• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Upgrade help for my A64 3000+ / X800 gaming system

DT4K

DT4K

Diamond Member
I built this system about 18 months ago. It's done an admirable job at every game I've wanted to play since then. But until last month, I was playing on a 17" CRT, so 1024x768 was acceptable. My wife got me a 20" Widescreen LCD for christmas and I love it, but I want to be able to run games at native resolution and my system can't handle it. I could build a new system if I need to, but I'd prefer not to spend the money right now, plus I don't spend as much time gaming as I used to, so it's hard to justify the cost for a few hours of play each week. So I'm thinking of just replacing the video card, but I'm not sure if that will be enough of an upgrade to run current and future games(I mainly play FPS's) at 1680 x 1050. I was thinking of the X1950 Pro or X1950 XT. I would also consider replacing the CPU, if it would be a good bang for the buck upgrade. But if I keep adding things to replace, at some point, it just makes sense to go for a full mobo/cpu/memory/video upgrade.

Here's the current system:
Antec TruePower 2.0 480w
Epox 9NPA+ Ultra
Athlon 64 3000+ (venice)
Radeon X800 (not pro or XL or anything)
1 GB (I don't remember exactly what kind is in there)

What do you guys think?
 
I'd get a new video card and overclock the CPU if you're willing to do that, it will probably go to ~2,4 GHz from 1,8GHz. A X1950 PRO or X1900 XT 256MB is a good choice but if you want to spend a little more then a 8800GTS is good value for the money, that's what replaced my dead X800XL.
I wouldn't get new CPU, since few games benefit from dual core CPUs and the speed of the core themselves haven't increased all that much really.
 
Are any of those cards going to be overkill with my current CPU?
In other words, if I splurged and got an 8800 GTS, do you think I'll see a big gain over a 1950 Pro or XT? Or would my current CPU become a big bottleneck. Does it make a difference that I'm talking about higher resolutions? I notice in benchmarks they seem to lower the resolution when they want to see what the CPU can do and they crank up the resolution when they want to see what the video card can do.
 
I reckon get a X1950XT or X1950pro and you'll notice a big difference, whilst saving the cash for an upgrade during the summer.
 
Still, at some point, the CPU will bottleneck the vidcard. And, in your case, I believe the 8800GTS will be bottlenecked by your CPU. There aren't many DX10 games out right now, and not even that many cards. NVIDIA has a hold on the market for now, so their prices are really high. When there are more DX10 cards, along with some actual DX10 games to play, then and only then will a DX10 card be worth your money. I think the X1950Pro would be good enough for you.

$170 - Sapphire 100176L Radeon X1950PRO 256MB ($190 - $20MIR)
 
You could also get a A64 4000+ for cheap and a X1950Pro from newegg, and its cheaper than a 8800GTS. Your other option is overclocking the A64, and getting the 8800GTS. Goodluck!
 
For your sytem, I think the 8800GTS will be bottlenecked by your CPU. Go with the X1950XT and you should be able to obtain your native resolution.
 
Try using process explorer to see if your processor is pegged during games. that will give you some idea if you are currently processor-bound. It won't really tell you if you are vid processor-bound, but if your CPU isn't fully pegged, you can reasonably assume that the video card is the limiting factor.

You can also use perfmon. It should already be on your machine.
 
One of my systems was an AGP system with an A64 3400+/X800. I just moved it to a mATX board with PCIe and added a 7950GT - which is actually a perfect match for the CPU IMO as it runs a 20.1" Septre just fine even with demanding games.
 
Those Venice core A64s can overclock decently. Most have an upper limit of 2.4-2.7GHz. Overclocking is worth a try before springing for a new processor.

The A64 3200+ and X800 XL in my "work" computer get along just fine at 1600x1080 at just about every game I've tried (medium to high settings) without any overclocking.

I'd say that your current bottleneck is definitely the video card. The RAM might also be an issue depending on what games you're trying to play. The CPU will be last on the list.
 
Don't worry about bottlenecks. At least not with your system. People act as if a bottleneck will make a faster GPU useless or something. What it comes down to for you, the gamer, the buyer, is bang-for-buck when upgrading. In general terms, if your current 3000/x800 is getting 25 fps in XYZ game, you need to evaluate what impact a 4000+ or X2 would have at your new resolution. Then evaluate what a new GTS/x1950 will do in fps terms at that new resolution.

Yes, if you can spare the coin, upgrade both to the fullest. However, for playing games at 16x10, you want to make sure you focus on the GPU much moreso than the CPU. You could slap a 4000+ in there right now and increase your fps to say 30 (using our general numbers from the previous paragraph), but a new GTS matched with your existing 3000+ could garner you 50 fps. But, uh-oh, it's "bottlenecked" by that 3000+, right? Well, your gaming enjoyment won't notice it a bit when you're upgrading from an x800, as you've just doubled your framerate.

