What card to prolong life of P3 800Mhz?

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

I have an old P3 800 mhz system with a Matrox G400. I haven't really needed
a proper 3D card and have been happy with the G400. Now I've been playing
Morrowind Elder scrolls III, and would as a result like to upgrade to a
graphics card with better 3D capabilities. I don't need top-of-the-line and
suspect it would be a waste unless I also upgraded the rest of my system.
Can anybody suggest a suitable card with a good 2D image quality and
preferably as little noise as possible? The mainboard is Abit BX-133 (BX440
chipset, AGP 2x).

Many thanks in advance,
Rasmus
21 answers Last reply
More about what card prolong life 800mhz
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    None considering games ogf June on will recommend 2Ghz+, 512 megs ram and at
    least a 128 meg vid card.


    "Rasmus Paetau" <Rasmus.Paetau@hut.fi.REMOVE> wrote in message
    news:c99rvk$r9e$1@plaza.suomi.net...
    > I have an old P3 800 mhz system with a Matrox G400. I haven't really
    needed
    > a proper 3D card and have been happy with the G400. Now I've been playing
    > Morrowind Elder scrolls III, and would as a result like to upgrade to a
    > graphics card with better 3D capabilities. I don't need top-of-the-line
    and
    > suspect it would be a waste unless I also upgraded the rest of my system.
    > Can anybody suggest a suitable card with a good 2D image quality and
    > preferably as little noise as possible? The mainboard is Abit BX-133
    (BX440
    > chipset, AGP 2x).
    >
    > Many thanks in advance,
    > Rasmus
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    RipFlex wrote:

    > None considering games ogf June on will recommend 2Ghz+, 512 megs ram and
    > at least a 128 meg vid card.

    You mean that the requirements for the one game that he is playing will
    magically change overnight? Do tell.

    > "Rasmus Paetau" <Rasmus.Paetau@hut.fi.REMOVE> wrote in message
    > news:c99rvk$r9e$1@plaza.suomi.net...
    >> I have an old P3 800 mhz system with a Matrox G400. I haven't really
    > needed
    >> a proper 3D card and have been happy with the G400. Now I've been playing
    >> Morrowind Elder scrolls III, and would as a result like to upgrade to a
    >> graphics card with better 3D capabilities. I don't need top-of-the-line
    > and
    >> suspect it would be a waste unless I also upgraded the rest of my system.
    >> Can anybody suggest a suitable card with a good 2D image quality and
    >> preferably as little noise as possible? The mainboard is Abit BX-133
    > (BX440
    >> chipset, AGP 2x).
    >>
    >> Many thanks in advance,
    >> Rasmus
    >>
    >>

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Rasmus Paetau" <Rasmus.Paetau@hut.fi.REMOVE> wrote in message
    news:c99rvk$r9e$1@plaza.suomi.net...
    > I have an old P3 800 mhz system with a Matrox G400. I haven't really
    needed
    > a proper 3D card and have been happy with the G400. Now I've been playing
    > Morrowind Elder scrolls III, and would as a result like to upgrade to a
    > graphics card with better 3D capabilities. I don't need top-of-the-line
    and
    > suspect it would be a waste unless I also upgraded the rest of my system.
    > Can anybody suggest a suitable card with a good 2D image quality and
    > preferably as little noise as possible? The mainboard is Abit BX-133
    (BX440
    > chipset, AGP 2x).

    A Radeon 8500 128Mb or a Geforce4 Ti4200 are good choices. Not available
    new, but Ebay has an excellent inexpensive selection. These are both very
    fast DX8.1 cards. I would avoid slow bottom feeder new products like the
    9000/9200 series Radeons or the FX5200 series.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "RipFlex" <dbossom1@cogeco.ca> wrote in
    news:gX1uc.8671$XY6.768467@read2.cgocable.net:

    > None considering games ogf June on will recommend 2Ghz+,
    > 512 megs ram and at least a 128 meg vid card.
    >

    Nice gross generalisation there, especially as Gabe Newell was
    quoted in PCZone's latest issue as indicating once you get over
    1.2 ghz processor you won't see much improvement in Half Life 2
    so long as you have 256mb ram & a DX9 card.

    That's not to mention the hunderds of other games that will
    require less than you reckon.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Morrowind needs a VERY fast graphic card, to be able to play smoothly!
    I'd love to recommend "Morrowind fps optimizer" wonderful little tool!:
    www.morrowind.nm.ru

    REMEMBER: If you choose an ATI card (radeon8500 and higher) you will have
    option to enable "TruForm" for Morrowind!! This DRAMATICALLY improves
    lightning model indoor and object geometry. So faces, rocks, pottery, clifs
    and the whole scenery looks MUCH smoother and lovely! See above link for
    pics of Truform in action.

    Nvidia based cards don't have TruForm!


    Cheapest option is a Geforce3-ti500 (and only ti-500, no less!). IF you find
    one CHEAP and used.
    Gf4 ti-4200 or Radeon 8500/9000pro, 64mb or 128mb, don't matter much for
    that game.

    If you don't fancy used cards, then you can buy a Radeon 9600, 128mb, or a
    Fx5500 128mb which cost some less and is bit slower.

    STAY AWAY from Fx5200/5600XT/ Radeon9200SE/9200/9600SE cards. Fx5200ultra
    and Radeon 9200pro are decent, but at that price, radeon9600 is much much
    better choise.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in
    news:lw4uc.84201$BD3.10620442@juliett.dax.net:


    >
    > REMEMBER: If you choose an ATI card (radeon8500 and higher)
    > you will have option to enable "TruForm" for Morrowind!!
    > This DRAMATICALLY improves lightning model indoor and
    > object geometry. So faces, rocks, pottery, clifs and the
    > whole scenery looks MUCH smoother and lovely! See above
    > link for pics of Truform in action.
    >
    Only recommended if you have one the ATI cards that do it in
    hardware, which is a limited number unless they reintroduced it.

