Question to the group: What New Card???

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

My question to the group... Would a New Card Help??

I have a T'bird 1.4gig system, 512meg and a GF3 TI500 video card.
This rig has served well... but new games are taking a terrible hit.
Halo has to be played in 800x600 with settings drastically reduce, and
I still have slow downs in big melee's.

Would a new card help considerably? I'm not really interested in high
resolutions: 1024x768 is quite good enough on my 17" monitor. I also
don't see the visual benefit to anti-aliasing but I would, however,
like to turn up some of the other visuals (aniso always makes things
look better to me).

For a variety of reasons, I don't want to upgrade
mobo/memory/processor at this time. I wonder if it is the DirectX 9
features that need better hardware support than a GF-3 card provides.
Which new card would be a best match to what I've got, and give
playable performance at a lower resolution?

Or is my processor and system so "old" that it just can't keep up with
any card?

BuddyWh

 

[Beowulf]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

BuddyWh wrote:
> My question to the group... Would a New Card Help??
>
> I have a T'bird 1.4gig system, 512meg and a GF3 TI500 video card.
> This rig has served well... but new games are taking a terrible hit.
> Halo has to be played in 800x600 with settings drastically reduce, and
> I still have slow downs in big melee's.
>
> Would a new card help considerably? I'm not really interested in high
> resolutions: 1024x768 is quite good enough on my 17" monitor. I also
> don't see the visual benefit to anti-aliasing but I would, however,
> like to turn up some of the other visuals (aniso always makes things
> look better to me).
>
> For a variety of reasons, I don't want to upgrade
> mobo/memory/processor at this time. I wonder if it is the DirectX 9
> features that need better hardware support than a GF-3 card provides.
> Which new card would be a best match to what I've got, and give
> playable performance at a lower resolution?
>
> Or is my processor and system so "old" that it just can't keep up with
> any card?
>
> BuddyWh

I'm going to bypass the other threads here and give my 2 cents worth.

Yes, upgrading the video card will give a tremendous performance boost
in your system. You just won't be able to play childish "my fps is
higher" or "my 3DMark score is 15 billion" games. Benchmarking is not
the whole story. Since your looking at 1024x768x32 on a 17"monitor, a
new card will give acceptable fps with higher quality images. Remember
that you want to optimize operating system, driver, and game settings to
optimize game play performance: NOT raw fps or benchmark performance.

Also, keep in mind that directx is a cpu hog. run in opengl (much
faster and less instability) if possible. I tend to prefer opengl games
unless a particularly good title only comes with dx.

I run a pretty stripped down Win2kpro, 512MB PC133, ATA100 HD (20 and
40GB 7200rpm). I have killed most of the wiz bang services that I don't
use. If you run XP: get rid of that flowery interface and kill all
services and background processes you don't need. (set up a PII400 128MB
G1ddr system for the kids with XPpro - overall performance doubled when
I got rid of the background fluff; there's a lot of it)

I do have to share this with the rest of the family so I can't really go
nuts on making it just a gaming rig. I still get decent performance
(usually no FSAA) on my 19" crt at 1024x768 ad 2048x1024 with 32bit,
anisotropic at 2 or 4, depencding on game. 32 bit textures etc.

So if you not ready to upgrade CPU/mobo (when you are send it to me!),
remember that I am perfectly happy with my Athlon 800 and G4ti4800. Of
course, I won't play the newest games until next year when they hit the
$10 bargain bin (I got a family and a mortgage!) - so I'm ususlly behind
the wiz bang gotta have it now at all costs by about 1-2 yrs.

Of course, by December I do hope to build a new gaming rig and dedicate
this one to office apps. But first I have to put a new roof on the
house. Its all about compromises on your entertainment dollar when yuo
become an adult!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

BuddyWh wrote:
> My question to the group... Would a New Card Help??

....

> Or is my processor and system so "old" that it just can't keep up with
> any card?

So it is - unfortunately for you, fortun(at)e(ly) for industry;-)

Roy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:52:56 +0200, Roy Coorne <rcoorne@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>So it is - unfortunately for you, fortun(at)e(ly) for industry;-)

Or maybe... unfortunately (for the gaming and vid card industry) as I
and millions of others tire of this stupid upgrade train... dumping
truely fantastic systems... just to play one or two new games.

