Video card or memory upgrade...

[Erad]

Hi,

I haven't kept up with the latest hardware for 5 years now so I don't quite know much about good hardware at this point.

I've got a DELL Precision 380 and would like to do a slight hardware upgrade. I'm debating between memory or video card upgrade.

CPU: 64-bit Pentium Dual Core 800MHz fsb
Memory: 4 GB DDR2
Video: nVIDIA Quadro FX 3450 PCI Express

Here's a link to a PDF of my PC hardware: www.pcmadd.com/precis380.pdf

I'd like to upgrade to either 8 GB RAM, or a newer video card [which I believe is limited by a maximum of 150Watts and 512mb graphics memory]

What should I consider upgrading? Any suggestions are appreciated!

-Erad

 

[fffblackmage]

What are you using this computer for?

Listing your hardware specs here, rather than just supplying a link, would be nice too.

 

[BoomerD]

What is the wattage of your PSU?

In particular, how many watts on the +12v rail?

 

[Davidh373]

8GB Memory is going to be worlds cheaper than a new video card. This is ESPECIALLY true with a Quadro series card.

 

[mfenn]

I agree with blackmage, we need more info about what you want to do (and what the computer is struggling with currently).

 

[tynopik]

is your current memory ECC?

 

[Erad]

Current memory is ECC. I want the computer to be able to run Guild Wars 2 relatively well. All I know about the PSU is that it's 375 watts. Thanks!

 

[mfenn]

OK, so memory is the least of your problems. You have 4GB, which is more than enough to plan Guild Wars 2. Your real problems are that you have a painfully slow Prescott CPU (3.0GHz was too slow for Prescott to even begin to compete with the Athlon X2s of the day) and the equivalent of a GeForce 6800 NU.

What you really need is a complete system upgrade, but tell me this: what is your budget?

 

[Slugbait]

Your real problems are that you have a painfully slow Prescott CPU (3.0GHz was too slow for Prescott to even begin to compete with the Athlon X2s of the day) and the equivalent of a GeForce 6800 NU.

OP has a Presler CPU, and it's actually almost competitive to the slower X2.

The amount of memory is fine.

The biggest issue is that the Quadro was designed for CAD, and historically has sucked in gaming. I doubt your particular card could game as well as a 6800. If you can't afford a complete system replacement, a newer card would be the only viable option. However, the PSU can't do the better cards, and you don't want to sink too much money into upgrading the video on that machine anyway. So I would suggest a stop-gap measure like a GT 430...at $54 after rebate, this 128-bit 1GB Asus would probably hold you over until you can upgrade your entire system: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121397

 

[mfenn]

OP has a Presler CPU, and it's actually almost competitive to the slower X2.

It's still the Prescott microarchitecture. Presler is two Cedar Mill CPUs under the same IHS, which are in turn die-shrunk Prescotts. And no, a Pentium D 930 was not competitive with an Athlon X2. Even the 3.46GHz model was routinely bested by the 2.0Ghz Athlon X2 3800+. The Pentium D will not be sufficient for a modern MMO.

The biggest issue is that the Quadro was designed for CAD, and historically has sucked in gaming. I doubt your particular card could game as well as a 6800. If you can't afford a complete system replacement, a newer card would be the only viable option. However, the PSU can't do the better cards, and you don't want to sink too much money into upgrading the video on that machine anyway. So I would suggest a stop-gap measure like a GT 430...at $54 after rebate, this 128-bit 1GB Asus would probably hold you over until you can upgrade your entire system: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121397

Yes, the point was that even a 6800 is horrendously slow by today's standards. I would not sink any money into the OP's system at this point.

 

[Slugbait]

Even the 3.46GHz model was routinely bested by the 2.0Ghz Athlon X2 3800+.

There was a five year period where a slower clock cycle from AMD always beat a higher clock cycle from Intel. You might recall that on the day that AMD won the one-gigahertz race, they publicly declared that megahertz doesn't matter anymore...and then they proved it over and over again.

Another example is my old Galatin core that ran at 3.2GHz...it matched or beat a Prescott running at 3.6GHz in nearly every benchmark (note: I'm talking about true, single core processor families). Unless you want to talk about floating point units, in which case the Prescott couldn't even compete with the Galatin.

To use clock cycles from different families (much less completely different architectures) to make a point is fruitless.

And I didn't say the Pentium D 930 was competitive with the X2.

 

[secretanchitman]

i agree with mfenn - the system is a little bit too outdated to sink any money into. you might as well do a complete system upgrade, rather than spend extra on a video card and ram that will be held back by the cpu.

i actually had the pentium D 930 (overclocked decently too i might add) coupled with an 8800GTS 320MB, but it ran a bit too hot, and when i replaced it with a core 2 duo E6600, it literally ran circles around the 930 - seriously. 2005/2006 c2d cpus are much faster than what you have.

however, if i really had to do an upgrade, i would just sink the money into a video card. i think you can get by on the cpu, and the ram is totally fine (4GB is plenty).