    My 9700Pro does not do it in hardware & it can be quite a
    performance hit.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    What? I could enable TruForm on my 8500LE and mobility 9000, with very
    little 3-5fps hit im most games. However, depends MUCH on how TruForm is
    implemented. My current overclocked 9600SE can do Truform with about 4-8fps
    hit in general. Not bad at all, considering only 64bit mem width.


    "Lithurge" <bogorfspam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94F8CE3781117ds34543dsffds@130.133.1.4...
    > "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in
    > news:lw4uc.84201$BD3.10620442@juliett.dax.net:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > REMEMBER: If you choose an ATI card (radeon8500 and higher)
    > > you will have option to enable "TruForm" for Morrowind!!
    > > This DRAMATICALLY improves lightning model indoor and
    > > object geometry. So faces, rocks, pottery, clifs and the
    > > whole scenery looks MUCH smoother and lovely! See above
    > > link for pics of Truform in action.
    > >
    > Only recommended if you have one the ATI cards that do it in
    > hardware, which is a limited number unless they reintroduced it.
    >
    > My 9700Pro does not do it in hardware & it can be quite a
    > performance hit.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    I had an 8500 in my old celeron 900 and it was a dog until I put it in an
    xp1700 system, both systems had 512mb ram. So draw conclusions from that.

    Mike

    "Lithurge" <bogorfspam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94F8BD687BC74ds34543dsffds@130.133.1.4...
    > "RipFlex" <dbossom1@cogeco.ca> wrote in
    > news:gX1uc.8671$XY6.768467@read2.cgocable.net:
    >
    > > None considering games ogf June on will recommend 2Ghz+,
    > > 512 megs ram and at least a 128 meg vid card.
    > >
    >
    > Nice gross generalisation there, especially as Gabe Newell was
    > quoted in PCZone's latest issue as indicating once you get over
    > 1.2 ghz processor you won't see much improvement in Half Life 2
    > so long as you have 256mb ram & a DX9 card.
    >
    > That's not to mention the hunderds of other games that will
    > require less than you reckon.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    In article <gX1uc.8671$XY6.768467@read2.cgocable.net>, "RipFlex" <dbossom1@cogeco.ca> wrote:
    >None considering games ogf June on will recommend 2Ghz+, 512 megs ram and at
    >least a 128 meg vid card.
    >
    >

    Believe it or not, running UNREAL2004 on a 600mhx P3 with my old radeon AIW
    card (Had to try it since i added a new 9800 Pro to my 2.4 system and had the
    AIW laying around) . Very playable so yes a 800mhz with a 8500 or so card
    would be fine.

    >"Rasmus Paetau" <Rasmus.Paetau@hut.fi.REMOVE> wrote in message
    >news:c99rvk$r9e$1@plaza.suomi.net...
    >> I have an old P3 800 mhz system with a Matrox G400. I haven't really
    >needed
    >> a proper 3D card and have been happy with the G400. Now I've been playing
    >> Morrowind Elder scrolls III, and would as a result like to upgrade to a
    >> graphics card with better 3D capabilities. I don't need top-of-the-line
    >and
    >> suspect it would be a waste unless I also upgraded the rest of my system.
    >> Can anybody suggest a suitable card with a good 2D image quality and
    >> preferably as little noise as possible? The mainboard is Abit BX-133
    >(BX440
    >> chipset, AGP 2x).
    >>
    >> Many thanks in advance,
    >> Rasmus
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Mike P" <mike@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in
    news:q6cuc.50330$Np3.2177396@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:

    > I had an 8500 in my old celeron 900 and it was a dog until
    > I put it in an xp1700 system, both systems had 512mb ram.
    > So draw conclusions from that.
    >

    I draw the conclusion you had a piss poor processor,
    irrespective of Mhz speed in the first instance. :)
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in
    news:kI5uc.84207$BD3.10622869@juliett.dax.net:

    > What? I could enable TruForm on my 8500LE and mobility
    > 9000, with very little 3-5fps hit im most games. However,
    > depends MUCH on how TruForm is implemented. My current
    > overclocked 9600SE can do Truform with about 4-8fps hit in
    > general. Not bad at all, considering only 64bit mem width.
    >

    I believe the 8500 was one of the few cards that does it in
    hardware, as for the rest I suppose it depends on willingness to
    trade off view distance. As suggested by your use of the FPS
    optimizer. I prefer to see as far as I can rather than limiting
    my view to get a few more curves in.

    It's a while since I used it but am I right in thinking you can
    set the level of truform?
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    First thing: Morrowind does NOT, repeat NOT, natively support Truform. So
    The reason i use fps optimizer is because it enables:
    - To use Truform on *selected* object (about 50-70 i think, not every
    thing).
    - You can chose to have DOUBLE the normal view distance, when fps is above
    specified range (25 in my setting)
    - You can REDUCE view range, when fps is low (18 in my case)
    - Auto adjust AI distance to match view distance.

    So this optimizer is more than just a fps optimizer, it is an overhaul of
    original game. As for Radeon8500, 8500Le/9100 are using the EXACT same core!
    9000/9200/pro cards use core which is based on R250, so all those cards do
    Truform i n realtime onchip! Same goes for m9, mobility9600pro and 9600(se).
    I can't say about XT and Pro 9600, as never tried them.

