What to upgrade: CPU or Graphics Card?

otupman

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2002
2
0
18,510
Hi all,

Having jointly bought GTA 3 and C&C: Renegade I've discovered that my PC is way, way below par... Renegade is playable, GTA3 barely. Both I run in 640x480 in 16 bit. Hell, I even run UT in that :D

My machine is a Duron 900 with a 32MB GeForce 2MX.

I'm a poor University student from sunny (not) England, therefore I only have two options: upgrade the Video Card or the CPU.

Having taken a look at <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgacharts-01.html" target="_new">The VGA Comparison</A> on this website, I reckon that my best performance per pound is one of the following: GeForce 3 Ti200, GeForce 4 MX440 or the Radeon 8500LE, though only the Ti200 shines in Quake, Max Payne & 3DMark.

The other option is to upgrade my CPU. My mobo can take an Athlon XP, so the fastest I'd consider buying it an XP 1600+.

So should I buy the graphic card? How does the Ti200 scale when going from a XP2000+ to a Duron 900? (XP2000+ was the processor used in VGA tests).

Or am I barking up the wrong tree, and I want a faster processor? Bear in mind that as far I'm concerned, a Duron 900 is fine for my day-to-day requirements. I'm looking for pure gaming speed.... or at least, as much as is possible on a very slim budget!

Cheers people.
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
Well what is your budget? If I knew that I'd much be much better able to help you out. If you're in England, I can't really say I know the pricing there though....

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek:
 

pr497

Distinguished
Oct 21, 2001
1,343
0
19,280
since you didnt write any info on your budget..im just going to guess.

i think you should probably get a new video card...the duron 900 is a decent cpu and can run games ok...but the gf2 mx is probably holding you back....you may want to consider getting at least a gf3 ti200 if you are getting a new card.

:eek: <b>Who fixed <font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s leaky faucet??</b> :eek:
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
Ok well here it is. Even if you upgraded your proc, your video card (GF2MX) would seriously bottleneck your system. There really would be no point in upgrading. Therefore, the only other way to go is video card. Now if you could get the R8500LE Retail, I'd go for it. If not, then it'd be a close one between it and the Ti200. If you were going OEM, I'd probably just go for the one with the lower price. As for CPU scaling, only the newer games really use the CPU more. For the older games, your CPU is totally fine.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek:
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
all depends on your budget.

for a maximum performance boost, upgrade both.

for the minimum expenditure a graphics card upgrade is strongly reccomended, but bear in mind that you can only go so far with your CPU remaining the same.



<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol:
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
Yeah, but you'd agree with me that a graphics upgrade would also be better than an upgrade to XP1600+ with a GF2MX right? That would be like having a P4 with SDRAM except maybe...... worse!!!

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek:
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
of course

a xp1600 and a 2 MX is a most UN-excellent combination.

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol:
 

Pwent

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2002
61
0
18,630
Hmm... stop gap measure...
A Duron 1.2 and a GeForce2 Ti(64 MB) will run at about the same cost and reduce bottlenecks, increase everyday application speed, and give good gaming performance(not spectacular, but fair-good).

<font color=black>Need Money!! Accepting Donations to help better my future. Thanks!</font color=black>
 

phsstpok

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,600
1
25,780
I don't know if this will help you but I just installed a Radeon 8500LE. It's and OEM but it's factory clocked at 250/275. I was trying to decide if its a good choice for my nephew's computer (which only has a Geforce256 SDR). He also has a Duron system @900 mhz. So I was trying to simulate his system using my own. I underclocked my Tbird (normally at 1.33ghz and 1.5ghz during games) down to 600 mhz, 100 mhz FSB, memory 100 mhz and ran a couple quick benchmarks. I figured the Tbird, even at this level, should be well below the Duron system in performance. I was surprised. The above combination scored 4367 in 3DMark2001 (not SE) with almost 30 fps in the Nature test. It also scored about 93 fps in Quake 3. The 8500LE was not overclocked. These benchmarks are pretty close to those of my system (@1.5 ghz, 150*10) when I had the Geforce2 GTS in it which ought to tell you how little a 1.5 ghz processor does for the performance of slow video card (not much).

My system consists of the Tbird 1.0 AYHJAR, an Epox 8KTA3PRO (KT133A), 256 MB CAS2 SDRAM, Maxtor 40 GB HD, Cyberdrive 36x12x48 CDRW, Turtle Beach 16-bit sound card, and other misc. ancient hardware, Windows 98SE.

I used the 9031 Radeon Windows 9x drivers.

In my opinion the Radeon 8500LE is an exceptional low budget video card and works pretty well on a low-end system.

In case you are wondering, the 8500LE scored only 6000 3DMarks and 141 fps with the Tbird @1.5 ghz. I have overclocked the 8500LE yet.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
 

baldurga

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2002
727
0
18,980
Wait a minute: have you said 30 FPS in Nature?

Well, then I have a serious problem (as I was suspecting since I have the new graphic card). My system:

- Tbird 1,2 @ 1,2 :)
- Epox 8KHA+
- 512 DDR 2100 at CAS 2
- Gainward Geforce 3 64Mb at standard 200/458
- The other components are just a DVDROM and a CDRW

I've run the 3DMark2001 and Nature run at 20-22 FPS. My score is about 5600, no more. I have to overclock to reach near 6000, but that's all. What is wrong with my computer?

