Upgrade questions, if you have a moment :)

[Johnbear007]

Ok, I asked a similiar question about a week ago or so, but I need advice again.

Background:

Athlon XP 1700+ on ECS K7S5A
512MB SDR SDRAM
20GB 7200 RPM Harddrive, 4GB 5400 RPM (linux dual boot)
DVD Drive
48X Cendyne burner
Oroginal Radeon 64MB DDR VIVO
Diamond MX300 (switching to onboard, toomany probs in XP)


Ok, I'm getting like 15 - 17 FPS in UT 2003 at 1024x768 with all details...

If I drop to 640x480 with all settings low, I still only get about 40 FPS max

What should I upgrade to get this up?

1 How much would DDR Ram help?

I am assuming the vid card needs upgrading the most. but my question is, what to go with. I cant spend a whole lot more than 100$ and I NEED it to last awhile. I was hoping a 128mb card. Is there going to be any price drops soon. all advice and opinions welcome.

 

[AnAndAustin]

DDR would boost you about 10% tops, hardly worth the expense and hassle of throwing out you current mobo and SDR RAM.

Your gfx card is killing the potential of the rest of your system.

It's almost impossible to predict what's going to happen. Currently the most lastable and least devaluable card is the GF4TI4200-128MB and this also takes advantage of every mhz of CPU power, but they cost about $140. A 4200-64MB is still a decent card but any card with 64MB is already suffering in some current games and will certainly be hit VERY hard in forth-coming games, even an o/c to 4600 speeds isn't going to overcome the memory short-fall, and these still cost about $120. For about $100 you should find a 128MB version of Rad8500, Rad8500LE or Rad9000PRO. These are all very fine cards and only really fall short in their poor AA perf and general inability to gain much once your CPU exceeds about Athlon 1.4ghz or P4 1.6ghz, but perf is generally still pretty close to a 4200. If you want a card to play the likes of UT2003/DoomIII and last about 2 years only the Rad9700 will do this, but expect it to halve in price over the next 6 months. nVidia are due to release some new cards, and we should see 'budget' ($200?) versions of Rad9700 and Parhelia512, but when any of these will actually arrive is pure guess-work.

I'd personally suggest either a 128MB Radeon as specified above or else a 4200 pref the 128MB version, but don't worry about DDR, if buying a new PC/mobo then it's well worth it but IMHO not for you. You'd be better off putting that cash in to a better gfx card or a larger HD.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
DDR would boost you about 10% tops, hardly worth the expense and hassle of throwing out you current mobo and SDR RAM.

Your gfx card is killing the potential of the rest of your system.

It's almost impossible to predict what's going to happen. Currently the most lastable and least devaluable card is the GF4TI4200-128MB and this also takes advantage of every mhz of CPU power, but they cost about $140. A 4200-64MB is still a decent card but any card with 64MB is already suffering in some current games and will certainly be hit VERY hard in forth-coming games, even an o/c to 4600 speeds isn't going to overcome the memory short-fall, and these still cost about $120. For about $100 you should find a 128MB version of Rad8500, Rad8500LE or Rad9000PRO. These are all very fine cards and only really fall short in their poor AA perf and general inability to gain much once your CPU exceeds about Athlon 1.4ghz or P4 1.6ghz, but perf is generally still pretty close to a 4200. If you want a card to play the likes of UT2003/DoomIII and last about 2 years only the Rad9700 will do this, but expect it to halve in price over the next 6 months. nVidia are due to release some new cards, and we should see 'budget' ($200?) versions of Rad9700 and Parhelia512, but when any of these will actually arrive is pure guess-work.

I'd personally suggest either a 128MB Radeon as specified above or else a 4200 pref the 128MB version, but don't worry about DDR, if buying a new PC/mobo then it's well worth it but IMHO not for you. You'd be better off putting that cash in to a better gfx card or a larger HD.

As far as hard drive space goes, unles I can get it cheap, I dont need it. I can backup onto CD and still have plenty of space on my HD.

My motherboard supports both SDR and DDR Ram, so thats why im wondering....

Are you saying that no current card other than the 9700 pro is going to handle ut 2k3 and doom 3 well?

thanks again

 

[sash1]

"Are you saying that no current card other than the 9700 pro is going to handle ut 2k3 and doom 3 well?"

I dun think he was saying that, it's just the 9700 will last the longest... (or something, maybe Austin was drunk while posting ).