    If the card did not do truform on chip, the penality would be EXTREME!!!
    Think that Truform increases poly count by atleast 8-12 times, compaired to
    normal. So If it was emulated, So performance hit would be about 50%-100%
    lower fps, not 4-5% in my case with 9600SE.


    "Lithurge" <bogorfspam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94F97561446F4ds34543dsffds@130.133.1.4...
    > "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in
    > news:kI5uc.84207$BD3.10622869@juliett.dax.net:
    >
    > > What? I could enable TruForm on my 8500LE and mobility
    > > 9000, with very little 3-5fps hit im most games. However,
    > > depends MUCH on how TruForm is implemented. My current
    > > overclocked 9600SE can do Truform with about 4-8fps hit in
    > > general. Not bad at all, considering only 64bit mem width.
    > >
    >
    > I believe the 8500 was one of the few cards that does it in
    > hardware, as for the rest I suppose it depends on willingness to
    > trade off view distance. As suggested by your use of the FPS
    > optimizer. I prefer to see as far as I can rather than limiting
    > my view to get a few more curves in.
    >
    > It's a while since I used it but am I right in thinking you can
    > set the level of truform?
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in
    news:eNjuc.84260$BD3.10630103@juliett.dax.net:

    > First thing: Morrowind does NOT, repeat NOT, natively
    > support Truform.

    Yes I know, try not to get too excited there ;-)


    > So this optimizer is more than just a fps optimizer, it is
    > an overhaul of original game.

    IMO it's a tweaker, but that doesn't really matter, I tried
    it out but didn't see any benefit personally, which is not to
    say it won't be of use to others.

    >As for Radeon8500,
    > 8500Le/9100 are using the EXACT same core! 9000/9200/pro
    > cards use core which is based on R250, so all those cards
    > do Truform i n realtime onchip! Same goes for m9,
    > mobility9600pro and 9600(se). I can't say about XT and Pro
    > 9600, as never tried them.

    Well assuming you are correct that would explain the fact you
    don't see a massive hit in FPS & which is why I said you need
    it to be done in hardware.

    >
    > If the card did not do truform on chip, the penality would
    > be EXTREME!!! Think that Truform increases poly count by
    > atleast 8-12 times, compaired to normal. So If it was
    > emulated, So performance hit would be about 50%-100% lower
    > fps, not 4-5% in my case with 9600SE.
    >
    Bingo - the 9700 series (of which I own a Pro) & I'm guessing
    the 9800 series do not do this on chip, but at a software
    level. I would also say it wasn't as extreme as you might
    think, especially with MW's native performance, but it was
    noticeable.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    > similar to my old cel900. The fact that the 8500 took off in a faster
    > system shows that the old system was a huge bottleneck, and that it isn't
    > worth spending money on a fast card for it;

    Yes, but the OP intended to *prolong the life of P3 800MHz*, so having a
    radeon8500 or newer will only aid, not bog down the system from what it is
    like now.
    Besides.. I believe a 800MHz P3 with radeon8500 or 9600se (or any Radeon for
    that matter) will perform better in Morrowind than a P3 800MHz with G400 or
    so. As this is what OP wanted to know.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Mike P" <mikepos@nbnetNospaM.nb.ca> wrote in
    news:AIpuc.50767$Np3.2190789@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:

    > My point is that a celeron 900 is very close in performance
    > to his, and the board, sdram etc would be too. So he can
    > see from my single experience, which is very similar to
    > what his will be, My single experience provides direct >
    comparison
    > to the OP.

    But what relation did this bear to my original post? Just
    imagine somebody newly posted to a newsgroup ' all games
    coming out from next month will require a 2ghz processor, 1gb
    ram & a 256mb graphics card'

    See what I responed to now?

    >
    > There is no need to go into the willful crippling of the
    > later celerons (which I think is what got you confused
    > about the cel900), AMD architecture vs Intel, etc, etc
    > because it isn't relevant.
    >
    > ... and the first time you showed ignorance was when you
    > posted :
    >
    > "...Nice gross generalisation there, especially as Gabe
    > Newell was quoted in PCZone's latest issue as indicating
    > once you get over 1.2 ghz processor you won't see much
    > improvement in Half Life 2 so long as you have 256mb ram &
    > a DX9 card. "

    Hello put it back in the original context (outlined above) &
    we see Gabes comments were if you have a specific system, not
    if you upgrade from one system to a completley different one.
    Let's carry on down shall we?


    > In your own words,
    > "... Of course you're
    >> also ignoring things like, new mobo, Ram speeds, relative
    >> speeds of AMD processors to Intel etc... "
    >
    > the 1.2Ghz quote you posted is very rellevant to such
    > things, whereas the
    > point I was making does not require getting into those
    > details.
    >

    The point is tha it's not always/just the CPU that can be a
    bottleneck in a system. It would be more relevant if you
    could post experience of upgrading just the CPU in the same
    base system.

    And as Asestar has already pointed out just because it may
    not run to it's full potential is not a reason to not upgrade
    your card. I did this with the original Geforce as it would
    improve the performance slightly over my current card.
    Although I acknowledge I was also planning a more thorough
    upgrade shrotly.

    >>
    >> Rebuffing a completley spurious argument that all games
    >> post May this year will require such a high spec system?
    >>
    You nicely ignored this point didn't you?

    It seems you're not 100% au fait about the use of snipping
    within usenet, if you reread my post you'll see I completley
    snipped the OP posters text. My point re Gabes quote was a
    reply to somebody saying 2ghz 512mb ram etc... was what all
    games post May would require.