All of these numbers are just general, yank-out-the-tookus numbers. The point I'm trying to get across is that any bottlenecking your existing CPU will be doing will be tiny in comparison to the increase in overall performance a new GTS will have over your x800. There really isn't a s939 CPU for you to upgrade to that would make much of a difference at a 16x10 resolution (bang-for-buck wise). Your best bet on that end is to overclock the 3000+, depending on how comfortable you feel with doing that. Do that, and grab a GTS or x1950xt, depending on preference.
 
Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Don't worry about bottlenecks. At least not with your system. People act as if a bottleneck will make a faster GPU useless or something. What it comes down to for you, the gamer, the buyer, is bang-for-buck when upgrading. In general terms, if your current 3000/x800 is getting 25 fps in XYZ game, you need to evaluate what impact a 4000+ or X2 would have at your new resolution. Then evaluate what a new GTS/x1950 will do in fps terms at that new resolution.

Yes, if you can spare the coin, upgrade both to the fullest. However, for playing games at 16x10, you want to make sure you focus on the GPU much moreso than the CPU. You could slap a 4000+ in there right now and increase your fps to say 30 (using our general numbers from the previous paragraph), but a new GTS matched with your existing 3000+ could garner you 50 fps. But, uh-oh, it's "bottlenecked" by that 3000+, right? Well, your gaming enjoyment won't notice it a bit when you're upgrading from an x800, as you've just doubled your framerate.

All of these numbers are just general, yank-out-the-tookus numbers. The point I'm trying to get across is that any bottlenecking your existing CPU will be doing will be tiny in comparison to the increase in overall performance a new GTS will have over your x800. There really isn't a s939 CPU for you to upgrade to that would make much of a difference at a 16x10 resolution (bang-for-buck wise). Your best bet on that end is to overclock the 3000+, depending on how comfortable you feel with doing that. Do that, and grab a GTS or x1950xt, depending on preference.
Click to expand...


I can't say that I particularly agree with the generalities above. I just upgraded my Athlon 64 3000 on socket 754 to a 3700 on 939. I gained over 25 FPS in BF2 with the same x850 pro card. I would do some tests with perfmon and/or process explorer. If you are seeing the processor time constantly pegged, your processor upgrade will make a noticable difference. You can get a new A64 3700 for $75. There are no other upgrades that are that cheap and have that much additional umph. A new video card that is merely half-decent will run you more like $150.

 
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor - OEM $79.00

XFX PVT71GUQF3 GeForce 7900GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail $199.99

Reuse your old cpu cooler.

Nice little upgrade. If you buy the parts used they will be less. I have an A64 4000+ that runs games great @ 1680 x 1050.
 
Originally posted by: Trinitron
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor - OEM $79.00

XFX PVT71GUQF3 GeForce 7900GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail $199.99

Reuse your old cpu cooler.

Nice little upgrade. If you buy the parts used they will be less. I have an A64 4000+ that runs games great @ 1680 x 1050.
Click to expand...

what speed are you getting out of your 4000? I have a 3700 running at 2.7GHz on stock cooling. Are you doing much better than that? I don't think my limit at 2.7 is caused by heat. . I actually think it is the memory that doesn't want to go any faster.
 
Originally posted by: Fike
I can't say that I particularly agree with the generalities above. I just upgraded my Athlon 64 3000 on socket 754 to a 3700 on 939. I gained over 25 FPS in BF2 with the same x850 pro card. I would do some tests with perfmon and/or process explorer. If you are seeing the processor time constantly pegged, your processor upgrade will make a noticable difference. You can get a new A64 3700 for $75. There are no other upgrades that are that cheap and have that much additional umph. A new video card that is merely half-decent will run you more like $150.
Click to expand...

Without knowing what resolution you play at on BF2, I can't equate your findings to the general performance of FPS games as CPU speed increases. BF2 is a game that taxes CPUs quite a bit, especially on servers with a high number of players. I don't have a direct link to benchmarks showing CPU scaling in BF2, so I'll use one for Far Cry and Prey.

Just using a GTS as an example, there is no difference in Far Cry fps using a 1.8ghz C2D and a GTS vs. a 2.93ghz C2D with a GTS at 16x12. Yet, at lower resolutions, the difference grows (at 1024x768 the faster CPU helps to a tune of 40% faster!). So, when discussing seeing an increase of 25+fps, we have to know what resolution you're talking about. While the move from 754 to 939 shows some increases, the overall speed increase from an A64 3000+ to an A64 3700+ isn't even as big as the C2D 1.8 to 2.9, which shows no performance advantage at 1600x1200 (at least on FarCry and Prey).