BIOS is configured AGPx4, fast writes enable. Vsync disable in Windows (oh yes, it's W98SE), but only in OpenGL, I don't know where I have to go to disable in DirectX (doesn't appear in it's configuration)

Ideas? Any help will be appreciate.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
 

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
Actually something is wrong with both of their cards. I get nearly 50fps in Nature WITHOUT overclocking my Radeon 8500 retail. Their LE shouldn't be much slower.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
 

phsstpok

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,600
1
25,780
As I mentioned in my thread. I found my problem. Anisotropy was forced on. Now I score 4579 with CPU at 600mhz and 8500 LE stock (250/275) and I score 7777 with CPU at 1500mhz and 8500LE at 275/300. Getting 36.2 fps and 45.6 fps, respectively, in the Nature Test.

Seems I'm still falling short of your expectations but I'm not worried about it.

What mobo do you have? Of KT133A mobos the Epox 8KTA3PRO, which I have, was never at the top in graphics performance. It was always middle of the road in the roundups that I have seen.

One thing that is interesting, with the 8500LE at 290/330 performance hardly goes up at all, just a hair over 8000. It dropped to the mid 7000's at 300/340.

What's up with that? It almost seems like throttling.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 06/07/02 01:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

phsstpok

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,600
1
25,780
I've run the 3DMark2001 and Nature run at 20-22 FPS. My score is about 5600, no more. I have to overclock to reach near 6000, but that's all. What is wrong with my computer?
The 8500 came after the Geforce3 series and was designed to have a few more advanced features. This is why it does better in the Nature Test.

As to why your Geforce3 seems to be underperforming I'm not sure it is. Try looking at MadOnion's Online Result Browser (ORB). Look for systems similar to yours then look at the project names. See if you can find someone that mentions the video card clock speeds. If you find one that is close to yours you'll have something to gauge your own system. Or you could just ask someone with a Geforce3 to clock it the same as yours and test it.

It seems to me that in the Geforce3 days, 6000 was a good score, even when overclocked. (Geforce3 Ti500's and 2.4+ ghz machines changed this).

For Vsync in Direct3D, I don't have nVidia card installed in any of my systems right now so I can't tell you exactly. In Display properties, settings, advanced, Direct3D, I'm pretty sure you have to go one more level to find the Vsync setting. Rivatuner is easier.


<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
 

cakecake

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2002
741
0
18,980
New vid card hands down. There's no vote. Your duron is good enough and a CPU upgrade won't do much unless you get a new mobo as well, which costs extra money anyway. For $99 you can get the 64MB ATi OEM with 3.3ns hynix memory from newegg.com. Get it within the next week before it changes because it will soon. ATi is releasing to the public the R250 which is exactly like the one on newegg except it will probably be more expensive, and even though it will ship with 64MB more ram (128MB) few games need that much memory.

Censorship makes us so much more creative.
 

baldurga

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2002
727
0
18,980
Thanks for your information phsstpok.

I have looked at Madonion results. Now they seems to me no so bad. I want a share my conclusions (and some questions!):

a) I don't have the latest Detonator drivers installed, basically for stability issues. This can hurt my score.

b) Maybe I am in the low end if the benchmarks, but it seems to me that additional tweaking (now looking around the web) can give me a better score. Anyway, the score is WITHIN the range.

c) I am running the benckmark with Vsync in Direct X enable. I can disable with powerstrip utility and similar but, I don't know why, my monitor don't support it at 1024x768. I don't understand why it holds it in OpenGL and can't be with directx (any idea?)

d) I am using Windows 98. People use at least W2000, and this can also hurt the score. But I fear I will have problems with some games with W2000 (Am I right?)

Any other advice is welcome ;-)

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
 

phsstpok

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,600
1
25,780
<pre>a) I don't have the latest Detonator drivers installed, basically for stability
issues. This can hurt my score.</pre><p><pre>b) Maybe I am in the low end if the benchmarks, but it seems to me that additional
tweaking (now looking around the web) can give me a better score. Anyway, the
score is WITHIN the range.</pre><p><pre>c) I am running the benckmark with Vsync in Direct X enable. I can disable with
powerstrip utility and similar but, I don't know why, my monitor don't support
it at 1024x768. I don't understand why it holds it in OpenGL and
can't be with directx (any idea?)</pre><p><pre>d) I am using Windows 98. People use at least W2000, and this can also
hurt the score. But I fear I will have problems with some games with W2000
(Am I right?)</pre><p>
a) I use 28.32 with a Geforce2 without any problems and a little faster than 23.xx.

b) Just as you say.

c) Hmmm, turning of Vsync is usually necessary for benchmark purposes but if you are getting scores in the high 5000's it's not going to make that much difference. 3DMARK score is basically a framerate score multiplied by 100. A score of 5000 translates to 50 fps, 7500 is 75 fps.

<b>Addition:</b> Disabling Vsync allows framerates to exceed the monitor's refresh rate. If the benchmark program isn't already reaching the level of the refresh rate then disabling Vsync won't make much difference.

I have no idea why your monitor reacts badly to disabled Vsync.

d) I only use Windows 98SE, myself. I was under the impression that Win2K is more stable but games perform slightly worse. The exception to this is games that can use higher amounts of memory which Win2K is better at handling.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 06/12/02 12:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>