Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AGP TO PCI-E 2.0 only 20fps? hd 4850

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 10, 2008 11:35:28 AM

I just upgraded my Pc , i got a new motherboard Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H replaced my old MSI K9MM-V and i got a new Hd 4850 PCI-E and replaced my old x1650 AGP, So pretty much i get everything hooked up do a windows xp reinstall(not format) start up counter strike source run the video stress test only to be disappointed with a small 20fps increase. Before i was getting 110 fps now im getting 130 i know blah blah your eyes cant see past 60fps thats not the point tho, Question is should i see more of a fps increases from going agp to pci-e from a 50$ card to a 175$ card?


PC Specs

GA-MA78GM-S2H
AMD 4800+ AM2
2GB RAM PC6400 DDR2
500 GB SATA
ATI HD 4850


Settings screen shots: These were the settings my X1650 was running on, i haven't touched them after putting in the hd4500

http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=settingsxk9.jp...

http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=settings2zq2.j...


Ps. I only have counter strike source and TF2(Sub 60fps), and i got the newest 8.8 drives i got them as soon as i installed the card so i havent tested old drivers

More about : agp pci 20fps 4850

a c 171 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 11:52:22 AM

Are you sure they haven't been upgraded? Perhaps CS:S upgraded them automatically when you installed the new card. If AA has been applied, that would explain the difference. You need the 8.8 drivers for the 4850, though the 8.7 might work also. I wouldn't go any older then that, as the 4850 wasn't out at that point.

The only other thing I can think of is your PSU isn't good enough for the 4850. If that were the case however, you should get a "not enough power" message. It might be worth checking into however.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 11:53:01 AM

nofx4021 said:
Question is should i see more of a fps increases from going agp to pci-e from a 50$ card to a 175$ card?


PC Specs

GA-MA78GM-S2H
AMD 4800+ AM2
2GB RAM PC6400 DDR2
500 GB SATA
ATI HD 4850


The answer is yes and no.
With a more powerful system and higher resolution you certainly would see a much bigger increase in performance.
Unfortunately, at your low 1024x768 resolution, your GPU is thoroughly CPU bottlenecked bye your 4800+.

At low resolutions, there is less work the GPU needs to do to render a screen.
As such, it can be rendered as fast as the CPU can pump data towards it.
If you could borrow a friends higher resolution monitor and compare your old system and new system side bye side, you would see that the higher resolution you play at, the better the 4850 will perform compared to your x1650.

I could recommend 3 things, in order of gaming impact, that you could do.

1) Get a higher resolution monitor and enjoy your gaming experience.
2) Turn up all in game eye candy, AF and AA as high as it will go with little/no impact on your frame rates.
3) Get a faster CPU and overclock it as far as you can.
Related resources
September 10, 2008 12:18:41 PM

it's your cpu... your gpu may be super fast at rendering graphics real time,
but your cpu can only do this much...
September 10, 2008 12:27:09 PM

OK so a new CPU what would you recommend then?
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 12:30:20 PM

I would recommend a new monitor long before getting a new CPU.
Gaming at 1024x768 in this day and age :pfff: 

Even with a new Intel CPU (much faster than their AMD counterparts and overclock faster to boot), you would still be limited bye your low resolution. If you are not going to upgrade your monitor, do not bother upgrading your CPU as it will be a waste of cash.
September 10, 2008 12:35:02 PM

ok ill get a new monitor 1st what do you guys think about this one ?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

i currently have a 17in generic brand one, should i up the resolution of what i have currently ? does changing my screen refresh rate have any affect? its at 60 right now i can push it up to 75 while still looking good
September 10, 2008 12:36:16 PM

Yep, it's a CPU bottleneck. Increase the resolution and add some AA (minimum 8x) and AF (16x). Also tick vsync.

And don't complain about getting *only* 130FPS :p 
September 10, 2008 12:40:17 PM

homerdog said:
Yep, it's a CPU bottleneck. Increase the resolution and add some AA (minimum 8x) and AF (16x). Also tick vsync.

And don't complain about getting *only* 130FPS :p 


not complaining about my fps complaining about the difference between an 3 year old card and a 2month old card, prior to knowing my monitor was the cause of the problem
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 12:55:06 PM

With monitors, I recommend getting the best you can afford.
Surly any new monitor will be a massive upgrade from what your are using now but a quality panel and bigger screen are, in my eyes, well worth the investment. I would suggest going to some of your local shops and looking, in person, at what they offer. Make sure to compare the displayed color range, brightness and visible angles among other things. For some research, I would sugest Anandtech's Display section and Prad.de's Monitor Review section. If you can afford it, try and locate a S-PVA monitor over the common TN ones.

