How Much is Too Much??

spitoon

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2003
248
0
18,680
Just wondering what your thoughts are on this...I built a 'budget' system for myself from mostly scavenged parts. It has served me well for around 9 months, but I really need to upgrade the video card because I pulled the current one out of my old computer that didn't have an AGP slot. Bad enough that it is a PCI card, but it is also a GeForce FX5200 128MB one to boot. I'm having a hard time maintaining 30FPS in many of my current games, at medium to low settings.

My system consists of a 1.4GHz Celeron on an ASUS CUSL2-C (w/ AGPX4 slot), 512MB memory, 350W PS, 19" flat CRT, Windows XP Pro, and various other things that don't really matter to this discussion.

Anyways, my question is, as the subject of this post reads, how much video card it too much for this system?

I am able to spend up to a 9700np, or possibly even a 9700Pro if I can find the right deal, but what about a 9500Pro, or 9600Pro??? At what point does my 1.4GHz processor and 100MHz FSB become a bottle neck??

I don't really want to spend all that money only to be putting a supercharger on a Yugo, if you know what I mean.

Thanks in advance.
 

speeduk

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2003
1,476
0
19,280
Celery. Brings back memories. My last celery was a 400mhz one with a voodoo 3 a few years ago. Played UT at 30fps too!

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
 

TKS

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2003
747
0
18,980
The only card that might not bottleneck that is a GF3 ti 200...I'd upgrade everything if I got a new vid card.

----------
<b>I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman! </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
He might be "okay" if he got his system a Ti4200. Its only $10 more than the GeForce3 Ti200. I wouldn't suggest upgrading the system "just because he spent $10 more for a video card that bottlenecks his system" if thats if the fact that one video upgrade bottlenecks, and the other doesn't is the only motivation for doing so. And he stated that this is a "budget system" so he can't afford to revamp the whole thing right now although it wouldn't hurt. :smile:

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

c0d1f1ed

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2003
266
0
18,780
Celeron 1.4 GHz with Tualatin core are excellent chips. Only their 100 MHz FSB is a limitation. Personally I think a Radeon 9500/9600 Pro would work nicely. It just depends on the game if the FSB is really a bottleneck. But a Radeon 9700/9800 would probably not give you much higher FPS (unless in higher resolutions). However, if you can spend up to 9700 Pro, I think it's best to buy that so you don't spend the money twice when upgrading your CPU...
 

Ion

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2003
379
0
18,780
9700pro is a terrible match up to celeron 1.4 GHZ(even with tualatin core). At best you using about 50% of 9700's potential and keep in mind that he will <b>likely</b> needs a new PSU to run the 9700pro.

In the end ti4200 or GF3 is the more reasonable choice consider his system setup.

edit: of course if he plans to upgrade the cpu/mb soon 9700pro will be better, otherwise ti4200 can last 1-2 years for most gamers.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Ion on 10/18/03 12:43 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

spitoon

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2003
248
0
18,680
Thanks for all the advice...I'm not really unhappy with the performance of my current card, I just get the feeling that there is a chance to make things a bit better....I play Medal of Honor, BF1942, Combat FS 2&3, Madden 2004, NHL 2004, a bit of Splinter Cell...

So my options are to go cheap, because that is all my current system will handle, or to go big and then use it in a future build....Hmmmm.....

Do you really think that I will see much improvement over my current frame rates, and quality settings with a Ti4200, I mean if I'm only going to gain 10%, its not really worth it.

I sort of decided that I would like to try out an ATI card, since I have never had one, and I've read some negative things about Nvidia lately, although that seems to be coming around.

I just don't want to go and spend $200+ to see a 10% increase, that would be crappy. Although, I can't believe I would only get that much increase, because remember this is a PCI card.....

By the way, if anyone is interested, I have scored 9581 on Aquamark3, and a dismal 1205 3D Marks on 03.




<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by spitoon on 10/18/03 02:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
ATi has the best current stuff. But back about a year and a half ago, nvidia was king and their products had suprior performance (even though they only had full Dx8.0 support and not 8.1 like the Radeon 8500 cards. You bet you'll notice a MASSIVE performance increase over your PCI FX 5200 card with the Ti4200. Heck you would notice a an enormous increase even if your FX5200 was an AGP card.

