New mobo & CPU or new Videocard ... decisions descisions ;o)

[BillL]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hello all

Probably an oft asked question but ...

My current core system:-

Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro (Using on-board audio & NIC)
AMD 2800+ (2.08 GHz) Barton core
Sapphire 9700 128 MB (non-pro) video
1 GB PC3200 RAM (2 x 512 Dimms OCZ & Kingston HyperX mix)
Antec 430 Watt PSU

I'm quite into games and have annoying slow downs in some games (Far Cry,
Ground Control II, Dawn of War) although generally when there is a lot of
action on screen. I play most games at 1024 x 768 with no AA & 2xAF.

I have two broad choices. I can by an ATI X800 (or nvidia equivalent) or I
can replace the mobo and CPU (I've decided I'd go down the Socket 939 route
with one of the lower clocked 90nm 64 chips). I can't afford to replace the
videocard, CPU & mobo at the same time (though I've not yet looked into
selling any old components).

Would the videocard upgrade be the *best* way to go performance wise (CPU
limited with the 2800+?) or should I be thinking of future upgrades as
Socket A is on its way out (well within a year)?

Alternatively should I just sit tight?

TIA

BillL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"BillL" <billc1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Sj4hd.3121$up1.2770@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hello all
>
> Probably an oft asked question but ...
>
> My current core system:-
>
> Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro (Using on-board audio & NIC)
> AMD 2800+ (2.08 GHz) Barton core
> Sapphire 9700 128 MB (non-pro) video
> 1 GB PC3200 RAM (2 x 512 Dimms OCZ & Kingston HyperX mix)
> Antec 430 Watt PSU
>
> I'm quite into games and have annoying slow downs in some games (Far Cry,
> Ground Control II, Dawn of War) although generally when there is a lot of
> action on screen. I play most games at 1024 x 768 with no AA & 2xAF.
>

Well, you are at an awkward time for upgrading. If you think of the systems
as 1, 2 and 3, with "1" being your current setup, you can't really build "2"
without replacing CPU, Mainboard and Video card, or you will be starting
over from zero when you get to "3".

To get significant performance upgrade from your current setup, you'd have
to buy some pretty high-end components. But if you go (mainboard and CPU)
or (video card only), then you are locked into AGP video. So that's a lot
of money to throw at a system that will be completely replaced within a
couple of years, at most.

If you save a little bit of money and do Mainboard, CPU and Video card all
at once . . . and go PCI Express for video . . . then system "2" might just
survive one upgrade in the process of building system "3". -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BillL wrote:

> My cdilemmaore system:-
>
> Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro (Using on-board audio & NIC)
> AMD 2800+ (2.08 GHz) Barton core
> Sapphire 9700 128 MB (non-pro) video
> 1 GB PC3200 RAM (2 x 512 Dimms OCZ & Kingston HyperX mix)
> Antec 430 Watt PSU
>
> I'm quite into games and have annoying slow downs in some games (Far Cry,
> Ground Control II, Dawn of War) although generally when there is a lot of
> action on screen. I play most games at 1024 x 768 with no AA & 2xAF.
>
> I have two broad choices. I can by an ATI X800 (or nvidia equivalent) or I
> can replace the mobo and CPU (I've decided I'd go down the Socket 939
> route with one of the lower clocked 90nm 64 chips). I can't afford to
> replace the videocard, CPU & mobo at the same time (though I've not yet
> looked into selling any old components).
>
> Would the videocard upgrade be the *best* way to go performance wise (CPU
> limited with the 2800+?) or should I be thinking of future upgrades as
> Socket A is on its way out (well within a year)?
>
> Alternatively should I just sit tight?

I'll give you my take, and you decide for yourself.

First off, to generically answer your question, a video card upgrade will do
the most for you in game performance. Your CPU is plenty fast, and you have
lots of memory. I'd advocate avoiding the high-end stuff, and get an nVidia
GeForce 6600GT board, when AGP models hit the shelves.

Now, here's the big dilemma, and I'm in this very same dilemma with my
system. All boards, both AMD and Intel based, are going to PCI-X based
graphics. The AMD boards are just hitting the shelves. Your board is plenty
fast for now, and a video card upgrade will do wonders, but that's $200
spent on a graphics card you won't be taking with you on your next mobo &
CPU upgrade. The Athlon XP is just about at the end of it's life, and the
Semperons have less performance, so there isn't much you can do about
upgrading the CPU alone in the near future, which would prolong getting a
new system.

Undoubtedly, within the next year or so, you'll be wanting to upgrade to an
Athlon 64/FX machine and chances are, it'll be a PCI-X model, since surely
you won't want to build a machine that's already old technology. If you
game, you need to stay more on the bleeding edge of hardware, since newer
games slow systems down and that's a trend that'll go on forever. Every new
major release has more and more polygons to render and they obsolete
hardware fast. My 2.6 GHz P4 machine (OC'd to 3.0) has a GeForce Ti4600
card that cost me plenty when it was new. It's really showing its age in
just over 2 years. The graphics card is the culprit, but I'm weary of
upgrading because next year I'll probably build an Athlon 64 machine to
replace it.

So, armed with that knowledge, decide for yourself...

 

[BillL]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:No5hd.8043$b%5.4543@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> BillL wrote:
>
>> My cdilemmaore system:-
>>
>> Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro (Using on-board audio & NIC)
>> AMD 2800+ (2.08 GHz) Barton core
>> Sapphire 9700 128 MB (non-pro) video
>> 1 GB PC3200 RAM (2 x 512 Dimms OCZ & Kingston HyperX mix)
>> Antec 430 Watt PSU
>>
>> I'm quite into games and have annoying slow downs in some games (Far Cry,
>> Ground Control II, Dawn of War) although generally when there is a lot
>> of
>> action on screen. I play most games at 1024 x 768 with no AA & 2xAF.
>>
>> I have two broad choices. I can by an ATI X800 (or nvidia equivalent) or
>> I
>> can replace the mobo and CPU (I've decided I'd go down the Socket 939
>> route with one of the lower clocked 90nm 64 chips). I can't afford to
>> replace the videocard, CPU & mobo at the same time (though I've not yet
>> looked into selling any old components).
>>
>> Would the videocard upgrade be the *best* way to go performance wise (CPU
>> limited with the 2800+?) or should I be thinking of future upgrades as
>> Socket A is on its way out (well within a year)?
>>
>> Alternatively should I just sit tight?
>
> I'll give you my take, and you decide for yourself.
>
> First off, to generically answer your question, a video card upgrade will
> do
> the most for you in game performance. Your CPU is plenty fast, and you
> have
> lots of memory. I'd advocate avoiding the high-end stuff, and get an
> nVidia
> GeForce 6600GT board, when AGP models hit the shelves.
>
> Now, here's the big dilemma, and I'm in this very same dilemma with my
> system. All boards, both AMD and Intel based, are going to PCI-X based
> graphics. The AMD boards are just hitting the shelves. Your board is
> plenty
> fast for now, and a video card upgrade will do wonders, but that's $200
> spent on a graphics card you won't be taking with you on your next mobo &
> CPU upgrade. The Athlon XP is just about at the end of it's life, and the
> Semperons have less performance, so there isn't much you can do about
> upgrading the CPU alone in the near future, which would prolong getting a
> new system.
>
> Undoubtedly, within the next year or so, you'll be wanting to upgrade to
> an
> Athlon 64/FX machine and chances are, it'll be a PCI-X model, since surely
> you won't want to build a machine that's already old technology. If you
> game, you need to stay more on the bleeding edge of hardware, since newer
> games slow systems down and that's a trend that'll go on forever. Every
> new
> major release has more and more polygons to render and they obsolete
> hardware fast. My 2.6 GHz P4 machine (OC'd to 3.0) has a GeForce Ti4600
> card that cost me plenty when it was new. It's really showing its age in
> just over 2 years. The graphics card is the culprit, but I'm weary of
> upgrading because next year I'll probably build an Athlon 64 machine to
> replace it.
>
> So, armed with that knowledge, decide for yourself...
>

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure that PCI-X is the way to go just yet -
doesn't supply a significantly higher performance than AGP?

However, to add to my confusion (if I go with PCI-X) I've noticed that the
Nforce4 (I've had some bad experiences with VIA chipsets!) chipset does not
come with PCI-X but with PCI Express??

Anyhoo thanks for both replies to my question so far.

BillL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure that PCI-X is the way to go just
> yet - doesn't supply a significantly higher performance than AGP?
>
> However, to add to my confusion (if I go with PCI-X) I've noticed that the
> Nforce4 (I've had some bad experiences with VIA chipsets!) chipset does
> not come with PCI-X but with PCI Express??
>
> Anyhoo thanks for both replies to my question so far.
>
> BillL
>

PCI-X never was the way to go. Someone abbreviated PCI-Express as PCI-X,
not realizing that there WAS a PCI-X, and it has nothing to do with
PCI-Express. PCI-Express is the future of video cards, and all other
expansion cards. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BillL wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure that PCI-X is the way to go just yet
> - doesn't supply a significantly higher performance than AGP?

Not yet, but in future GPU's, it probably will. The big deal is the
replacement of the PCI bus itself, since just about everything, whether
onboard or through a PCI slot runs through the PCI bus, and it's reaching
its maximum bandwith and becoming a bottleneck. The PCI-X 16 slot for the
graphics card will just ensure future upgradeability because both ATi and
nVidia have announced there will not be any new graphics cards released
after the current core generation for the AGP slot. That means, next year
or the year after, when they release new cards, they will all be for the
PCI-X 16 slot. That's the big deal. Otherwise, currently, PCI-X 16 cards
are no faster than AGP 8X cards.

> However, to add to my confusion (if I go with PCI-X) I've noticed that the
> Nforce4 (I've had some bad experiences with VIA chipsets!) chipset does
> not come with PCI-X but with PCI Express??

PCI-X and PCI Express are one in the same. I've had a bad experience with my
first and only Via chipset using Linux. However, using it in a Windows
setting could yield much better results, so I'm not holding it against it
just yet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

> PCI-X never was the way to go. Someone abbreviated PCI-Express as PCI-X,
> not realizing that there WAS a PCI-X, and it has nothing to do with
> PCI-Express. PCI-Express is the future of video cards, and all other
> expansion cards. -Dave

You're right. I used it as an abbreviation for PCI Express. I don't like
typing the whole damn name for it. My apologies.