    There is no logic that even fits this as being a response to
    the OP request for advice on a card that would prolong the
    life of his 800Mhz processor.

    You're posting of your experience, regardless of the crippled
    processor & all Celerons were crippled to a greater or lesser
    degree, is irrelevant to my original post. Try posting to the
    the correct post and don't tack it on to one that has little
    bearing on the original, it'll save confusion..

    And before you say something about the title I did not change
    it as it annoys a lot of people.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:28:05 +0300, "Rasmus Paetau"
    <Rasmus.Paetau@hut.fi.REMOVE> wrote:

    >I have an old P3 800 mhz system with a Matrox G400. I haven't really needed
    >a proper 3D card and have been happy with the G400. Now I've been playing
    >Morrowind Elder scrolls III, and would as a result like to upgrade to a
    >graphics card with better 3D capabilities. I don't need top-of-the-line and
    >suspect it would be a waste unless I also upgraded the rest of my system.
    >Can anybody suggest a suitable card with a good 2D image quality and
    >preferably as little noise as possible? The mainboard is Abit BX-133 (BX440
    >chipset, AGP 2x).

    A P3-800 (my previous PC from 18 months ago = P3-866) will not PUSH a
    GF3 or ATI8500 beyond its limts....

    So a GF5200-Ultra or an ATI 9000Pro or 9200Pro (9000 is slightly
    better, the 9200 is smaller) will work fine... But they will still be
    waiting for more data on your end. Those cards should not cost more
    than $80.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 29 May 2004 17:37:08 GMT, Lithurge <bogorfspam@btopenworld.com>
    wrote:

    >"RipFlex" <dbossom1@cogeco.ca> wrote in
    >news:gX1uc.8671$XY6.768467@read2.cgocable.net:
    >
    >> None considering games ogf June on will recommend 2Ghz+,
    >> 512 megs ram and at least a 128 meg vid card.
    >>
    >
    >Nice gross generalisation there, especially as Gabe Newell was
    >quoted in PCZone's latest issue as indicating once you get over
    >1.2 ghz processor you won't see much improvement in Half Life 2
    >so long as you have 256mb ram & a DX9 card.

    Bwahahah....

    In today's games, theres a difference in performance between a 1.5 &
    2.0 Ghz CPU, much less the 64bit CPUS!

    Case in point: UT2004 plays better on which PC?

    A - AMD XP 1500 with GF4-Ti4600
    B - AMD XP 2500 with GF4-Ti4200

    Answer = B... because the AMD 1500 CPU is the bottle next.


    HL2, to get great performance, you should have an AMD/Intel 3000 with
    1GB RAM and at least the ATI 9800Pro....

    Otherwise the video settings will need to be on low... and thats only
    if the video card is on the low end.


    - - - - -
    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.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    If you check my first post you'll see I said to draw your own conclusions...
    Again, an 8500 will not perform near it's potential in a p3 800. While this
    isn't a reason to avoid geting one on a good deal it is a reason to avoid
    paying top dollar based on reviews of how fast that card is because that can
    be misleading. Lesser cards such as the 7500 are worth considering for that
    cpu if money is tight because the difference won't be that big.

    As for your first post, Ripflex was far out but so were you in inferring
    that a 1.2G cpu is a reasonable place to leave a cpu, which is the only way
    to read it.

    And, again, because my system was much like his, I gave a useful benchmark
    on what to expect from a card that was mentioned in this string as a good
    upgrade. Again, AMD vs Intel differences, etc. are not relevant because he
    is not upgrading the rest of his system.

    > >> Rebuffing a completley spurious argument that all games
    > >> post May this year will require such a high spec system?
    > >>
    > You nicely ignored this point didn't you?

    Yes I did, because again it isnt releveant to what I'm saying.

    "...The point is tha it's not always/just the CPU that can be a
    bottleneck in a system. It would be more relevant if you
    could post experience of upgrading just the CPU in the same
    base system. ..."

    It doesn't matter what the bottleneck is because he isn't changing anything.
    For the same reason, it wouldn't be more helpful to post only a cpu upgrade
    difference because the issue is how an 8500 will perform in his system, and
    what I was pointing out was that it will be choked badly; it doesn't matter
    what component does it (although it is a combination of all things - slower
    chipset, slower fsb, slower ram, slower cpu).

    I'm not going further with the string analysis.
    In a nutshell, so you can understand:

    - A 1.2Ghz cpu, regardless of memory or chipset, is not a realistic gaming
    cpu. Therefore, even though a 2G cpu may not be necessary, not much can be
    expected of a p3 800 for gaming.
    - The p3 800 wil not provide the 8500 enough power to run as it is reported
    to. This is worth noting because the 8500 was suggested earlier. Ironically
    I think it wopuld be a good card for the OP as long as he didnt pay much
    more than he coulkd get a 7500 class card.
    - Newer celerons are purposely crippled with higher cache latencies, etc to
    avoid the competition p2 and p3 cpus got from them... AMD xp+ cpu's are more
    bandwidth hungry than cpu cycle hungry and respond better to fsb boosts than
    cpu speed... DDR ram is faster than original sdram (I benched both types in
    an ecs k7s5a and ran 3dmark2001 6% faster with ddr)... etc, etc, etc... BUT
    none of this requires mentioning to support the fact that I ran an 8500 in a
    system with almost identical performance to the OP's (that era cpu used
    sdram and similar performing chipset)... AND I know this to be true because
    I installed the same video card (in an all around faster xp1700+ system) and
    got huge performance increase, which shows that the video card was very much
    held back by a system much like the OP's - the reasons for that are
    irrelevant because my point is that the p3 800 is a huge bottleneck for the
    8500, and a slower card will perform much closer to the 8500 than normal for
    a newer (but still dated) system.