I think it's time to give up PC's for gaming... and go to consoles.

BuddyWh

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"BuddyWh" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:77tgb0p7d1sdgsp2s4tq1m6u7ql22rg51q@4ax.com...
> My question to the group... Would a New Card Help??
>
> I have a T'bird 1.4gig system, 512meg and a GF3 TI500 video card.
> This rig has served well... but new games are taking a terrible hit.
> Halo has to be played in 800x600 with settings drastically reduce, and
> I still have slow downs in big melee's.
>
> Would a new card help considerably?

It'll help, but don't expect miracles in 3D speed. You'll be CPU limited on
the graphics card. If you stick in an FX5900 or a 9800 Pro framerates will
go up and the game should be quite playable at 1024x768. A personal example:
I had a PIII 1.13Ghz Tualatin system o/c to 1.3Ghz with a Geforce2 GTS
Ultra 32 Mb card. Upgraded to a Radeon 8500 128Mb ( roughly equivalent to a
GeForce4 Ti4600) and was really pissed when my 3DMark 2001 scores only went
up from 6200 to 6700. ABout 3 month later I upgraded to a Barton 3200 and a
Nforce2 setup. On this the GeForce2 maxed out at 6800 and the Radeon runs at
12,000.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:16:53 GMT, "Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com>
wrote:

>If you stick in an FX5900 or a 9800 Pro framerates will
>go up and the game should be quite playable at 1024x768.

Thanks... do you think, since I'm not interested in higher resolution
gaming, that a 128MB card would suffice? I know that on-card memory
is used for more than just frame buffer now, but a 128MB card is MUCH
more affordble than the 256MB cards ($100 or more cheaper).
$163-$170, for FX5900 or 9800PRO, 128MB cards (on PriceWatch).

BuddyWh

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> Thanks... do you think, since I'm not interested in higher resolution
> gaming, that a 128MB card would suffice? I know that on-card memory
> is used for more than just frame buffer now, but a 128MB card is MUCH
> more affordble than the 256MB cards ($100 or more cheaper).
> $163-$170, for FX5900 or 9800PRO, 128MB cards (on PriceWatch).
>
> BuddyWh

I'm still running that 128Mb Radeon 8500 and I've yet to have a problem
running anything, including all the newer 3D titles. I run at 1024x768 32bit
color with all options maxed .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"BuddyWh" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:r49hb053advslhijocca7dndnppousnig7@4ax.com...

>
> >So it is - unfortunately for you, fortun(at)e(ly) for industry;-)
>
> Or maybe... unfortunately (for the gaming and vid card industry) as I
> and millions of others tire of this stupid upgrade train... dumping
> truely fantastic systems... just to play one or two new games.
>
> I think it's time to give up PC's for gaming... and go to consoles.

As if consoles never get obsolete? Yet you might be right, that for you,
consoles are a better choice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:54:31 GMT, "Derek Wildstar" <gunner@argo.mil>
wrote:

>As if consoles never get obsolete? Yet you might be right, that for you,
>consoles are a better choice.

Of course they do... then it's $200 (or less) to upgrade, every
two-three years or so. And there is NO EFFORT to it!

Not $1500-- for an all- new gaming rig-- or $700-800 if you just
upgrade mobo/cpu/memory/vid card and do it yourself with considerable
effort. The vid card alone will be in the $200 range... but ONLY if
you avoid the bleeding edge $500 dollar cards..

It used to be PC gaming had clear game play advantages, especially 3d
games. Now, I wonder how long PC's can stay competitive? will XBOX 2
be the end?

BuddyWh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Derek Wildstar" <gunner@argo.mil> wrote in message
news:bf3uc.9313$3x.6917@attbi_s54...
>
> "BuddyWh" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:r49hb053advslhijocca7dndnppousnig7@4ax.com...
> As if consoles never get obsolete? Yet you might be right, that for you,
> consoles are a better choice.

yeah consoles get obsolete, but when that happens, there already is a new
console available... AND u can play, any game available for that console.
Because hardware isn't an issue.. When u buy a PC it will at most go about 2
years, at that point you MUST upgrade something (most times VC) in order to
play good new games at an respectfull detail level. for Consoles this isn't.
Cause you buy a console for 200$ and which lasts for 4 years or so. BUT this
is just an money issue..... if you have money, i wouldn't mind upgrading my
system every year or maybe every 6 months ...
just my 2 c.