As for the refresh rate issue, you are probably going to be stuck at 60hz with a newer display.
Due to bandwidth constraints on DVI connectors, 60hz is as fast as you can pump data to your screen at higher resolutions.
FYI, the refresh rate is as fast as your display is able to render a frame.
Even if you are pushing 130 FPS in game, if your monitor is only 75hz or 60hz on the refresh rate, you will only be displaying 75 or 60 FPS. Because of this, it is best to turn on vSync, syncing your frame rate with your refresh rate, to avoid any "tearing" of your screen.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 1:23:14 PM

outlw6669 said:
With monitors, I recommend getting the best you can afford.
Surly any new monitor will be a massive upgrade from what your are using now but a quality panel and bigger screen are, in my eyes, well worth the investment. I would suggest going to some of your local shops and looking, in person, at what they offer. Make sure to compare the displayed color range, brightness and visible angles among other things. For some research, I would sugest Anandtech's Display section and Prad.de's Monitor Review section. If you can afford it, try and locate a S-PVA monitor over the common TN ones.

As for the refresh rate issue, you are probably going to be stuck at 60hz with a newer display.
Due to bandwidth constraints on DVI connectors, 60hz is as fast as you can pump data to your screen at higher resolutions.
FYI, the refresh rate is as fast as your display is able to render a frame.
Even if you are pushing 130 FPS in game, if your monitor is only 75hz or 60hz on the refresh rate, you will only be displaying 75 or 60 FPS. Because of this, it is best to turn on vSync, syncing your frame rate with your refresh rate, to avoid any "tearing" of your screen.


Actually, he got the 4850 and i don't think he wants to change it again, so he'll be limited to 1600x1050 ish res. If the OP has CF, then he can get a second 4850 and get a bigger monitor IMO.

Esop!
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 1:25:43 PM

:heink: 
Not quite sure what you are talking about there.
Yes, he does have a 4850.
The 4850 is a capable card well past 1680x1050, though.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 1:27:20 PM

Oh, this line: "With monitors, I recommend getting the best you can afford."

If he can get a 1900x1200 ish res monitor, his 4850 won't cope with it. That was my point :p 

Esop!

EDIT: Spelling XD
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 1:39:06 PM

Ahhh, now I see what you were saying :D 
Actually, the 4850 is quite capable of gaming at 1920x1200 although he would be CPU limited at that point.
With it's performance sitting between an 8800Ultra and GTX 260, it is no slouch.
Especially playing games like CS Source and TF2, it should have no problems keeping a decent framerate.
Just don't ask it to perform any magic with Crysis ;) 
September 10, 2008 1:54:12 PM

outlw6669 said:
I would recommend a new monitor long before getting a new CPU.
Gaming at 1024x768 in this day and age :pfff: 

HEY! I resent that. :kaola: 
Some people like to rock on a Samsung 152N 15" LCD. Besides, I have a Hayworth 72"x24" pedestal desk with hutch that limits my monitor height to < 16" overall. My next purchase will be a 19-22" 1680x1050 monitor on a very short stand. I'm also mulling the option of a VESA mount directly to the backplate of the hutch, in that case the monitor would float 1-2" above the working surface.
September 10, 2008 2:33:44 PM

My recommendation: Go to New Egg -> monitors -> LCD monitors -> Power Search. Check the resolutions at 16**x**** and higher and browse away. The 1440x900 you posted is not going to be much of an upgrade over your 1024x768. (As far as separation in frame rates). The 4850s sweet spot is @ 1680x1050, but it is more then capable of playing at 1920x1200.

a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 2:43:04 PM

outlw6669 said:
Ahhh, now I see what you were saying :D 
Actually, the 4850 is quite capable of gaming at 1920x1200 although he would be CPU limited at that point.
With it's performance sitting between an 8800Ultra and GTX 260, it is no slouch.
Especially playing games like CS Source and TF2, it should have no problems keeping a decent framerate.
Just don't ask it to perform any magic with Crysis ;) 


Actually, at higher res (1900x1200 ish) the CPU won't bottleneck the rig at all like on lower res (it will indeed, but not like omg-1FPS!, lol); the PCIe lanes will and/or the video card.

But in his case, the 780G he owns has a PCIe 2.0 16x lane and shouldn't have any problem going for a higher res, CPU-wise.

I'd say, on 1900x1200ish, to get a 4870/GTX260 since he has 1 PCIe x16 on his board. Lower than that, just a 4850/9800GTX is a nice upgrade.

Esop!
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 3:04:31 PM


@ outlw6669, Im sorry but i love you :ange: 

Let me explane and stop backing away like that :lol: 

I have been trying to tell people on this forum for as long as i care to remember that resolution bottle necking is real. Its not like its a hard concept but they just dont get it, or dont want to.