    So, as I stated in my first post, draw your own conclusions on that.

    My point, which I didn't want to bother to fully explain, is that the p3 800
    wil not run fast video cars like they are meant to be, and a slightly lesser
    card could be considered without a big drop in performance. This is
    pertinent to your post because you were inferring that a 1.2GHz cpu is
    sufficient for a new game like HL2; if this were the case, (disregarding the
    issue about the variety of 1.2G cpu's), then a p3 800 would seem to be able
    to fare pretty well for gaming, in which case... why not get a really nice
    speed boost and get a 9800pro...

    The OP can, if he chooses use the information I gave when choosing a new
    card because I gave a benchmark of how a similar system to his worked with a
    specific gaming card, and noted that it did work near it's potential.

    Anyway I've said all I have to say on this matter... I'm sure most people
    have long lost interest in this dispute even more so than me...

    Mike

    "Lithurge" <bogorfspam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94F9D32683629ds34543dsffds@130.133.1.4...
    > "Mike P" <mikepos@nbnetNospaM.nb.ca> wrote in
    > news:AIpuc.50767$Np3.2190789@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
    >
    > > My point is that a celeron 900 is very close in performance
    > > to his, and the board, sdram etc would be too. So he can
    > > see from my single experience, which is very similar to
    > > what his will be, My single experience provides direct >
    > comparison
    > > to the OP.
    >
    > But what relation did this bear to my original post? Just
    > imagine somebody newly posted to a newsgroup ' all games
    > coming out from next month will require a 2ghz processor, 1gb
    > ram & a 256mb graphics card'
    >
    > See what I responed to now?
    >
    > >
    > > There is no need to go into the willful crippling of the
    > > later celerons (which I think is what got you confused
    > > about the cel900), AMD architecture vs Intel, etc, etc
    > > because it isn't relevant.
    > >
    > > ... and the first time you showed ignorance was when you
    > > posted :
    > >
    > > "...Nice gross generalisation there, especially as Gabe
    > > Newell was quoted in PCZone's latest issue as indicating
    > > once you get over 1.2 ghz processor you won't see much
    > > improvement in Half Life 2 so long as you have 256mb ram &
    > > a DX9 card. "
    >
    > Hello put it back in the original context (outlined above) &
    > we see Gabes comments were if you have a specific system, not
    > if you upgrade from one system to a completley different one.
    > Let's carry on down shall we?
    >
    >
    > > In your own words,
    > > "... Of course you're
    > >> also ignoring things like, new mobo, Ram speeds, relative
    > >> speeds of AMD processors to Intel etc... "
    > >
    > > the 1.2Ghz quote you posted is very rellevant to such
    > > things, whereas the
    > > point I was making does not require getting into those
    > > details.
    > >
    >
    > The point is tha it's not always/just the CPU that can be a
    > bottleneck in a system. It would be more relevant if you
    > could post experience of upgrading just the CPU in the same
    > base system.
    >
    > And as Asestar has already pointed out just because it may
    > not run to it's full potential is not a reason to not upgrade
    > your card. I did this with the original Geforce as it would
    > improve the performance slightly over my current card.
    > Although I acknowledge I was also planning a more thorough
    > upgrade shrotly.
    >
    > >>
    > >> Rebuffing a completley spurious argument that all games
    > >> post May this year will require such a high spec system?
    > >>
    > You nicely ignored this point didn't you?
    >
    > It seems you're not 100% au fait about the use of snipping
    > within usenet, if you reread my post you'll see I completley
    > snipped the OP posters text. My point re Gabes quote was a
    > reply to somebody saying 2ghz 512mb ram etc... was what all
    > games post May would require.
    >
    > There is no logic that even fits this as being a response to
    > the OP request for advice on a card that would prolong the
    > life of his 800Mhz processor.
    >
    > You're posting of your experience, regardless of the crippled
    > processor & all Celerons were crippled to a greater or lesser
    > degree, is irrelevant to my original post. Try posting to the
    > the correct post and don't tack it on to one that has little
    > bearing on the original, it'll save confusion..
    >
    > And before you say something about the title I did not change
    > it as it annoys a lot of people.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    You know, 8500 is DX8.1 capable card. So those pixelshader can be used in
    Morrowind to display fantastic / realistic looking water, lava, Kwama egg's
    and much more effects.
    All this is not possible under 7500 or below.
    So why not recommend OP a card that can help make his game look better?
    Isn't this exactly what's driving the gfx card industry forward?


