Newbie: Should I Upgrade?

Computergasm

Senior member
Dec 13, 2002
243
0
0
Got a GeForce 3 that came with my Dell P4 1.8. Would I see a big difference if I upgraded to a 9700 Pro? Should I wait for the GeForceFX?
 

sash1

Diamond Member
Jul 20, 2001
8,897
1
0
You would see a difference, but I would only upgrade if the games you play are feeling sluggish and/or you want more performance, otherwise, save the money.

"Should I wait for the GeForceFX?"

Only if by then you'll have around $500 and 2PCI slots to lose.

Oh, and I almost forgot, welcome to the forums! :)
 

bikinistud

Member
May 31, 2002
50
0
0
What games are you playing? What resolution are you playing them at? Do you like all the bells and whistles?

If you...

*play Unreal 2003
*Like High resolutions ie.1600x1200 or higher
*Like real high FSAA or Aniso Filtering

Then ya you "might" upgrade but if you plan to play doom 3 WAIT!!! nobody is quite sure what it will take to run that game.

Hope that helps.
 

Wolfsraider

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
8,305
0
76
spend 200 on the 9500pro version the 9700 would be better served on at least a 2.2 or 2200+ system
 

zShowtimez

Senior member
Nov 20, 2001
544
0
76
Then ya you "might" upgrade but if you plan to play doom 3 WAIT!!! nobody is quite sure what it will take to run that game.
Carmack said it was being designed to run on the GF2 line of cards.. I would assume it will run on a GF3
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
"spend 200 on the 9500pro version the 9700 would be better served on at least a 2.2 or 2200+ system "

Hmmm. The reviewers at Anandtech seem to disagree with you:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1683&p=22
" It isn't really until you reach the 1.33 - 1.40GHz mark that the 9700 Pro really begins to pull away."
They seem to think you start seeing the the improvement over a Ti4600 with a 1500+ cpu. Do you have some links that prove otherwise? Where did you come up with "2.2 or 2200+" as the baseline for a 9700 being worthwhile?

If you want some idea about how much of a performance increase you'll get with a 9700, I went from low 8K range (GF4-Ti4400) on 3dmark 2001SE to low 11K range (R9700 retail) with an Athlon 1600+. That's almost a 30% jump in performance on a machine I supposedly "won't see any benefit on".

Don't let people convince you not to buy as good of a VGA as they have, just because you haven't spent as much on a cpu as they have. Your cpu is fast enough that you can definitely benefit from a 9700.









 

NEVERwinter

Senior member
Dec 24, 2001
766
0
71

Welcome to Anandtech forum! :p

well, i only upgrade when my games starts to run slower or sluggish, so far my Rad8500 still ok. Otherwise, i also agree with bikinistud's argument.
 

Wolfsraider

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
8,305
0
76
Originally posted by: Rollo
"spend 200 on the 9500pro version the 9700 would be better served on at least a 2.2 or 2200+ system "

Hmmm. The reviewers at Anandtech seem to disagree with you:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1683&p=22
" It isn't really until you reach the 1.33 - 1.40GHz mark that the 9700 Pro really begins to pull away."
They seem to think you start seeing the the improvement over a Ti4600 with a 1500+ cpu. Do you have some links that prove otherwise? Where did you come up with "2.2 or 2200+" as the baseline for a 9700 being worthwhile?

If you want some idea about how much of a performance increase you'll get with a 9700, I went from low 8K range (GF4-Ti4400) on 3dmark 2001SE to low 11K range (R9700 retail) with an Athlon 1600+. That's almost a 30% jump in performance on a machine I supposedly "won't see any benefit on".

Don't let people convince you not to buy as good of a VGA as they have, just because you haven't spent as much on a cpu as they have. Your cpu is fast enough that you can definitely benefit from a 9700.
p-4 1.5 i got 9800 in 3d mark on my 2.8 i got 15770

i didn't mean he won't be able to notice any difference but if the cpu chokes that much of the card at 1.5 then ....why not save a few bucks (almost 150.00 difference) and if you do a search you will find that this has been discussed

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=928048&highlight_key=y&keyword1=ati

sarge1 said it best :
Snowman is right. They're just saying you may not get the maximum out of the 9700 depending on your CPU, but you will get a BIG BOOST nonetheless. I have an AMD 1600 XP and that card runs sweet! But running the UT2003 benchmark(the one in the game) with all settings set for performance, and with the settings maxed out, the 9700 got the same score on both benches. This tells me that the card has not yet been pushed to it's limit, so when I get a bigger CPU, it will do even better!
sorry to bother you rollo

the limit of the cpu is a big difference on my 2.8 i get no slowdowns with 16 bots in ctf or bombing run but the 1.5 starts choking and becomes a slide show at times.