I would have to agree though, you will need a 128Mb card if you are planning on playing DIII and want to use this card for a while. I would suggest getting the 8500LE 128Mb.

Don't worry about getting DDR, it's too much of an expense and won't help as much as you are probably thinking it will. Besides the video card you have a nice system going...

 

[Looney1a]

I would agree, the Radeon 8500 128mb sounds like a good choice. But I would definetly not get a 9700. When I run UT2003 with 15 bots (which is a fair few) my CPU holds back my 9700 and i have a 2.4ghz pentium 4, so i don't think you 1700+ would be a very good match for a Radeon 9700pro. And stick with the sdram, in your case upgrading to ddr would not be value for money.

Looney

 

[AnAndAustin]

LOL! Wish I had the money and time to get drunk!

If you can fit all you need (esp games) on your current HD then cool, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'! If your mobo supports SDR and DDR (sorry if I missed that) then weigh up the cost with the 10%ish perf increase. You could see how much you could get for your SDR.

How well current cards and CPU combinations can play UT2003 or DoomIII is a little diff as the finished games aren't even available yet! From the benchmarks we've seen things vary a bit depending upon reviewer, detail settings and the actual benchmark used. In UT2003 if you forgo the eye candy and run 1024x768 GF4TI are very playable while Rad8500/GF3 aren't too bad either. Heck in indoor maps like Asbestos even GF2 can be deemed playable! Sorry if I wasn't clear, if you want eye candy and/or higher res then Rad9700 is certainly the way to go (if you have the cash), but DoomIII is meant to be even harsher on systems than UT2003 and it is this I'd be dubious about on 'lesser' systems. Still I rem when 800x600x32 was a dream for any game let alone thoughts of AA and Aniso LOL!

Another reason to get a 128MB card is this ... how hard would you expect it to be to sell a 32MB card now ... that's how hard it will likely be in 6-12 months to sell a 64MB card. Some current games hit 64MB cards hard but new games due out certainly will, considering the price diff between 64MB and 128MB cards it really is well worth it. A Rad9000PRO 128MB could be better than a Rad8500 64MB, a lot like the diff between a GF4TI4200-64MB @ 300/600 and a GF4TI4200-128MB @ 300/550, perf is generally very similar but as soon as the 64MB is breached the 128MB flies way ahead. Sorry, I do ramble, it's late and my 18 month old is refusing to sleep!

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
LOL! Wish I had the money and time to get drunk!

If you can fit all you need (esp games) on your current HD then cool, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'! If your mobo supports SDR and DDR (sorry if I missed that) then weigh up the cost with the 10%ish perf increase. You could see how much you could get for your SDR.

How well current cards and CPU combinations can play UT2003 or DoomIII is a little diff as the finished games aren't even available yet! From the benchmarks we've seen things vary a bit depending upon reviewer, detail settings and the actual benchmark used. In UT2003 if you forgo the eye candy and run 1024x768 GF4TI are very playable while Rad8500/GF3 aren't too bad either. Heck in indoor maps like Asbestos even GF2 can be deemed playable! Sorry if I wasn't clear, if you want eye candy and/or higher res then Rad9700 is certainly the way to go (if you have the cash), but DoomIII is meant to be even harsher on systems than UT2003 and it is this I'd be dubious about on 'lesser' systems. Still I rem when 800x600x32 was a dream for any game let alone thoughts of AA and Aniso LOL!

Another reason to get a 128MB card is this ... how hard would you expect it to be to sell a 32MB card now ... that's how hard it will likely be in 6-12 months to sell a 64MB card. Some current games hit 64MB cards hard but new games due out certainly will, considering the price diff between 64MB and 128MB cards it really is well worth it. A Rad9000PRO 128MB could be better than a Rad8500 64MB, a lot like the diff between a GF4TI4200-64MB @ 300/600 and a GF4TI4200-128MB @ 300/550, perf is generally very similar but as soon as the 64MB is breached the 128MB flies way ahead. Sorry, I do ramble, it's late and my 18 month old is refusing to sleep!

First off thanks to everyone far all the input so far. I have a better picture of things now somewhat. I'm going to pass on getting the DDR ram for now. While it sounds cool, I doubt it will be cost effective. as far as the hard drive space goes, its a situation where I would love to have a bigger hard drive but my cash flow is extremley limited, and I have to carefully pick and choose upgrades. It looks like a new video card is the way to go.. now to choose

First off Radeon 9700 is totally out, I cant even come close to affording it.

the 8500 le 128MB will come into my price range if I can find a good deal on it. Is it true that the only difference between LE and regular is clockspeed, and that it's easy to OC?