Greetz Rubbie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> Yes, upgrading the video card will give a tremendous performance boost
> in your system. You just won't be able to play childish "my fps is
> higher" or "my 3DMark score is 15 billion" games. Benchmarking is not
> the whole story.

Indeed.
Time and again, people answer posts like this one in terms of
benchmark scores, aka Timedemo. But they forget that timedemo is just
that, and NOT the same thing as in-game fps. But they talk as if they are
the same thing.
Getting a score of , say, 54 fps in a timedemo is totally meaningless
to a person who wants to know if the tested game will run smoothly
in actal game play.

Benchmarks are important. But they only help compare
one system/vid card/CPU to another. They are useless
in determining if a game will run smoothly.

Jeff B

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 12:05:59 -0600, Beowulf <edkchem@netscape.net>
wrote:

>Yes, upgrading the video card will give a tremendous performance boost
>in your system. You just won't be able to play childish "my fps is
>higher" or "my 3DMark score is 15 billion" games. Benchmarking is not
>the whole story. Since your looking at 1024x768x32 on a 17"monitor, a

Thanks for the response... FWIW, I tend much more to your line of
thinking. I find the synthetic benchmark-driven FPS "chase" extremely
tiresome... and apparently at least one other review site has too
([H]ardOCP). I am interested in is "just enough" FPS to keep the game
playable. I don't mind reducing eye candy to get through a melee
scene but I hate having to to get through routine battles.

The aspect I like about games are the graphics and effects... the
'artwork'. To a "twitch" player FPS may be very important, to the
point they turn down all eye candy possible to keep game speed max'd
out. But that's not my goal. I'd like to preserve as much as
possible... that means leaving things like specular highlights, high
detail textures, distant object rendering and ani-iso enabled.

In fact, many times gameplay can be repetetive, formulaic and quite
boring, even with the "better" games. The worst are the maze puzzles
(way too many in Halo)... just obstacles to overcome to get to new
areas! I spend as much time in UT2k3 flying around the levels before
clicking the mouse to start.

I like Morrowind very much for it's completely non-linear gameplay and
the fact that I don't have to make it a battle contest to enjoy the
very elaborate CG artwork. I fact, I have a hard time calling it a
game... to me, it is excellent experiential CG art!

Thanks again..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:52:43 -0400, BuddyWh <root@localhost.> wrote:

>My question to the group... Would a New Card Help??
>
>I have a T'bird 1.4gig system, 512meg and a GF3 TI500 video card.
>This rig has served well... but new games are taking a terrible hit.
>Halo has to be played in 800x600 with settings drastically reduce, and
>I still have slow downs in big melee's.

A Ti4200 like card (or 5700Ultra) will add some extra frames, but your
CPU is a bottleneck.

A friend's PC doesn't play games as well as nother in this example:

A - AMD 1500 + GF 4600 (128mb)
B - AMD 2500 + GF 4200 (64mb)

System B was easily faster, even with the slower video card.

Dont concern yourself with 256mb cards, they are important when
playing 1600x1200 on a VERT fast system for FUTURE games... only
FarCry makes some use of the memory.

>Would a new card help considerably? I'm not really interested in high
>resolutions: 1024x768 is quite good enough on my 17" monitor. I also
>don't see the visual benefit to anti-aliasing but I would, however,
>like to turn up some of the other visuals (aniso always makes things
>look better to me).

Plan for a system upgrade.... get like a brand new AMD64-3000 ($200) a
mobo ($130 with everything) + 512mb or more RAM and a 9800Pro or the
6800GT ($300) - they you'll love it.

I play with AA on all the time on my 9800Pro (and sometimes on my 5900
on my #2 PC)... it makes the graphic edges look better.... oh, I play
UT2004 in 1600x1200 on my system.

>For a variety of reasons, I don't want to upgrade
>mobo/memory/processor at this time. I wonder if it is the DirectX 9
>features that need better hardware support than a GF-3 card provides.

A bit... but its more of the WORK HORSE power of the card... a GF5200
is no better (but maybe worse) than the GF3. I'd save for a system
upgrade and sell your old system or use it for something else.