i'll leave it at that with this final comment if you get the 9700 you will love the card but you will utilize its full potential above 2 gigs much better

mike
 

Sarge1

Member
Mar 11, 2001
79
0
0
Don't let people convince you not to buy as good of a VGA as they have, just because you haven't spent as much on a cpu as they have. Your cpu is fast enough that you can definitely benefit from a 9700.
I'm with him. I went from a GF3 (standard no TI) which worked pretty darn good too, to a 9700 Pro and got a 4200 point jump in 3DMark, and UT2K3 runs sooooo much sweeter now. That's with an AMD 1600+.
As far as waiting for the GeForce FX, do that then you'll be waiting for the Radeon R350, then the GFX2, R400, FX12, R9000.....ARRRRRRGH!!!! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE...WE HAVE TAKEN CONTROL....ALL YOUR GEFORCE ARE BELONG TO US
 

Sarge1

Member
Mar 11, 2001
79
0
0
Wolfsraider
Wow thanks Wolfsraider, I think that's my first ever quote. Was typing while you were posting. That's what my next upgrade will be, a 2600+ (as soon as my wife forgets about this last one) when the price gets below a Scrillion dollars. It's also the biggest chip my 8KHA+ will handle. Should be good for another year or two then.
 

Wolfsraider

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
8,305
0
76
you simply stated it best.

there was a thread with thugsrook and quite a few others were in on about this same thing.

i noticed the graphics a lot on the p4 1.5 but compared to the 2.8 @ 3150 its night and day to me.

getting the wife to forget is easier if you get her something in return lol

mine got a newer van last year lol ;)

that 2600+ will make that seem like a new card all over again:p
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Mike:
"this has been discussed "
This may have been discussed, but it was just some guy giving his opinion. He didn't post any links to show on objective review site backing up his opinion that this guy would see no performance difference between a 9500 and a 9700. On the other hand, I'll post this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=5
See how the Ti4600 is faster than the 9500 Pro?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=6
Again, especially at high res, 4600 smacks down the 9500Pro
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=7
More 4600 smacking going on here...

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1683&p=22
Here's my original link that says " It isn't really until you reach the 1.33 - 1.40GHz mark that the 9700 Pro really begins to pull away"

Now: Why would the original poster want to buy a 9500 Pro that gets smacked down by a Ti4600, when the site we're on says that even at 1.4GHz the 9700 is pulling away from the 4600? That means it will really be smacking the 9500 Pro.
Do you think a 1.8GHz P4 is a ton slower than a 1.4Ghz Athlon?

Also, how do you know he's not planning to buy a new cpu in the near future as well? He could sell his 1.8 for about a $100, add $80 to it and get a 2.4. Then his computer would be a whole 10% slower than yours, which would be indiscernible. All for $80 more bucks and making the right choice when he buys a VGA now.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020826/p4_2800-05.html

I'm going to buy a 2.53 board in the next few weeks. If I would have listened to guys like you when I sold my Ti4400, I'd be screwed. I'd have a processor capable of performing within 5% of your 2.8, but I'd have a crippled VGA and guys like you would stomp me in online in UT2003.

Original Poster: ALWAYS buy the best you can afford, or at least the best for the amount of money you want to spend. There are a lot of guys on these boards handing out bad advice, their reasons for doing so I can't fathom. You'll never be sorry having bought the fastest of anything, except maybe cpus. (the difference in performance between the top of the line and a few notches down is never close to the huge price difference)

"I went from a GF3 (standard no TI) which worked pretty darn good too, to a 9700 Pro and got a 4200 point jump in 3DMark, and UT2K3 runs sooooo much sweeter now. That's with an AMD 1600+."
My point exactly Sarge. BTW- I have the same rig you do. I thought about the 2600/bios flash deal, but think I'm going to go back to the dark side for a while. The 2600+ on a new board is more than a P4 2.53/new board! Sheesh, I don't know why AMD is thinking I like VIA/SIS/nVidia motherboards more than Intel so I'm willing to pay a higher price for the same performance?!
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
BTW Wolfsraider-
"the limit of the cpu is a big difference on my 2.8 i get no slowdowns with 16 bots in ctf or bombing run but the 1.5 starts choking and becomes a slide show at times."
"i noticed the graphics a lot on the p4 1.5 but compared to the 2.8 @ 3150 its night and day to me."

So you're saying that when you go from a mediocre cpu, to one running as fast as cpus can possibly run, it just seems better to you? Who'd have thought?!
 

Wolfsraider

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
8,305
0
76
Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW Wolfsraider-
"the limit of the cpu is a big difference on my 2.8 i get no slowdowns with 16 bots in ctf or bombing run but the 1.5 starts choking and becomes a slide show at times."
"i noticed the graphics a lot on the p4 1.5 but compared to the 2.8 @ 3150 its night and day to me."