    "Mike P" <mike@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
    news:Giwuc.50990$Np3.2202420@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    > If you check my first post you'll see I said to draw your own
    conclusions...
    > Again, an 8500 will not perform near it's potential in a p3 800. While
    this
    > isn't a reason to avoid geting one on a good deal it is a reason to avoid
    > paying top dollar based on reviews of how fast that card is because that
    can
    > be misleading. Lesser cards such as the 7500 are worth considering for
    that
    > cpu if money is tight because the difference won't be that big.
    >
    > As for your first post, Ripflex was far out but so were you in inferring
    > that a 1.2G cpu is a reasonable place to leave a cpu, which is the only
    way
    > to read it.
    >
    > And, again, because my system was much like his, I gave a useful benchmark
    > on what to expect from a card that was mentioned in this string as a good
    > upgrade. Again, AMD vs Intel differences, etc. are not relevant because
    he
    > is not upgrading the rest of his system.
    >
    > > >> Rebuffing a completley spurious argument that all games
    > > >> post May this year will require such a high spec system?
    > > >>
    > > You nicely ignored this point didn't you?
    >
    > Yes I did, because again it isnt releveant to what I'm saying.
    >
    > "...The point is tha it's not always/just the CPU that can be a
    > bottleneck in a system. It would be more relevant if you
    > could post experience of upgrading just the CPU in the same
    > base system. ..."
    >
    > It doesn't matter what the bottleneck is because he isn't changing
    anything.
    > For the same reason, it wouldn't be more helpful to post only a cpu
    upgrade
    > difference because the issue is how an 8500 will perform in his system,
    and
    > what I was pointing out was that it will be choked badly; it doesn't
    matter
    > what component does it (although it is a combination of all things -
    slower
    > chipset, slower fsb, slower ram, slower cpu).
    >
    > I'm not going further with the string analysis.
    > In a nutshell, so you can understand:
    >
    > - A 1.2Ghz cpu, regardless of memory or chipset, is not a realistic gaming
    > cpu. Therefore, even though a 2G cpu may not be necessary, not much can be
    > expected of a p3 800 for gaming.
    > - The p3 800 wil not provide the 8500 enough power to run as it is
    reported
    > to. This is worth noting because the 8500 was suggested earlier.
    Ironically
    > I think it wopuld be a good card for the OP as long as he didnt pay much
    > more than he coulkd get a 7500 class card.
    > - Newer celerons are purposely crippled with higher cache latencies, etc
    to
    > avoid the competition p2 and p3 cpus got from them... AMD xp+ cpu's are
    more
    > bandwidth hungry than cpu cycle hungry and respond better to fsb boosts
    than
    > cpu speed... DDR ram is faster than original sdram (I benched both types
    in
    > an ecs k7s5a and ran 3dmark2001 6% faster with ddr)... etc, etc, etc...
    BUT
    > none of this requires mentioning to support the fact that I ran an 8500 in
    a
    > system with almost identical performance to the OP's (that era cpu used
    > sdram and similar performing chipset)... AND I know this to be true
    because
    > I installed the same video card (in an all around faster xp1700+ system)
    and
    > got huge performance increase, which shows that the video card was very
    much
    > held back by a system much like the OP's - the reasons for that are
    > irrelevant because my point is that the p3 800 is a huge bottleneck for
    the
    > 8500, and a slower card will perform much closer to the 8500 than normal
    for
    > a newer (but still dated) system.
    >
    > So, as I stated in my first post, draw your own conclusions on that.
    >
    > My point, which I didn't want to bother to fully explain, is that the p3
    800
    > wil not run fast video cars like they are meant to be, and a slightly
    lesser
    > card could be considered without a big drop in performance. This is
    > pertinent to your post because you were inferring that a 1.2GHz cpu is
    > sufficient for a new game like HL2; if this were the case, (disregarding
    the
    > issue about the variety of 1.2G cpu's), then a p3 800 would seem to be
    able
    > to fare pretty well for gaming, in which case... why not get a really nice
    > speed boost and get a 9800pro...
    >
    > The OP can, if he chooses use the information I gave when choosing a new
    > card because I gave a benchmark of how a similar system to his worked with
    a
    > specific gaming card, and noted that it did work near it's potential.
    >
    > Anyway I've said all I have to say on this matter... I'm sure most people
    > have long lost interest in this dispute even more so than me...
    >
    > Mike
    >
    > "Lithurge" <bogorfspam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94F9D32683629ds34543dsffds@130.133.1.4...
    > > "Mike P" <mikepos@nbnetNospaM.nb.ca> wrote in
    > > news:AIpuc.50767$Np3.2190789@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
    > >
    > > > My point is that a celeron 900 is very close in performance
    > > > to his, and the board, sdram etc would be too. So he can
    > > > see from my single experience, which is very similar to
    > > > what his will be, My single experience provides direct >
    > > comparison
    > > > to the OP.
    > >
    > > But what relation did this bear to my original post? Just
    > > imagine somebody newly posted to a newsgroup ' all games
    > > coming out from next month will require a 2ghz processor, 1gb
    > > ram & a 256mb graphics card'
    > >
    > > See what I responed to now?
    > >
    > > >
    > > > There is no need to go into the willful crippling of the
    > > > later celerons (which I think is what got you confused
    > > > about the cel900), AMD architecture vs Intel, etc, etc
    > > > because it isn't relevant.
    > > >
    > > > ... and the first time you showed ignorance was when you
    > > > posted :
    > > >
    > > > "...Nice gross generalisation there, especially as Gabe
    > > > Newell was quoted in PCZone's latest issue as indicating
    > > > once you get over 1.2 ghz processor you won't see much
    > > > improvement in Half Life 2 so long as you have 256mb ram &
    > > > a DX9 card. "
    > >
    > > Hello put it back in the original context (outlined above) &
    > > we see Gabes comments were if you have a specific system, not
    > > if you upgrade from one system to a completley different one.
    > > Let's carry on down shall we?
    > >
    > >
    > > > In your own words,
    > > > "... Of course you're
    > > >> also ignoring things like, new mobo, Ram speeds, relative
    > > >> speeds of AMD processors to Intel etc... "
    > > >
    > > > the 1.2Ghz quote you posted is very rellevant to such
    > > > things, whereas the
    > > > point I was making does not require getting into those
    > > > details.
    > > >
    > >
    > > The point is tha it's not always/just the CPU that can be a
    > > bottleneck in a system. It would be more relevant if you
    > > could post experience of upgrading just the CPU in the same
    > > base system.
    > >
    > > And as Asestar has already pointed out just because it may
    > > not run to it's full potential is not a reason to not upgrade
    > > your card. I did this with the original Geforce as it would
    > > improve the performance slightly over my current card.
    > > Although I acknowledge I was also planning a more thorough
    > > upgrade shrotly.
    > >
    > > >>
    > > >> Rebuffing a completley spurious argument that all games
    > > >> post May this year will require such a high spec system?
    > > >>
    > > You nicely ignored this point didn't you?
    > >
    > > It seems you're not 100% au fait about the use of snipping
    > > within usenet, if you reread my post you'll see I completley
    > > snipped the OP posters text. My point re Gabes quote was a
    > > reply to somebody saying 2ghz 512mb ram etc... was what all
    > > games post May would require.
    > >
    > > There is no logic that even fits this as being a response to
    > > the OP request for advice on a card that would prolong the
    > > life of his 800Mhz processor.
    > >
    > > You're posting of your experience, regardless of the crippled
    > > processor & all Celerons were crippled to a greater or lesser
    > > degree, is irrelevant to my original post. Try posting to the
    > > the correct post and don't tack it on to one that has little
    > > bearing on the original, it'll save confusion..
    > >
    > > And before you say something about the title I did not change
    > > it as it annoys a lot of people.
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    > > If the card did not do truform on chip, the penality would
    > > be EXTREME!!! Think that Truform increases poly count by
    > > atleast 8-12 times, compaired to normal. So If it was
    > > emulated, So performance hit would be about 50%-100% lower
    > > fps, not 4-5% in my case with 9600SE.

