fps at lower res and 1-2 at high res and AA

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: Mike11
dotn be a fool get a x800 for 329 and save yourself the 80 bucks, its not much slower, maybe 4 - 5 fps at lower res and 1-2 at high res and AA

-What rock did u crawl out from under? Seriously, u dont know any of us, nor know if we know something or not. You just started posting, and u act like nobody but u knows anything in here. Why don't u ask ppl why they think something, and ask them to prove it, or when they do shove it back in ur face violently, ull look like an idiot and gain no credit on here. Granted, u have your points. But, jiffylube is known to know what hes talking about and whose opinions should be considered before stating that he is wrong and saying that he "doesnt know how a computer works".

-I'm sorry if i sounded harsh, but we all only have so many hours in a day, and we all miss things and forget things dispite how much we really do know about computers. That is why many of us come here. We come here to converse, correct, and be corrected in order to get as close to the truth as we can. What use is an ego if its based on falisity?

-And about your comment on the pro vs the gt, it is true in certian situations. Others, the GT pulls way ahead. On these forums, most people that regularly come here actually have a gt more then any other single card. They have their reasons. U should ask for their evidence because u may be surprised by some of their findings.

-Basically im asking for you to contribute to a discussion, rather then suplementing your ego on these forums through ignorance and unthorough questioning. No offense, of course.

 

[imported_oneiros]

lnin0, I was in a similar situation some time ago. I am still using a Athlon XP 2400+ with 512 mg RAM and used to have a GeForce 4 Ti4600 in my comp. After a bombardment of reviews online and discussions here on the forum, I decided on a BFG 6800 GT OC. Though I'm sure any 6800 GT would be sufficient, the BFG lifetime warranty is nice and is worth the extra cash. I beat Doom 3 and Far Cry some time ago and did not experience lag at high settings. Currently playing Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War with everything turned up and it is damn nice. Have not had a chance to play CS Source but if Doom 3 runs at high with no problems, I'm sure Half-Life 2 won't be a problem either.

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

I would go with the 6800 GT. For a while I was running a 2400+ and it was running fine. You also said you will be getting an A64 soon so get the 6800 GT now and when you get the money to get an A64 do that.
And Kazrath said 4x AGP will fry a card he is wrong. I was running a 6800 on a 4x AGP K7S5A for about a month and it never fried my card

 

[imported_Kram]

What is everyone's thoughts on the plain old 6800, or on the 6600GT, from a price/performance perspective? Here (in Australia), we have the following pricing situation:

Cheapest 6600GT (128Mb DDR3): $335 (= 48% )
Cheapest 6800 (128Mb DDR1): $460 (= 66% )
Cheapest 6800GT (256Mb DDR3): $690 (= 100% )

Granted that the 6800GT is a lot faster at higher resolutions or in situations that use a lot of video memory. It's still a lot more expensive though. I'd love to just go out and get one, but I try to upgrade my video card fairly regularly and it gets too expensive to go top-of-the-line (or close to it) each time.

I guess that everyone needs to consider the resolutions that they will be running at, and whether or not they will have full AA/AF as well. Where I go LAN gaming (each week), my monitor just isn't capable of running at the high resolutions, so I'll probably be at 1024x768 on most things anyway. At home is a different matter, but I think that for myself at least, either the 6800 or the 6600GT offers the better value for money at the moment.

Kazrath, the problem with the 6600GT at the moment is that it is PCIE-only, so lnin0 can't use it; the AGP version is likely to be out at the end of November, but availability might be an issue. So that will also play a factor.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Kram
What is everyone's thoughts on the plain old 6800, or on the 6600GT, from a price/performance perspective? Here (in Australia), we have the following pricing situation:

Cheapest 6600GT (128Mb DDR3): $335 (= 48% )
Cheapest 6800 (128Mb DDR1): $460 (= 66% )
Cheapest 6800GT (256Mb DDR3): $690 (= 100% )

Granted that the 6800GT is a lot faster at higher resolutions or in situations that use a lot of video memory. It's still a lot more expensive though. I'd love to just go out and get one, but I try to upgrade my video card fairly regularly and it gets too expensive to go top-of-the-line (or close to it) each time.

I guess that everyone needs to consider the resolutions that they will be running at, and whether or not they will have full AA/AF as well. Where I go LAN gaming (each week), my monitor just isn't capable of running at the high resolutions, so I'll probably be at 1024x768 on most things anyway. At home is a different matter, but I think that for myself at least, either the 6800 or the 6600GT offers the better value for money at the moment.

Kazrath, the problem with the 6600GT at the moment is that it is PCIE-only, so lnin0 can't use it; the AGP version is likely to be out at the end of November, but availability might be an issue. So that will also play a factor.

The 6600GT is by far the best deal there, being less than half the cost of the 6800GT. Forget the 6800nu; your choice should be between the 6800GT and the 6600GT (do you want to spend more or less? How much performance is acceptable for you?)

It also depends on what you're upgrading from. If it's a pre-DX9 card than the 6600GT should be a quite noticeable upgrade; if it's from something like a 9700Pro or newer, the difference will probably be underwhelming.

 

[imported_Kram]

Personally my price limit is AU$500, so that's either the 6800nu or the 6600GT (for myself). lnin0 may have a different budget.

I'm inclined to agree - the 6600GT does offer a better price/performance ratio than the 6800nu. The 6800nu is similar in performance or marginally faster than the 6600GT (edit: there's a threadhere), but the 6600GT is quite a bit cheaper than the 6800nu (72% the price of the 6800nu, but > 72% performance).

It still comes down to availability however - the 6600GT won't be available in AGP for some time yet (personally, I'm thinking you'd be lucky to be able to get one before Christmas). So that makes the 6800nu a bit more attractive in the short term.

FYI, I'm upgrading from the venerable old Ti4200, so I'm going to see a decent jump in performance for the newer games in particular, whichever way I go.

 

[dguy6789]

If you want halflife 2 performance then ati all the way. Halflife 2 will be for ATI what doom 3 was for nividia performance wise, maybe even more so.

 

[iversonyin]

i recommend bump up the ram to 1gig and a vanilla 6800 or 6600GT should be out by the tiem HL 2 come out

i jus re-read it, u usin AUD not USD, therefore, u should upgrade 9800PRO and 1 gig RAM and sell off the 9500