Optimal Graphics Card for an Athlon XP 2200?

code255

Junior Member
Jan 5, 2005
12
0
0
Hi folks,

I currently have a Athlon XP 2200+, 786MB of RAM, and a GeForce4 Ti 4600 graphics card. My system performs pretty well in games at resolutions 1024*768 and 1280*1024. The only real exception is Half-Life 2, which is a bit slow even at 1024*768, but I don't really care much about that, since it's just a single-player game.

Anyway, last week I bought a nice new Dell 2005FPW (widescreen :)) monitor, which has a native resolution of 1680*1050. The two games I am most interested in currently (World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike: Source) look really beautiful on my new monitor at the native resolution, however the framerates are a bit weak.

World of Warcraft: my framerates in this game at 1680*1050 are around 20-30 in outdoor zones. That may sound extremely bad, but since it's an MMORPG, framerates aren't that critical. Still, something above 30 FPS would be nice (and at 1024*768 I always get 30+).

Counter-Strike: Source: in most levels in this game, my framerate at 1680*1050 (and the lowest details, with which the game still looks great) is between 35-90 (usually averaging around 50-60). The only real problem exists in de_aztec, which has lots of fancy graphics effects - I get 20 FPS in some areas on that map.

Now, finally here's my question: will a newer graphics card significantly improve my framerates at 1680*1050, or will I need a new processor to back up the graphics card too? I presume a GeForce6 or a X800 won't be any better than a Radeon 9800 with my Athlon XP 2200 - what graphics card would be optimal for my resolution, given my fairly old CPU?

Thanks in advance!
 

Appledrop

Platinum Member
Aug 25, 2004
2,340
0
0
well at 1680x, a new graphics card would help obviously, at that resolution i would recommend the 6800gt if you could afford it, even though you would definately be CPU limited , you could upgrade the cpu down the line and still have a fast pc
 

code255

Junior Member
Jan 5, 2005
12
0
0
Won't a GeForce 6800 GT perform like crap on my Athlon XP 2200+ processor? Or is the processor not all that important at high resolutions?
 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
you'll be CPU limited, but then becuase of that you'll be able to push the resolutions up basically free of charge. as the cpu will always be the limiting factor

if you are cpu limited you can make the GFX work as hard as possible and see less performance drop. get a 6800GT, whack up the RES, in-game settings, and the AA an AF and just enjoy the game!
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
you'll be CPU limited, but then becuase of that you'll be able to push the resolutions up basically free of charge. as the cpu will always be the limiting factor

if you are cpu limited you can make the GFX work as hard as possible and see less performance drop. get a 6800GT, whack up the RES, in-game settings, and the AA an AF and just enjoy the game!

Hmmmm. I don't know about this one Otis. My four year old has a 2200+/512PC2700/6800NU, and I installed Doom3 on it just to see it.

I did indeed get the same benchmark scores with AA off/on, and at 10X7 and 12X10.

What I didn't get is the ability to play at these resolutions- too slow. So there was no pushing it up for me anyway, I'm thinking 800X600 0X8X is the limit of that rig.
 

SneakyStuff

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2004
4,294
0
76
Try something like a Radeon 9700 Pro off of ebay, it's cheap, and will offer better performance. I have all my WoW ettings maxxed out (with the exception of AA) and the lowest FPS I get outdoors (and this usually occurs in places like Ashenvale and PVP raids) is about 26 FPS. I average about 55 FPS under most other circumstances. ebay
 

m4ch0dude

Senior member
Jan 16, 2005
220
0
0
Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
Try something like a Radeon 9700 Pro off of ebay, it's cheap, and will offer better performance. I have all my WoW ettings maxxed out (with the exception of AA) and the lowest FPS I get outdoors (and this usually occurs in places like Ashenvale and PVP raids) is about 26 FPS. I average about 55 FPS under most other circumstances. ebay

Yeah, there's no sense in getting a high-end card for a system that can't keep up with it. I would actually recommend getting a previous-generation high end card, like the 9700 or the 9800, because now they're a lot cheaper, and they still have the muscle to run the latest games without problems. But stay away from Nvidia 5xxx cards, because they have image quality problems.

Also, don't count on upgrading your cpu later, because by then, you'll have to buy a new motherboard and memory to really make full use of the new cpu, and with that money you might as well just get a new system.
 

bradyapba

Senior member
Nov 29, 2004
240
0
76
Code,

dont beleive all these "your CPU limited" stuff. I had all most the same system you had(same processor, mem, video card), and put a 6800 vanilla in it. At the res. your playing at i got just about the same scores you did in CS:S before i put the new card in, and half life 2 was barely playable.

When i added the the 6800.... i pretty much doubled my FPS and more importantly never got any dips... aztec never dropped below 50-60. It was a lot more stable with no drops, and hl2 ran as smooth as silf.


But heres the kicker... i got a new system, and gave the old one to my wife. The new system is a A64 3200, 1 gig dual channel ram, and the 6800. The frame rates only went up around 5 fps.


So...your system is BARELY limiting you. YOu will see a HUGE performance increase if you add a 6800 vanilla.

Chris

 

SneakyStuff

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2004
4,294
0
76
Try overclocking the CPU and memory and see if you can't get up to 2400+ speeds. I definately think it's possible. Then mabye think about getting a 6800 or something along those lines.
 

Peter

Elite Member
Oct 15, 1999
9,640
1
0
... and I wouldn't EVER consider an NVidia chip based card for high-resolution DVI. Unless the card uses a discrete transmitter chip instead of NVidia's integrated wannabe.
 

zakee00

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2004
1,949
0
0
I totally agree that he should upgrade his CPU eventually. But if he gets a 6800GT, and he decides to upgrade his CPU later, then he will be glad he didn't get the 6600GT.
Sorry about the comment I posted earlier also, that was retarded and I regret it. I don't want to piss anyone off over such a miniscule issue. To be honest, I don't even remember what we were arguing about, and we pretty much ruined this guy's thread lol.

My suggestion would be to get a new video card (6800NU/x800/6800GT/x800XL/x800 Pro), because that is the only thing that is going to enable you to game at higher resolutions. Upgrading your CPU won't let you bump up the res on your Ti 4600. If you wanted to, you could also spring for a new XP3200 to max out your mobo, and that would pretty much fix your cpu limiting problem (for now anyway). Espically if you overclocked it.
Nick
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Alright Zakee, let's you and I start fresh, without the flames.

I agree with you 100% that video card upgrade is a bigger "bang for buck" upgrade than anything else and have posted this many times.

However, I also think there's a minimum threshold of cpu performance you need to get games like Doom3/FarCry/HL2 to run what I'd consider "well" (i.e. smooth, no hitches, decent detail) and that no amount of video card can get you past that.

In general, I agree with you it's good to buy as nice of a vid card as you can. What I was respondign to is Otis's assertion you can crank the res/AA/AF as much as you like "free". That may be sort of true, but when you're already running it with pauses, what's the point?
 

zakee00

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2004
1,949
0
0
yeah i understand what you are saying now. i know what its like cuz i used to have an 800MHz PIII with a 9600 Pro before i had my "G4M1NG R1G" lol.
so, what are your suggestions? get a new videocard now, max out mobo with a 3200+ later? buy a new A64 rig later? wait for NF4 to evolve?