I totally agree with you (obviously). :) 

@ nofx4021,

As the guys said the monitor you linked to is near as makes no difference the same pixel wise as what you already have.

17" 1280 x 768 87.8 ppi 0.2893 mm 5:3 0.94 MP
17" 1280 x 1024 96.4 ppi 0.2634 mm 5:4 1.25 MP
17" 1440 x 900 99.9 ppi 0.2543 mm 16:10 1.24 MP

19" 1440 x 900 89.4 ppi 0.2842 mm 16:10 1.24 MP

I would recommend looking at something more 1680 x1050 which can be either 20 or 22" that would give the card a good work out without stretching it . next up would be a CPU upgrade.

Mactronix


a c 106 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 10:19:59 PM

I think it's impressive you were getting 110 out of your X1650 AGP ^_^. Anyway I'd guess that you're CPU limited. Overclock your CPU and you should see an increase in FPS. Really though if you were going to go with a dedicated video card I would think it would have made more sense to go with a GIGABYTE GA-MA770-S3 or GIGABYTE GA-MA770-DS3, just my two cents. :o 
September 10, 2008 11:46:50 PM

nofx4021 said:
I just upgraded my Pc , i got a new motherboard Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H replaced my old MSI K9MM-V and i got a new Hd 4850 PCI-E and replaced my old x1650 AGP, So pretty much i get everything hooked up do a windows xp reinstall(not format) start up counter strike source run the video stress test only to be disappointed with a small 20fps increase. Before i was getting 110 fps now im getting 130 i know blah blah your eyes cant see past 60fps thats not the point tho, Question is should i see more of a fps increases from going agp to pci-e from a 50$ card to a 175$ card?

PC Specs

GA-MA78GM-S2H
AMD 4800+ AM2
2GB RAM PC6400 DDR2
500 GB SATA
ATI HD 4850

Settings screen shots: These were the settings my X1650 was running on, i haven't touched them after putting in the hd4500

Ps. I only have counter strike source and TF2(Sub 60fps), and i got the newest 8.8 drives i got them as soon as i installed the card so i havent tested old drivers


That MSI K9MM-V was good motherboard that you just threw away.

What you should have done was just drop an AMD X2 6000+ along with a 3850 Power Color AGP, set your Aperture size to 1GB and you would be seeing 190FPS in counter strike.
But hey, that's your money.
Maybe you need to visit my website 3850PCI-E vs. 3850 AGP
http://www.kyol.net/~harrycat/3850.html

September 10, 2008 11:53:11 PM

I would go for the 22" Acer. 22" is huge. some people say the pixel pitch on a 22" is too big compared to 19/20" monitors with same res. but i honestly dont see much of a dif. (probably becuase i never had anything much different.

I have the Hanns-G 22" (or 21.6") with HDMI and built in speakers. never use the speakers but the HDMI i have my ps3 plugged into while the vga port my comp is plugged into.

I can force a 1080P res on this monitor with my PS3 even though it says max res is 1680x1050. only problem with hooking a ps3 up to a monitor is all teh resolutions it outputs are in 16x9 format vs 16x10 monitor
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 12:20:18 AM

No point in buying more stuff just to justify having bought more stuff.

Is the issue fps or justification?

Your fps went up for the resolution you game at which is a good thing.
Is either CSS or the resolution you run at good reflections of the increase in raw power of your graphics? NO!

However at this point either return the card or else play your game, because otherwise you're going to be chasing your tail upgrading this and that to get the most out of your latest upgrade.

When you feel comfortable either getting a higher res monitor or playing tougher games, then you'll benefit from the additional power, but likley won't appreciate it because you didn't play the X1650 that way, but overall you need to focus on the games you play, not the expectation of performance.

Sure you could probably spend $80-100 on an HD4670 and achieve the same results, but if you have to buy something anyways, the HD4850 makes you a little better prepared for the next step should you take it.
If all you're going to do is play CSS, then I'd say return it, and pick up a cheap HD4670 or GF9600, which would accomplish the same thing in PCIe form which giving you the benefit of DX10 over picking up a cheap X1950Pro.

And while some people disagree the the HD4850 is fine for a long while of gaming, either at your current resolution or even 1920x1200. Sure you might need to turn down a feature or two if you want to game at 1920x1200 anyways, but you'd probably have to do that on any single chip card anyways. The gulf between the HD4850 and other cards at that resollution is still primarily a statistical thing more than a hard limit, and you'd only get slight differences between it and more powerful cards.
September 11, 2008 12:57:26 AM

well the games i want to play are Crysis and i also would like to get prepared for upcoming stuff like

Call of Duty: World at War
Left 4 Dead
Bionic Commando
Grand Theft Auto IV
Starcraft 2


goal is to have pc that can run all these games just as good or better then there console counter parts.

