Worth upgrading Geforce2 GTS in 900 Mhz Tbird?

[deniro36]

Ok, I've had my current machine for some time. 900 Mhz Tbird, 512 MB ram, GeForce2 GTS 32MB. I want to get a better card to play more current games with a decent resolution and frames per second. I've tried Halo and it gets choppy above 800x600 with particles or high textures, and I don't want to play current games with details turned down low. Not too much fun for me there.
So, I can either build a new machine or just upgrade the video card if that would do me enough. What kind of card would I be able to upgrade to in this machine, and how decent would that car perform in current games. I've read some saying that something like a Radeon 9800 would be bottlenecked by a slower CPU, so what is the fastest card I could get without wasting power due to a slow CPU?

I would probably get a 9800 Pro if I biult a new machine, but of course that's more money.

 

[beatle]

Welcome to AT, deniro36. You were great in Raging Bull, BTW.

To answer your question, I wouldn't recommend upgrading your video card. I had a tbird @ 1266 and a 32 meg GF2 GTS. I upgraded to a 64 meg GF4 Ti4200. I could now run higher resolutions at the same crappy framerates I ran the lower resolutions. I upgraded to an overclocked tbred shortly thereafter and have been happy ever since.

 

[VIAN]

yeah get that, 64meg version only. I would recommend upgrading the entire system though, cause anything after that the 4200 isn't worth it for your system and you'll need the power.

Get yourself a Athlon64 3200+ machine with 2 sticks of 512MB of pc3200 ram and a 9800XT 256MB and you have a dream. This is speaking of now and in the high-end arena.

 

[modedepe]

New games + high details + good frame rates + old cpu don't go together. If you really want a nice gaming experience you'll have go upgrade the whole thing.

 

[deniro36]

Well, I play games when not acting. It lets me relax ...
But seriously, I figured that my current system was a little long in the tooth, but wanted to get a better understanding of more current video cards with the CPU, to verify my thoughts.
I was thinking of getting a 2500+ for a new system, 1 GB of ram, I guess a 9800 pro, etc, etc. One question about the AMD numbers, though. Since a 2500+ runs at like 1.83 Ghz, does that mean that it's comparable to an Intel running at 2.5 Ghz? I haven't dealt with the new PR rating number things, so back when I got my 900 Mhz, it was comparable to an equivalent Intel or so.
Anywho, thanks for easing my mind in getting another system. I want to get one, but wanted to make sure that what I have isn't really sufficient anymore. Now back to lurking, until more questions I geuss.

 

[BenSkywalker]

What mobo do you have? You may be able to get away with a processor upgrade combined with something like a Ti4200 and significantly increase your performance for well under $200. If you are using a SlotA Athlon, or a 100MHZ FSB mobo then I would say go with a full rebuild, if not you can squeeze a lot more performance out of your rig for a lot less money.

Edit

Looking at NewEgg you can grab a XP1800(1.53GHZ) for $51(OEM). You need a mobo that supports 133MHZ FSB for it to do you much good, but pair that with a Ti4200 and you would see a major performance boost for under $200.

 

[modedepe]

On the pr ratings, it's not too simple. With the intel processors you have different revisions: a's, b's, and c's, plus the original willamettes. Now originally the pr ratings were pretty conservative. For example, an 1800+ was more like a 2ghz p4 willamette. But then with the "a" revision a 1800+ and a p4 1.8a were more evenly matched. With the "b" revision the p4's got faster. Now with the "c" revision the p4's are considerably faster. An intel 2.4c would be quite a bit faster than a 2500+ athlon. Of course, intel processors also cost more.

 

[VIAN]

bump