What will give me better performance?

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

I have a:

P4 2.66
only 512 Meg ram PC 3200 400.
NVIDIA Ti-4600 AGP video card ( I know its old )
Win XP home
Audigy2 sound.

the question is I can play pretty good, but will I get better performance
from more memory? or a new video card. I simply can't afford the 4600 right
now :( but could put another 512 Meg in OR a G-Force FX 5900 card. (although
I want a 5950 I cant really afford that either ) My immediate feelings are
its about a 50 / 50 call. I would like to see though what you guys think..
It's my understanding that BF is a memory hog.

My plan is to get one or the other, can't afford both atm..
11 answers Last reply
More about what give performance
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:11:43 GMT, "Kedrid" <KedridNOSPAM@kedrid.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >I have a:
    >
    >P4 2.66
    >only 512 Meg ram PC 3200 400.
    >NVIDIA Ti-4600 AGP video card ( I know its old )
    >Win XP home
    >Audigy2 sound.
    >
    >the question is I can play pretty good, but will I get better performance
    >from more memory? or a new video card. I simply can't afford the 4600 right
    >now :( but could put another 512 Meg in OR a G-Force FX 5900 card. (although
    >I want a 5950 I cant really afford that either ) My immediate feelings are
    >its about a 50 / 50 call. I would like to see though what you guys think..
    >It's my understanding that BF is a memory hog.
    >
    >My plan is to get one or the other, can't afford both atm..
    >

    I would definitely add more RAM first (go up to at least 1GB) then the
    video card. XP *is* a major memory hog in its own right. You won't
    regret adding RAM! My system is similar to yours. I replaced both
    over time, RAM first then upgrade to ATI 9800 Pro video card. Much
    better gaming now! :-)

    Best,

    Rick
    [AGB] Duckhunter
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    "Kedrid" <KedridNOSPAM@kedrid.com> wrote in message
    news:3UBNd.2275$mG6.1301@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > I have a:
    >
    > P4 2.66
    > only 512 Meg ram PC 3200 400.
    > NVIDIA Ti-4600 AGP video card ( I know its old )
    > Win XP home
    > Audigy2 sound.
    >
    > the question is I can play pretty good, but will I get better performance
    > from more memory? or a new video card. I simply can't afford the 4600
    > right now :( but could put another 512 Meg in OR a G-Force FX 5900 card.
    > (although I want a 5950 I cant really afford that either ) My immediate
    > feelings are its about a 50 / 50 call. I would like to see though what you
    > guys think.. It's my understanding that BF is a memory hog.
    >
    > My plan is to get one or the other, can't afford both atm..

    With your setup, I'd say increase the memory to 1 gig. If you end up being
    able to afford a new video card, that wouldn't hurt. Decent video cards run
    less than $100, unless you're looking for the latest. A video card with 256
    meg on board RAM is best.

    --
    Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA: Spearhead servers: 14 Player TDM/Moded:
    66.55.134.103!
    Single Player maps converted to Multiplayer: 14 Player: 64.237.43.196
    http://www.flotserver.net
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:11:43 GMT, "Kedrid" <KedridNOSPAM@kedrid.com>
    wrote:

    >only 512 Meg ram PC 3200 400.

    I think this is the current bottleneck. BF loves memory and moving up
    to 1 gig should make a big difference. When I went from 512 meg to 1
    gig my map load times went from minutes to seconds.

    >NVIDIA Ti-4600 AGP video card ( I know its old )

    Old but still capable and certainly good enough for BF at normal
    resolutions.

    HTH.
    --
    [AGB]Captain Scarlet
    Stockholm, Sweden
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    "Captain Scarlet" wrote in message

    > Old but still capable and certainly good enough for BF at normal
    > resolutions.

    True even my old 4200 used to do OK at 1024x768.

    L.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    "Captain Scarlet" <andy.nocrap.cunningham@home.se> wrote in message
    news:0v8e01ljqfskgv51vk5thugum6nela9tto@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:11:43 GMT, "Kedrid" <KedridNOSPAM@kedrid.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >only 512 Meg ram PC 3200 400.
    >
    > I think this is the current bottleneck. BF loves memory and moving up
    > to 1 gig should make a big difference. When I went from 512 meg to 1
    > gig my map load times went from minutes to seconds.
    >
    > >NVIDIA Ti-4600 AGP video card ( I know its old )
    >
    > Old but still capable and certainly good enough for BF at normal
    > resolutions.
    >

    Question. I have updated my chip to an AMD 2700 and have 512 meg of RAM.
    But it's only 2100 speed.

    I am stuck between just getting another stick of 512 meg 2100 ram or throw
    it out and get 512 meg of 3200 and go with that for now. I can't swing the 1
    gig of 3200 right now.