    > Bingo - the 9700 series (of which I own a Pro) & I'm guessing
    > the 9800 series do not do this on chip, but at a software
    > level. I would also say it wasn't as extreme as you might
    > think, especially with MW's native performance, but it was
    > noticeable.

    That's strange.. I was checking ATI site, and found this:
    http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/glossary/includes/list.html

    click on TruForm 2.0!!
    It says 9700 support TF2.0! which should be better than TruForm1
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    I already said that it would actually be the card that I would recommend as
    long as the price was good. If not I'd still consider a 7500 class card for
    the reasons I already stated. The argument about cpu's overtook the cards.

    Mike

    "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t . n o> wrote in message
    news:k8Huc.84357$BD3.10647512@juliett.dax.net...
    > You know, 8500 is DX8.1 capable card. So those pixelshader can be used in
    > Morrowind to display fantastic / realistic looking water, lava, Kwama
    egg's
    > and much more effects.
    > All this is not possible under 7500 or below.
    > So why not recommend OP a card that can help make his game look better?
    > Isn't this exactly what's driving the gfx card industry forward?
    >
    >
    > "Mike P" <mike@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
    > news:Giwuc.50990$Np3.2202420@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    > > If you check my first post you'll see I said to draw your own
    > conclusions...
    > > Again, an 8500 will not perform near it's potential in a p3 800. While
    > this
    > > isn't a reason to avoid geting one on a good deal it is a reason to
    avoid
    > > paying top dollar based on reviews of how fast that card is because that
    > can
    > > be misleading. Lesser cards such as the 7500 are worth considering for
    > that
    > > cpu if money is tight because the difference won't be that big.
    > >
    > > As for your first post, Ripflex was far out but so were you in inferring
    > > that a 1.2G cpu is a reasonable place to leave a cpu, which is the only
    > way
    > > to read it.
    > >
    > > And, again, because my system was much like his, I gave a useful
    benchmark
    > > on what to expect from a card that was mentioned in this string as a
    good
    > > upgrade. Again, AMD vs Intel differences, etc. are not relevant because
    > he
    > > is not upgrading the rest of his system.
    > >
    > > > >> Rebuffing a completley spurious argument that all games
    > > > >> post May this year will require such a high spec system?
    > > > >>
    > > > You nicely ignored this point didn't you?
    > >
    > > Yes I did, because again it isnt releveant to what I'm saying.
    > >
    > > "...The point is tha it's not always/just the CPU that can be a
    > > bottleneck in a system. It would be more relevant if you
    > > could post experience of upgrading just the CPU in the same
    > > base system. ..."
    > >
    > > It doesn't matter what the bottleneck is because he isn't changing
    > anything.
    > > For the same reason, it wouldn't be more helpful to post only a cpu
    > upgrade
    > > difference because the issue is how an 8500 will perform in his system,
    > and
    > > what I was pointing out was that it will be choked badly; it doesn't
    > matter
    > > what component does it (although it is a combination of all things -
    > slower
    > > chipset, slower fsb, slower ram, slower cpu).
    > >
    > > I'm not going further with the string analysis.
    > > In a nutshell, so you can understand:
    > >
    > > - A 1.2Ghz cpu, regardless of memory or chipset, is not a realistic
    gaming
    > > cpu. Therefore, even though a 2G cpu may not be necessary, not much can
    be
    > > expected of a p3 800 for gaming.
    > > - The p3 800 wil not provide the 8500 enough power to run as it is
    > reported
    > > to. This is worth noting because the 8500 was suggested earlier.
    > Ironically
    > > I think it wopuld be a good card for the OP as long as he didnt pay much
    > > more than he coulkd get a 7500 class card.
    > > - Newer celerons are purposely crippled with higher cache latencies, etc
    > to
    > > avoid the competition p2 and p3 cpus got from them... AMD xp+ cpu's are
    > more
    > > bandwidth hungry than cpu cycle hungry and respond better to fsb boosts
    > than
    > > cpu speed... DDR ram is faster than original sdram (I benched both types
    > in
    > > an ecs k7s5a and ran 3dmark2001 6% faster with ddr)... etc, etc, etc...
    > BUT
    > > none of this requires mentioning to support the fact that I ran an 8500
    in
    > a
    > > system with almost identical performance to the OP's (that era cpu used
    > > sdram and similar performing chipset)... AND I know this to be true
    > because
    > > I installed the same video card (in an all around faster xp1700+ system)
    > and
    > > got huge performance increase, which shows that the video card was very
    > much
    > > held back by a system much like the OP's - the reasons for that are
    > > irrelevant because my point is that the p3 800 is a huge bottleneck for
    > the
    > > 8500, and a slower card will perform much closer to the 8500 than normal
    > for
    > > a newer (but still dated) system.
    > >