So you're saying that when you go from a mediocre cpu, to one running as fast as cpus can possibly run, it just seems better to you? Who'd have thought?!
i said no slowdowns period maybe you missed that:p oh and the reviewers aren't disagreeing with me,i wasn't talking to them;)



Here's my original link that says " It isn't really until you reach the 1.33 - 1.40GHz mark that the 9700 Pro really begins to pull away"
and really begins to pull away so it starts climbing at 10% ok but the scaling is linear right
so at 400 mhz its what 30% faster but @ 1400mhz its 70% faster than that right?

Also, how do you know he's not planning to buy a new cpu in the near future as well?
i don't but he is willing to wait for a gforce fx if its better so it sounds like all he's looking for is a video card
the 9500 pro would be a big difference and 200 dollars cheaper so it was my suggestion lol

I'm going to buy a 2.53 board in the next few weeks. If I would have listened to guys like you when I sold my Ti4400, I'd be screwed. I'd have a processor capable of performing within 5% of your 2.8, but I'd have a crippled VGA and guys like you would stomp me in online in UT2003
when did we talk as i don't remember giving you advice and since you are unhappy with my advice please feel free to ignore my posts-you won't bother me to have a different opinion from mine;)

Original Poster: ALWAYS buy the best you can afford, or at least the best for the amount of money you want to spend. There are a lot of guys on these boards handing out bad advice, their reasons for doing so I can't fathom. You'll never be sorry having bought the fastest of anything, except maybe cpus. (the difference in performance between the top of the line and a few notches down is never close to the huge price difference)
are you agreeing with me here:the difference in performance between the top of the line and a few notches down is never close to the huge price difference?

if not then why are you only getting a 2.53?

"I went from a GF3 (standard no TI) which worked pretty darn good too, to a 9700 Pro and got a 4200 point jump in 3DMark, and UT2K3 runs sooooo much sweeter now. That's with an AMD 1600+."





maybe without the eye candy on the ti4600 is a decent card but it isn't directx 9 compliant and add the visuals and what were you saying again?

oh and maybe you also didn't read this,

There are a few reasons I find this card to be interesting right now. Like you mentioned, the DX9 features are there, but it's also important to note that what Anand previewed was not the final product. The actual retail 9500 pro will have 128 megs of memory, whereas the preview had 64. I'm also interested to see how the retail card overclocks. And one last thing that really made me curious about the 9500 Pro: here is a blurb from the front page of Hardocp, who are generally pretty good when it comes to accuracy

important to note that what Anand previewed was not the final product what not the final product.is that the review you were talking about?

rand stated this
Full hardware DX9 compliancy, a much improved FSAA and anisotrophy implementation. Pixel and vertex shader sperformance that leaves the Ti4200 in the dust.... and future games are only going to rely more and more heavily on vertex shaders.
Vastly superior DVD playback capabilities.
but it applies to the 4600 as well

and
When reading the previews of the 9500 pro that was on a castrated 9700 pro board, only had 64MB of RAM and didn't have optimised drivers. The final product should be FAR faster

most of that came from this thread


yes i stated my opinion and stand by it,ymmv :D

hth

mike
 

acx

Senior member
Jan 26, 2001
364
0
71
Originally posted by: Rollo
Mike:
"this has been discussed "
This may have been discussed, but it was just some guy giving his opinion. He didn't post any links to show on objective review site backing up his opinion that this guy would see no performance difference between a 9500 and a 9700. On the other hand, I'll post this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=5
See how the Ti4600 is faster than the 9500 Pro?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=6
Again, especially at high res, 4600 smacks down the 9500Pro
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=7
More 4600 smacking going on here...
Actually in the links you posted, the Radeon 9500 Pro (Final) is smacking down on the Ti4600 in Unreal Tournament 2003 and Comanche4. The "Radeon 9500 Pro (Final)" is the one that is being produced.

UT2k3 botmatch is severely cpu limited from all the AI and physics that the CPU has to handle. 3DMark2001 is also heavily CPU dependent. Overclocking a processor or getting a faster will boost your 3DMark scores more than an improvement in your graphics card most of the time.

As to the original question, it depends heavily on what games you play and what applications you use. Do you like turn based strategy? Going from a GeForce3 to a Radeon 9700 Pro will make little difference if all the games you play are like Europa Universalis or Civilization. Do you like the latest games with lots of 3D action and want to pump up all the graphics details? Then a Radeon 9700 Pro will probably make a big difference.

As for waiting for the next generation of graphics cards, a good question to ask is if your current card runs the games you want to play adequately? If you are perfectly satisfied with the performance from your GeForce 3 in whatever games or applications you use then there is no reason to upgrade right away.

Of course, if you got money to burn then by all means go and buy the Radeon 9700 Pro.
 