    Thoughts?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    "Kedrid" <KedridNOSPAM@kedrid.com> wrote in message news:3UBNd.2275$mG6.1301@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > I have a:
    >
    > P4 2.66
    > only 512 Meg ram PC 3200 400.
    > NVIDIA Ti-4600 AGP video card ( I know its old )
    > Win XP home
    > Audigy2 sound.
    >
    > the question is I can play pretty good, but will I get better performance from more memory? or a new video card. I simply can't
    > afford the 4600 right now :( but could put another 512 Meg in OR a G-Force FX 5900 card. (although I want a 5950 I cant really
    > afford that either ) My immediate feelings are its about a 50 / 50 call. I would like to see though what you guys think.. It's my
    > understanding that BF is a memory hog.
    >
    > My plan is to get one or the other, can't afford both atm..

    Video card. More RAM will just make maps load faster.
    9800 Pro
    $224
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-286&depa=0
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    "Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote:

    >True even my old 4200 used to do OK at 1024x768.

    Ha, my old GF3 (bought in summer of 2001) could do this.


    JK'05 aka Elkrider
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:26:38 -0500, "John Poutre"
    <mehatespam@gmail.com> wrote:

    >I am stuck between just getting another stick of 512 meg 2100 ram or throw
    >it out and get 512 meg of 3200 and go with that for now. I can't swing the 1
    >gig of 3200 right now.

    Well in that case I'd go for another stick of 512 at 2100. Better to
    have a gig of slightly slower ram than only half a gig of the faster
    stuff.

    In this case I believe its quantity and not quality that counts ;-)

    HTH.
    --
    [AGB]Captain Scarlet
    Stockholm, Sweden
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    "Captain Scarlet" <andy.nocrap.cunningham@home.se> wrote in message
    news:rg0f011lkbg7g09n2rm9ivk6c8ngh5b946@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:26:38 -0500, "John Poutre"
    > <mehatespam@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I am stuck between just getting another stick of 512 meg 2100 ram or
    throw
    > >it out and get 512 meg of 3200 and go with that for now. I can't swing
    the 1
    > >gig of 3200 right now.
    >
    > Well in that case I'd go for another stick of 512 at 2100. Better to
    > have a gig of slightly slower ram than only half a gig of the faster
    > stuff.
    >
    > In this case I believe its quantity and not quality that counts ;-)
    >

    Great, thanks. I was thinking of getting a stick of 3200 anyways and I
    figured when they are mixed they will go at the slower speed but I will be
    half way there for the future. Will have to research that.

    John
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    Einstine wrote:
    > "Kedrid" <KedridNOSPAM@kedrid.com> wrote in message news:3UBNd.2275$mG6.1301@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

    > Video card. More RAM will just make maps load faster.

    Disagree - with 512 Mb, the game will stutter and lag. However, the maps
    certainly load faster too (less swap-out)

    > 9800 Pro
    > $224
    > http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-286&depa=0

    The NVidia 6600GT is a tad cheaper, and has gotten really good reviews.
    And it outperforms the 9800. However the 9800 is an excellent card too.

    regards,

    Achtung Ecco
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    > Disagree - with 512 Mb, the game will stutter and lag. However, the maps
    > certainly load faster too (less swap-out)


    Interesting, thats why I thought it was 50 / 50 chance either way as
    being a performance increase. I do shutter and lag a little, even with a
    great ping. like 16 - 30 pings. I will get screen freeze for a second or
    two, this really throws me especialy when flyin' a chopper. I can be crusing
    alone just fine, then freeze a few seconds, then oppps crash flames, and
    death. I am on occation then laughed at for being a poor poilot ( fair
    enough, but I am a ok pilot, not a bad one I pull off monuvers regularly
    with no lag I never crash) but then when I do play most of the time its
    fine. I thought it was poor frame rate and video card catching up? it felt
    like video card studder anyway. However when everyone said how much faster
    maps load I thought might be memory too ( or both )..


    "Achtung Ecco" <nospam@nospam.no> wrote in message
    news:420874d6$0$48703$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk...
    > Einstine wrote:
    >> "Kedrid" <KedridNOSPAM@kedrid.com> wrote in message
    >> news:3UBNd.2275$mG6.1301@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    >> Video card. More RAM will just make maps load faster.
    >
    > Disagree - with 512 Mb, the game will stutter and lag. However, the maps
    > certainly load faster too (less swap-out)
    >
    >> 9800 Pro
    >> $224
    >> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-286&depa=0
    >
    > The NVidia 6600GT is a tad cheaper, and has gotten really good reviews.
    > And it outperforms the 9800. However the 9800 is an excellent card too.
    >
    > regards,
    >
    > Achtung Ecco
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Performance Graphics Cards Video Games