    > > So, as I stated in my first post, draw your own conclusions on that.
    > >
    > > My point, which I didn't want to bother to fully explain, is that the p3
    > 800
    > > wil not run fast video cars like they are meant to be, and a slightly
    > lesser
    > > card could be considered without a big drop in performance. This is
    > > pertinent to your post because you were inferring that a 1.2GHz cpu is
    > > sufficient for a new game like HL2; if this were the case, (disregarding
    > the
    > > issue about the variety of 1.2G cpu's), then a p3 800 would seem to be
    > able
    > > to fare pretty well for gaming, in which case... why not get a really
    nice
    > > speed boost and get a 9800pro...
    > >
    > > The OP can, if he chooses use the information I gave when choosing a new
    > > card because I gave a benchmark of how a similar system to his worked
    with
    > a
    > > specific gaming card, and noted that it did work near it's potential.
    > >
    > > Anyway I've said all I have to say on this matter... I'm sure most
    people
    > > have long lost interest in this dispute even more so than me...
    > >
    > > Mike
    > >
    > > "Lithurge" <bogorfspam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns94F9D32683629ds34543dsffds@130.133.1.4...
    > > > "Mike P" <mikepos@nbnetNospaM.nb.ca> wrote in
    > > > news:AIpuc.50767$Np3.2190789@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
    > > >
    > > > > My point is that a celeron 900 is very close in performance
    > > > > to his, and the board, sdram etc would be too. So he can
    > > > > see from my single experience, which is very similar to
    > > > > what his will be, My single experience provides direct >
    > > > comparison
    > > > > to the OP.
    > > >
    > > > But what relation did this bear to my original post? Just
    > > > imagine somebody newly posted to a newsgroup ' all games
    > > > coming out from next month will require a 2ghz processor, 1gb
    > > > ram & a 256mb graphics card'
    > > >
    > > > See what I responed to now?
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > There is no need to go into the willful crippling of the
    > > > > later celerons (which I think is what got you confused
    > > > > about the cel900), AMD architecture vs Intel, etc, etc
    > > > > because it isn't relevant.
    > > > >
    > > > > ... and the first time you showed ignorance was when you
    > > > > posted :
    > > > >
    > > > > "...Nice gross generalisation there, especially as Gabe
    > > > > Newell was quoted in PCZone's latest issue as indicating
    > > > > once you get over 1.2 ghz processor you won't see much
    > > > > improvement in Half Life 2 so long as you have 256mb ram &
    > > > > a DX9 card. "
    > > >
    > > > Hello put it back in the original context (outlined above) &
    > > > we see Gabes comments were if you have a specific system, not
    > > > if you upgrade from one system to a completley different one.
    > > > Let's carry on down shall we?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > In your own words,
    > > > > "... Of course you're
    > > > >> also ignoring things like, new mobo, Ram speeds, relative
    > > > >> speeds of AMD processors to Intel etc... "
    > > > >
    > > > > the 1.2Ghz quote you posted is very rellevant to such
    > > > > things, whereas the
    > > > > point I was making does not require getting into those
    > > > > details.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > The point is tha it's not always/just the CPU that can be a
    > > > bottleneck in a system. It would be more relevant if you
    > > > could post experience of upgrading just the CPU in the same
    > > > base system.
    > > >
    > > > And as Asestar has already pointed out just because it may
    > > > not run to it's full potential is not a reason to not upgrade
    > > > your card. I did this with the original Geforce as it would
    > > > improve the performance slightly over my current card.
    > > > Although I acknowledge I was also planning a more thorough
    > > > upgrade shrotly.
    > > >
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Rebuffing a completley spurious argument that all games
    > > > >> post May this year will require such a high spec system?
    > > > >>
    > > > You nicely ignored this point didn't you?
    > > >
    > > > It seems you're not 100% au fait about the use of snipping
    > > > within usenet, if you reread my post you'll see I completley
    > > > snipped the OP posters text. My point re Gabes quote was a
    > > > reply to somebody saying 2ghz 512mb ram etc... was what all
    > > > games post May would require.
    > > >
    > > > There is no logic that even fits this as being a response to
    > > > the OP request for advice on a card that would prolong the
    > > > life of his 800Mhz processor.
    > > >
    > > > You're posting of your experience, regardless of the crippled
    > > > processor & all Celerons were crippled to a greater or lesser
    > > > degree, is irrelevant to my original post. Try posting to the
    > > > the correct post and don't tack it on to one that has little
    > > > bearing on the original, it'll save confusion..
    > > >
    > > > And before you say something about the title I did not change
    > > > it as it annoys a lot of people.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Graphics Product