If you really wanted to try an ATi card for once like you were asking, you could go with the Radeon 8500. What do you think guys, considering his system specs, would he have any improvement at all with a Ti4200?

To be on the "safe" side though, I would get a Ti4200 64MB card for $70 bucks or so rather than the 8500 for $60 just to make sure you squeeze every "amp" of performance that you could possibly muster.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
PS: Oh and just incase your wondering, there is <b><font color=red>NO</b></font color=red> real performance gain with the 128 meg Ti4200 with the exception of 2% or so ( but it even varies at that!).

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

spitoon

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2003
248
0
18,680
I've done some looking and the Ti4200 is definitely the cheapest one of the bunch out there, and in my system likely provides the best bang for the buck.

Just curious though, where does the 9500np come into this discussion?? I can get one fairly cheap, and maybe even get it to run as a 9500Pro.......
 

GeneticWeapon

Splendid
Jan 13, 2003
5,795
0
25,780
there is NO real performance gain with the 128 meg Ti4200 with the exception of 2% or so
Quit telling people that. Have you ever owned a 128mb Ti4200?....there is huge difference when playing games where a ton of texture memory is needed.....AKA...most games out today...

<b>I help because you suck</b>
 

phial

Splendid
Oct 29, 2002
6,757
0
25,780
like what? HL2? splinter cell? UT2003?


ut2k3 doenst use more than 64megs of vram until you crank the resolution up high and use AA ...

as or the rest , a GF4 wont be able to play those at full texture detail anyways..

GF4TI's are pieces of crap anyways. your better off gettin a cheap 9500... at least if you DO turn the texture resolution up in games like BF1942 you will be able to see it bceause the texture filtering on GF3/4s is horrid to say teh least. i can see the mip map lines plain as day at 8xAF, and it pisses me off royally. but then again, other people might not notice this. i guess you could call it preference eh?

-------


................
 

ytoledano

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2003
974
0
18,980
I second that, most get by with 64MB.
But also, the 128MB Ti4200 is slower than the 64MB version cause it uses cheaper memory.

My anger and my wrath will be poured on this place on man and beast on the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground it will burn and not be quenched Jeremiah 7:20
I am ALPHA and OMEGA, burn!
 

cleeve

Illustrious
9500 non-pro is good, Ti4200 is probably cheaper though and a bit better.

9500 has really good pixel shader performance tho. Better for DX9 titles. 50/50 chance of modding to PRO.

Can't really tell you which is better for ya. That depends what you want. But I CAN say that either will give you a BIG performance boost, even with a 1.4 celery.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
 

phial

Splendid
Oct 29, 2002
6,757
0
25,780
9500 has really good pixel shader performance tho

really good? try great


it has the same four parallel shaders the the 9700 has. clocked a little lower yes and with less memory bandwidth but still...


in ANY game that has any amount of pixel shading teh 9500 is going to outperform the GF4TI. not to mention the vertex shaders are easily twice as powerful. raw fill rate and triangle output isnt everything, like it used to be...

-------


<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
 

GeneticWeapon

Splendid
Jan 13, 2003
5,795
0
25,780
ut2k3 doenst use more than 64megs of vram until you crank the resolution up high and use AA ...
Your full of crap.
People in these threads love to repeat the things they read, and I'm not necessarily talking about you Phial.
GF4TI's are pieces of crap anyways. your better off gettin a cheap 9500... at least if you DO turn the texture resolution up in games like BF1942 you will be able to see it bceause the texture filtering on GF3/4s is horrid to say teh least.
Ok, that was a really dumb comment....do you want to talk about texture filtering?....do you know the deffinition of the phrase?.....have you ever owned a 9500?....the card that your praising?......maybe you just read all of this in a review somewhere.
i can see the mip map lines plain as day at 8xAF, and it pisses me off royally. but then again, other people might not notice this.
Hey...we agree on something. Mip transitions on GeForce 4's are pretty horrid. Anyone who has been using a Radeon for a while, and then starts using a Ti card will agree with you. Just set your mip level detail to best image quality and live with it.

<b>I help because you suck</b>
 

TRENDING THREADS