>Which new card would be a best match to what I've got, and give
>playable performance at a lower resolution?
>
>Or is my processor and system so "old" that it just can't keep up with
>any card?

Pretty much.. if your board would support a faster CPU, then that
could give you a bit more to work with... A friend is in the same
board with an AMD 1500 - he can only MAX out to the AMD 1800, and the
difference is not worth the $50.

Make a budget for $800... you'll like it anyways...

1 - $200 - AMD 64 3000 (smokin and upgradeable to AMD 4000)
2 - $130 - Mobo Nforce3 or VIA (includes audio, NIC, USB 2.0)
$ - $ 80 - 512mb RAM
$ - $ 75 - New Case and PSU (on the cheap)
$ - $100 - 120GB HD 7200 RPM
-----------------------------
$585

$175 = ATI 9800Pro or 5900 or...
$300 - 6800GT



- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:43:46 GMT, "Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com>
wrote:

>> Thanks... do you think, since I'm not interested in higher resolution
>> gaming, that a 128MB card would suffice? I know that on-card memory
>> is used for more than just frame buffer now, but a 128MB card is MUCH
>> more affordble than the 256MB cards ($100 or more cheaper).
>> $163-$170, for FX5900 or 9800PRO, 128MB cards (on PriceWatch).
>>
>> BuddyWh
>
>I'm still running that 128Mb Radeon 8500 and I've yet to have a problem
>running anything, including all the newer 3D titles. I run at 1024x768 32bit
>color with all options maxed .

MAX options for you may not be the same for someone with a GF5 or ATI
9800.

My GF4200 didn't compare to my 5900 or 9800 video cards.


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Ahem - a 8500 Rad is NOT equivalent to a Ti4600 or anything like - it's
equivalent in power to a GeForce3 Ti500.

Upgraded to a Radeon 8500 128Mb ( roughly equivalent to a
> GeForce4 Ti4600)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:35:46 GMT, v56k <v56k@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ahem - a 8500 Rad is NOT equivalent to a Ti4600 or anything like - it's
>equivalent in power to a GeForce3 Ti500.
>
its more equivalant to a 4200, but yes, a 4600 was faster with out
extreme overclocking and cooling (i'm speaking about the 128mb radeon
for this comparison)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"BuddyWh" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:v0thb01d9g1lebd8edd4cadildqv77ktu0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:54:31 GMT, "Derek Wildstar" <gunner@argo.mil>
> wrote:
>
> >As if consoles never get obsolete? Yet you might be right, that for you,
> >consoles are a better choice.
>
> Of course they do... then it's $200 (or less) to upgrade, every
> two-three years or so. And there is NO EFFORT to it!
>
> Not $1500-- for an all- new gaming rig-- or $700-800 if you just
> upgrade mobo/cpu/memory/vid card and do it yourself with considerable
> effort. The vid card alone will be in the $200 range... but ONLY if
> you avoid the bleeding edge $500 dollar cards..
>
> It used to be PC gaming had clear game play advantages, especially 3d
> games. Now, I wonder how long PC's can stay competitive? will XBOX 2
> be the end?
>
> BuddyWh

Your data is incorrect concerning the cost, difficulty and frequency of PC
upgrades to accomodate current A-list gaming titles with prior generation
hardware.

This faulty analysis must surely bias you against the PC and PC upgrade
path, debating PC-Console is pointless, but we all have to be aware that
A-list titles have become a fusion of platforms; Deus Ex 2, XIII, the list
goes on and on.

To whit, upgrading either becomes merely the price to "pay to play".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:40:01 -0500, OverKlocker <nunya@biznez.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:35:46 GMT, v56k <v56k@nospam.hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Ahem - a 8500 Rad is NOT equivalent to a Ti4600 or anything like - it's
>>equivalent in power to a GeForce3 Ti500.
>>
>its more equivalant to a 4200, but yes, a 4600 was faster with out
>extreme overclocking and cooling (i'm speaking about the 128mb radeon
>for this comparison)


Nope... in the real world, the 8500 (and slower 9000/9200Pros) were in
direct competition with GF3 cards. In case you didn't notice, Nvidia
won that round.

Benchmarks are one thing... gaming is another.


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.