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

its a oem sell it build a new one

 

[Texashiker]

There was a five year period where a slower clock cycle from AMD always beat a higher clock cycle from Intel. You might recall that on the day that AMD won the one-gigahertz race, they publicly declared that megahertz doesn't matter anymore...and then they proved it over and over again.

I remember when amd tried to say their 2000mhz cpu ran like a 3200 intel. In just about every test, the 2000mhz (also called the 3200+) ran right where it was supposed to, with the 2000mhz intels.

In my eyes, amd saying a 2000mhz ran like a 3200+ intel was nothing more then a marketing scheme.

Here is an actual review to backup my statement:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high,631.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high,631-13.html - quake 3 arena test:

AMD athlon xp 3200 - 336 fps
Intel P4 3ghz - 402 fps

The amd 3200 with its 2000mhz core clock ranked right where it was supposed to.

~~~~~~~~~

To the OP, since your running a 64 bit OS, I would up the memory to at least 6 gigs. When I went from 4 gigs to 6 gigs, I could tell the difference.

I would add 2 gigs of memory, and get a better video card.

 

[Davidh373]

OK, so memory is the least of your problems. You have 4GB, which is more than enough to plan Guild Wars 2. Your real problems are that you have a painfully slow Prescott CPU (3.0GHz was too slow for Prescott to even begin to compete with the Athlon X2s of the day) and the equivalent of a GeForce 6800 NU.

What you really need is a complete system upgrade, but tell me this: what is your budget?

Agreed! That CPU is SLOOOOOOW. I would recommend a CPU upgrade. a nice Athlon II X4 + AM3 chipset + 8GB RAM if you've got around $250. If you have around $400 go with a 2500K + P67 + 8GB RAM. If you're a gamer, as opposed to someone working in CAD, I have a hard time knowing why you would sink your money into ECC memory and a Quadro card. Anyways, if you have a somewhat decent budget (~$700) I'd recommend just getting a new system. If you don't, get the chipset first, then get a newer GPU later.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

AMD processors, like the Phenom II X6 and even dual hexa cores, like the Opteron 2431 are way outclassed by Intel i7 processors, because of the lacking SSE4.1 extensions that are extensively used in CPU intensive tasks. AMD CPU's are not advised for video editing.

 

[Davidh373]

AMD CPU's are not advised for video editing.

?... benchmarks prove otherwise I'm afraid... At least that is if you're referring to the 9xx i7 vs. the Phenom II X6. If you're referring to the NEW i7 2600K, I'll have to agree with you.

 

[Texashiker]

AMD CPU's are not advised for video editing.

<insert facepalm.jpg here>

I use a rather old quad core AMD 620 which runs at 2.6 ghz for editing 1020p HD videos for youtube.

Even though my AMD 620 takes a little while to encode an 800 meg video, it still gets the job done. The video might take 15 - 30 minutes to finish, so I will just watch a little TV, read a book, browse the web,,,,,,.

Now please explain "why" your not supposed to use AMD for video editing?

 

[mfenn]

And I didn't say the Pentium D 930 was competitive with the X2.

Really now?

OP has a Presler CPU, and it's actually almost competitive to the slower X2.

The point of all this is, the X2 is too slow of a processor to run a modern MMO and the Pentium D that the OP has is even slower that that. Ergo, he needs a CPU upgrade. I'm not sure if I can explain my logic any more clearly.

 

[Erad]

Thank you to all who posted - your advice is greatly appreciated! With the given advice, I've decided I will wait a little while, make money, and build a new system from scratch.

 

[Slugbait]

Really now?

Of course. You even included exactly what I actually said just after that snotty comment. What, you didn't read it twice?

 

[Davidh373]

Of course. You even included exactly what I actually said just after that snotty comment. What, you didn't read it twice?

I read it the same way he does I'm afraid.

 

[mfenn]

Of course. You even included exactly what I actually said just after that snotty comment. What, you didn't read it twice?

Saying "actually almost competitive" is just a weasely way of saying "competitive" in my book. Sure, it doesn't literally say that, but the implication is clear. Now, I know from your posting history that you'll come back with some more BS to try to justify your words, so this will be my last post on the subject.

 

[Slugbait]

Saying "actually almost competitive" is just a weasely way of saying "competitive" in my book. Sure, it doesn't literally say that, but the implication is clear. Now, I know from your posting history that you'll come back with some more BS to try to justify your words, so this will be my last post on the subject.

Now, I know from your posting history that you make assumptions, they are many times bogus assumptions, and you stand by them as fact and BS your way through to justify your assumptions.

And that is the definition of "weasely" (sic)

 

[mfenn]

Thank you to all who posted - your advice is greatly appreciated! With the given advice, I've decided I will wait a little while, make money, and build a new system from scratch.

Probably a good plan.