One question, where does the radeon 9000 stand, especially the 128mb version. I am REALLY unclear as to how this card fits into the larger scheme of things!


Thanks again, this conversation is helping me immensley and hopefully other people that are in the same dilemma I am can benefit from reading it as well

 

[AnAndAustin]

No problem. DDR isn't really cost effective, if you only had 128MB or even 256MB of SDR it would be worth it sooner, but my preference would be the gfx card followed by the HD.

The Rad8500LE is about 10% slower than the Rad8500 other than that they're for all intents identical. However, generally Rad8500 hardly o/c's while Rad8500LE tend to hit Rad8500 speeds. With Radeons the diffs between manu and retail vs oem often make a significant although rarely huge diff. Use clock speeds as a guide and if dual display isn't a huge priority then that negates having to check that before buying. Rad8500 tends to outperform GF3TI500 and the Rad certainly has much better image quality, DVD playback, dual display, TVout and faster Aniso (though generally lower quality), the only place it significantly loses out is AA but you can always just up the res LOL!

The Rad9000PRO is estimated to be about 20% faster than the Rad9000 (again only clock speed seperates them) although once again the Rad9000 should hit Rad9000PRO type speeds if o/c'ed. The Rad9000 cards (inc PRO) are simply minorly cut down Rad8500 cards which are designed to be cheaper to make and do combat with the GF4MX (suped up GF2's which in perf are far inferior to GF3). So Rad8500LE tend to beat Rad9000PRO cards in most benchmarks, although it is generally pretty close. So I'd suggest looking mostly at price and availability when deciding between these cards, 128MB is really a must so see what you can get for your money.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
No problem. DDR isn't really cost effective, if you only had 128MB or even 256MB of SDR it would be worth it sooner, but my preference would be the gfx card followed by the HD.

The Rad8500LE is about 10% slower than the Rad8500 other than that they're for all intents identical. However, generally Rad8500 hardly o/c's while Rad8500LE tend to hit Rad8500 speeds. With Radeons the diffs between manu and retail vs oem often make a significant although rarely huge diff. Use clock speeds as a guide and if dual display isn't a huge priority then that negates having to check that before buying. Rad8500 tends to outperform GF3TI500 and the Rad certainly has much better image quality, DVD playback, dual display, TVout and faster Aniso (though generally lower quality), the only place it significantly loses out is AA but you can always just up the res LOL!

The Rad9000PRO is estimated to be about 20% faster than the Rad9000 (again only clock speed seperates them) although once again the Rad9000 should hit Rad9000PRO type speeds if o/c'ed. The Rad9000 cards (inc PRO) are simply minorly cut down Rad8500 cards which are designed to be cheaper to make and do combat with the GF4MX (suped up GF2's which in perf are far inferior to GF3). So Rad8500LE tend to beat Rad9000PRO cards in most benchmarks, although it is generally pretty close. So I'd suggest looking mostly at price and availability when deciding between these cards, 128MB is really a must so see what you can get for your money.

Alrighty, thanks again for your help...

I think what im going to do now, is just sit tight, and wait till I see a good deal on a rad 8500...

Now, sorry to throw this into the mix, but what would be a better future oriented card a GEF4TI with 128MB (most likely the 4200 when price drops) OR the 8500 128MB?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Without a doubt the GF4TI4200-128MB. Not that Rad8500 isn't great, it is. It's simply that GF4TI beats it in pretty much every dept; faster 3D, great o/c, faster AA, better quality Aniso (although slower) and prob most crucially the GF4TI cards gain from every mhz of CPU power while GF3 and Rad8500 tend to tail off with the faster CPUs. The Rad8500 may snatch it slightly with hw DVD playback and is certainly better for TVout and _. Since it seems ATI will be discontinuing Rad8500 in favour of Rad9000 added to which the average lay-person will prefer a 9000 over an 8500 thus making it harder to sell on whereas GF4TI cards should sell on well.

Both Rad and GF4TI are great choices and acres better than RadDDR, so if Rad8500-128MB type cards are only $100 they're a good deal no doubt and very capable cards, but GF4TI4200-128MB are certainly better and longer lasting ... but then that's why they cost about $40 more