Bovinicus

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2001
3,145
0
0
You will see quite a difference. It depends if you play games as the primary function of your system. If so, and you like to use high-resolutions, FSAA, and other eye candy, then the 9700 is a good choice.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
"oh and the reviewers aren't disagreeing with me,i wasn't talking to them"
The problem with this is that you're just posting unsupported opinions, that aren't very accurate, under the guise of giving advice. At least I posted my own experiences upgrading to a R9700 with a motherboard approximately equal to his. This is called being helpful. Then I posted some links to show he'll get a big boost out of upgrading to a 9700.
All you did is brag about your new box, and tell him his computer isn't "worthy" of the VGA you have.

"and really begins to pull away so it starts climbing at 10% ok but the scaling is linear right
so at 400 mhz its what 30% faster but @ 1400mhz its 70% faster than that right?"
If what you're trying to say here is that there is a minimum threshold of cpu power to have before it makes a difference to have some VGAs, I guess we all know that. The point is what is "worth it" is pretty subjective, Sarge and I found it "worth it" to have 30-40% more power, and when we upgrade cpus, a lot more than that. Your "advice" boxes him in to mid level performance should he choose to upgrade his cpu.

"the 9500 pro would be a big difference and 200 dollars cheaper so it was my suggestion lol"
Hmmm, where are 9500Pros $200 cheaper than 9700Pros?

"when did we talk as i don't remember giving you advice and since you are unhappy with my advice please feel free to ignore my posts-"
If you read my post it said "If I would have listened to guys like you when I sold my Ti4400, I'd be screwed" and that was the whole point that you obviously missed.
You see, if I would have asked for advice like the original poster when I bought my 9700Pro, guys like you would have said," That is overkill for your 1600+! You need at LEAST a 2200+! Buy a 9500Pro." Of course then I'd be stuck with a 9500Pro when I upgraded my motherboard a few months later.

"are you agreeing with me here:the difference in performance between the top of the line and a few notches down is never close to the huge price difference?
if not then why are you only getting a 2.53?"
No, If you read my post I said the that cpus don't perform much better when you get to the top of the line, VGAs do. Why am I only getting a 2.53? Well, I can afford any motherboard I want. I buy a new motherboard every year, usually many VGAs. I'm looking at the 2.53 because I see benchmarks like these:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1690&p=9
that show a 2.53 running UT2003 at 174fps, and your 2.8 running it at 182 fps. I whip out my calculator and see that is 95.6% of the performance, and realize those 8 fps aren't going to be noticeable to me. Then I go to Pricewatch, see that a 2.53 is $216., and a 2.8 is $370., so a 2.8 costs 41.7% more and only delivers 4.4% more performance in my favorite game. So I decide Intel is rich enough, and pocket the extra $150 to fill up my boat a few times or buy some hunting equipment. That's why.

"maybe without the eye candy on the ti4600 is a decent card but it isn't directx 9 compliant and add the visuals and what were you saying again?"
A. There are no DX9 games B. I don't like FSAA. I'd rather crank the resolution and the aniso then run FSAA. In shooters, framerate is life, and with any computer currently available FSAA just sucks up too much framerate. In your own link it cuts the framerate in half. I'd rather have the teeny tiny jaggies at 12X10 and twice the framerate any day.

"yes i stated my opinion and stand by it,ymmv "
Your opinion not only shorts him on performance now, it really shorts him if he decides to upgrade his cpu. If you're going to post advice, it should HELP.






 

policy11

Senior member
Aug 20, 2001
428
0
0
Haha. A little defensive Rollo?

If I would have listened to guys like you when I sold my Ti4400, I'd be screwed. I'd have a processor capable of performing within 5% of your 2.8, but I'd have a crippled VGA and guys like you would stomp me in online in UT2003.
Bwaaahahahhaha.

Don't let people convince you not to buy as good of a VGA as they have, just because you haven't spent as much on a cpu as they have.
Ahahahahahahahahaha.

This is just ridiculous. No one is intentionally giving out bad advice just to have the faster computer. Rollo, stop making a fool of yourself.
 

mrman3k

Senior member
Dec 15, 2001
959
0
0
I would wait and see what flavors of the FX will be coming out, then make your decision.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
" Haha. A little defensive Rollo?"
Gasp! You caught me! Even though I spent over $20K on hobby equipment this year, I'm JEALOUS of his $400 cpu!

"No one is intentionally giving out bad advice just to have the faster computer. Rollo, stop making a fool of yourself."
I don't think guys like Wolfraider intentionally give out bad advice. I think they buy a fast gaming computer, then assume they're experts and post baseless nonsense.
(e.g. "You need at least a 2.2 to take advantage of a 9700. I know, because my 2.8 is faster than my 1.5" Rubbish)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY