OK all, so I am in need of uplifting my video card from an APG 6600GT to something else, preferably a DX10 card. I was thinking the PCI-e 8600GTS.
Here is the RUB.
My rig now has an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego (939) sitting with 2 GB of DDR ram. So the question is, do I hold off on a replacing my CPU and mem for now and just get a new inexpensive MB that has PCI-e or will my older CPU and DDR ram hamper the 8600GTS?
I believe that the 8600GTS will be hindered a little by my older CPU and RAM but will this be significant?
The MB would only be a stop gap to get me to PCI-e in the short term, so spending 50 to 75 bucks on a 939 MB that has PCI-e would be an acceptable waste of money if it would get me another year on my current CPU and RAM system. After that I would want to buy a MB with a longer life on its socket, LGA...AM2, and of course new CPU, and some new DDR2 RAM.
Please give me your thoughts...
The rest of my RIG is newer,
ANTEC 550W TRUE POWER TRIO
320GB WD SATA II HD
I would personally not put any money into a 939 socket setup. Save your $$$ toward something better. That $50-75 could go for a LGA or AM2 Mobo instead of one you are going to replace anyways. I don't think it would hamper your system very much with a 8600gts... If it does it won't be much. I'd save to replace your mobo, pcu, and memory. This is just my personal opinion though.
A CPU probably wouldn't hold back a DX10 video card. Much too short- CPUs are practically flat. Now put the heatsink on the CPU and then maybe you'll hold the GPU back. Holding back the GPU is the job of the PCIe slot connector and the expansion-slot bracket
Seriously, just wait until DX10 games come out before getting a card specifically for DX10. Your 4000+ and 2 GB RAM will run Windows 2000/XP or Linux just fine and something like the ATi x1950 Pro AGP will get you another year or two for gaming. When lots of games are DX10, you'll likely need Vista to run them. That's the time to get a multi-core CPU, 4 GB or more or RAM, and a DX10 GPU.
In most cases, bottlenecking by the CPU means 100FPS vs 120FPS. Most people don't even have monitors that can display 100FPS, so the extra 20 or so is nothing. Furthermore, the 8600 line isn't very powerful, and the 4000 still is a good CPU, so CPU bottlenecking shouldn't be an issue.
Whats going to hold you back is the lack of DX10 games, not your CPU. At this point in time, I wouldn't bother changing your motherboard. Grab a x1950pro agp for $186 after rebate. Use this system until you need to jump to dual core. By then we should have even better stuff, or the good stuff of today will be very cheap.
DX10 is not pointless now :roll: I love how you people that say this seem to forget that for the past 7months the 8800GTX has been ruling every DX9 game on the market with 16XAA and blazing FPS.
Especially If you play Oblivion, Stalker, Call Of Juarez, R6, Tombraider legends its well worth owning one.
Huh? The 8800GTX has been kicking butt in DX9 games, not DX10. DX10 is pointless for right now. Requires you to use a bad (compared to XP) OS, and there aren't even any DX10 games to play. Crysis, Alan Wake, Flight Sim X, etc haven't been released yet. (in DX10 form) I know of a few demos, but thats not really what I want to play.
I'm not saying to ignore the 8800, I'm saying don't worry about DX10 yet. Wait for Vista performance to improve. Wait for better cheaper DX10 cards to arrive. Wait for the 8800GTS to get closer to the $200 mark. Wait for DX10 games to arrive that are worth playing. Don't waste $210 on a 8600GTS, spend the extra $40 on something worth it.