To the OP, feel free to spend the money where you want. But I will reiterate-- do not get caught up in CPU bottlenecking a good video card. It all comes down to budget-- how much do you want to spend? If it's $300ish, you could do what someone suggested and upgrade to a 4000+ and a 7900gt... or you could just keep your chip, spend a little more, and get a GTS or x1950xt. Your 3000+ matched with a GTS/x1950xt will outperform a 4000+ matched with a 7900gt at 1680x1050 with AA/AF. I guarantee it or your money back!*



*offer not vaild in AK, HI, or any of the contiguous 48 states. Void where prohibited, which includes all countries outside the US. Not valid with any other coupon or rebate. Offer subject to termination at any time. See website for full details.
 
I have a x800xt PE and it will not handle 1650x1050 with a level of performance that is acceptable to me. That said, the ATI drivers seem to do a good job of scaling for widescreen resolutions. If your LCD has a 16:10 ratio, running at 1280x800 (or 1280x768) with 2x/4x FSAA should work great.
 
Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel*offer not vaild in AK, HI, or any of the contiguous 48 states. Void where prohibited, which includes all countries outside the US. Not valid with any other coupon or rebate. Offer subject to termination at any time. See website for full details.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, what about Guam? Or the US Virgin Islands?

I just ordered the X1950 XT from Newegg. From the benches I looked at, it seemed like it was worth the extra $50 over a Pro. I'll see what I can do with my current chip for now. I haven't done any OC'ing since my XP1700/GF3Ti200, so I'll have to do some reading.

Thanks. I appreciate the help.
 
Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Originally posted by: Fike
I can't say that I particularly agree with the generalities above. I just upgraded my Athlon 64 3000 on socket 754 to a 3700 on 939. I gained over 25 FPS in BF2 with the same x850 pro card. I would do some tests with perfmon and/or process explorer. If you are seeing the processor time constantly pegged, your processor upgrade will make a noticable difference. You can get a new A64 3700 for $75. There are no other upgrades that are that cheap and have that much additional umph. A new video card that is merely half-decent will run you more like $150.
Click to expand...

Without knowing what resolution you play at on BF2, I can't equate your findings to the general performance of FPS games as CPU speed increases. BF2 is a game that taxes CPUs quite a bit, especially on servers with a high number of players. I don't have a direct link to benchmarks showing CPU scaling in BF2, so I'll use one for Far Cry and Prey.

Just using a GTS as an example, there is no difference in Far Cry fps using a 1.8ghz C2D and a GTS vs. a 2.93ghz C2D with a GTS at 16x12. Yet, at lower resolutions, the difference grows (at 1024x768 the faster CPU helps to a tune of 40% faster!). So, when discussing seeing an increase of 25+fps, we have to know what resolution you're talking about. While the move from 754 to 939 shows some increases, the overall speed increase from an A64 3000+ to an A64 3700+ isn't even as big as the C2D 1.8 to 2.9, which shows no performance advantage at 1600x1200 (at least on FarCry and Prey).

To the OP, feel free to spend the money where you want. But I will reiterate-- do not get caught up in CPU bottlenecking a good video card. It all comes down to budget-- how much do you want to spend? If it's $300ish, you could do what someone suggested and upgrade to a 4000+ and a 7900gt... or you could just keep your chip, spend a little more, and get a GTS or x1950xt. Your 3000+ matched with a GTS/x1950xt will outperform a 4000+ matched with a 7900gt at 1680x1050 with AA/AF. I guarantee it or your money back!*



*offer not vaild in AK, HI, or any of the contiguous 48 states. Void where prohibited, which includes all countries outside the US. Not valid with any other coupon or rebate. Offer subject to termination at any time. See website for full details.
Click to expand...



That's a pretty interesting article. so what you are saying is that at higher resolutions, the VPU is more likely to try to overdrive the CPU and become the bottleneck. On the other hand, at lower resolutions, the opposite happens and the processor can saturate the VPU. I have been running at some quirky resolution like 1152 x 768 or something like that. so, my resolution is on the low end, thus accounting for my significant FPS boost when upgrading a couple hundred MHz. I haven't ever really tried to use the native resolution of my LCD (1600x1080) in games. I figured it would be too much, so I never tried.

 
The x1950xt is a great choice. 16x10 can be a very demanding resolution in many games-- think Oblivion, the latest splinter cell, Gothic3, and the latest Rainbow Six. Running your native resolution across all games might end up being a juggle as you crank up AA/AF to max levels in one game, but turn them way down for another. I myself prefer to run at 1600x1200 on my Mitsu 22", but my x1900xtx struggles in those games I listed. You might end up doing what Brian48 mentioned, and scaling your widescreen res downward at times. This is where I feel a GTS/GTX may have been a better option, but your Antec PSU wouldn't have been as happy.
 
I would suggest getting a cheap X2 or Opteron 165, whatever you can get your hands on... they are getting rare. As for video card, get the X1950 Pro or XT 256. They will give you the best bang for the buck. I just upgraded from a A64 3700+ to and Opteron 165 (OC to 2.25GHz). It was well worth the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top