September 11, 2008 5:08:35 AM

Dude you are on the right path. Gaming at 1024x768 is archaic so your current upgrade path is most definitely justified.

I too would recommend the ACER 22. But don't take mine and Thorbaden's word for it, Ars Technica also recommends the same monitor for their budget box for September of 08. http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/guide-200809.ars/2
Its about 2/3rds down the page under 'monitor'. High Res gaming is amazing and you will love your new huge monitor.
September 11, 2008 5:32:34 AM

thanks for the all info guys by the way after i get a monitor and such and its time to replace my CPU, what cpu is recommended? i was thinking about and amd 6000+ but i dont if im over due-ing it and get a cheaper one
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 1:08:54 PM

mactronix said:
@ outlw6669, Im sorry but i love you :ange: 


Damn it!
Why does everyone have to come out of the closet to me! :cry: 
:kaola: 

Yuka said:
Actually, at higher res (1900x1200 ish) the CPU won't bottleneck the rig at all like on lower res (it will indeed, but not like omg-1FPS!, lol); the PCIe lanes will and/or the video card.


Yeah, you are more correct than me here.
Sorry, last post of the day trying to rush outta the office and all :( 
Won't let it happen again ;) 

nofx4021 said:
thanks for the all info guys by the way after i get a monitor and such and its time to replace my CPU, what cpu is recommended? i was thinking about and amd 6000+ but i dont if im over due-ing it and get a cheaper one


With the 6000+ as you choice, I would recommend overclocking your current 4800+ and saving your cash for a furutre CPU upgrade be it Intel based or Denab.

Legion Hardware did a recent comparison of CPU's powering a 4870x2. Although not quite an apples to apples comparison with your situation, it will give you a good idea of how much more power a potential CPU upgrade would give you. The review is Here and, in my opinion, there is not enough performance to be gained from purchasing a new 6000+ based on it's results.
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 2:58:11 PM

outlw6669 said:
With the 6000+ as you choice, I would recommend overclocking your current 4800+ and saving your cash for a furutre CPU upgrade be it Intel based or Denab.

Legion Hardware did a recent comparison of CPU's powering a 4870x2. Although not quite an apples to apples comparison with your situation, it will give you a good idea of how much more power a potential CPU upgrade would give you. The review is Here and, in my opinion, there is not enough performance to be gained from purchasing a new 6000+ based on it's results.


OMG, my 4400+ is a new-cards killer, lol!

Thanks for the link to that outlw6669, very enlighting.

Esop!
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 9:35:30 PM

1863043,24,352174 said:
well the games i want to play are Crysis and i also would like to get prepared for upcoming stuff like...

The HD4850 is fine for those, and I thinnk when you do move to those games that's where you'll truly appreciate the difference in power and that it opens up new options to you, and even the default settings become much more robust when the game picks for you (although I always suggest manually tweaking for your preference).

Anywhoo, I think it's a good choice, and as for the CPU, I'd check the games that you prefer and see CPU reviews (there are a few out there), different games stress different portions (speed, cores, cache, fsb, etc). It's still an influence even on high graphic settings but of course not the major focus, if you're GPU limits you to 5 fps the lower CPU power isn't really a concern, but if it's in a playable range, then the differences in CPUs may give you a +/- of fps enough to go from smoth to a bit sluggish, and may impact your min fps greatly if it runs out of resources, especially when doing thing that involve host/cpu interaction.
[/quote]
September 18, 2008 10:33:05 PM

TF2 Problem

TF2 Settings http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fpsjh5.jpg

alright i got the new monitor running games at 1680 now but i only seem to be pumping 20fps and sometimes spikes up to 60 fps when i face the wall

Mass Effect

only seem to be getting 20-40fps when play

Devil May Cry 4

runs perfect steady 60fps sometimes i drop to like 55 but thats normal
September 18, 2008 10:57:28 PM

SOURCE ENGINE LOVES CPU POWER:
Example:
AMD A64 3700+ 2.4ghz with 7600GT @ 1280x1024 4xAA = 100fps
AMD A64 3700+ 2.4ghz with 8800GTS320 @ 1280x1024 4xAA = 110 fps
INTEL C2D e6750 @3.2 ghz with 8800GTS320 @ 1280x1024 4xAA = 250fps
INTEL C2D e6750 @3.2 ghz with HD4850 @ 1680x1050 8xAA 16xAF = 300fps
!