Up the creek with my Socket 939...

[Grimmy]

Heh.. I don't have bleeding edge system. I do have a decent system that can perform more then it was suppose ta.

If you have $100 bucks to spend, and you spend it on that HP.... Whelp then that's just $100 wasted. I remember I wanted to make my old gaming machine better. Wasted $90 bucks on a CPU, and another 200 bucks on the GPU. (P4 3.0 HT / 6800 GS agp)

I could have saved that 290 bucks on my newer system I have today, which can be upgraded to 8GB ram and Quad core CPU.

 

[Onus]

The X1300Pro is a mutt. Here's a 3650 for $75 that will make a huge difference: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127335

 

[Shecky]

The X1300Pro is a mutt. Here's a 3650 for $75 that will make a huge difference: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127335

Is there a difference between PCIe and PCIe 2.0?

 

[fatcat]

I am no expert in the matter but I'll give you my advice nevertheless, RAM wise you should be ok as 2 gig is plenty enough for most games and day to day tasks.(specially if you use XP)

I would tend to agree with previous posters, you would certainly benefit from a more powerful graphic card. I am assuming that you graphic card is a PCI express. If that's the case than you could be looking for a 7600 GT or maybe a 2600 XT, if you can stretch your budget a bit than maybe a 1950 pro or a 8600 GTS. In any case, any of those GPU would prove to be a major improvement over what you're currently using. I would start there. As far as changing your CPU, socket 939 are hard to come by beside the optron family. Second hand market is probably you're best bet but high end 939 CPU are still sold for a steep price. Anyways the 3700 and 4000 San Diego are still decent CPU as they were top of the line single core CPU before the advent of multi core processor.

 

[Shecky]

Heh.. I don't have bleeding edge system. I do have a decent system that can perform more then it was suppose ta.

If you have $100 bucks to spend, and you spend it on that HP.... Whelp then that's just $100 wasted. I remember I wanted to make my old gaming machine better. Wasted $90 bucks on a CPU, and another 200 bucks on the GPU. (P4 3.0 HT / 6800 GS agp)

I could have saved that 290 bucks on my newer system I have today, which can be upgraded to 8GB ram and Quad core CPU.

But did your system perform better than it did before? If so, then judging by my needs in this thread, you succeeded.

The ONLY demanding use to which I intend to put this machine is to play DDO. And Turbine is working on REDUCING the game's demand on systems. I neither need nor want to be "future-proof" or anything like that; I only want to make it run this game better. Even if I had plenty of free-floating cash, I wouldn't waste it on something that's made to run something that MIGHT happen in the future - I just want to play THIS game. I've never played another PC game and have zero plans to play any other. Ever. So I don't need 8 gigs RAM. Nor a quad core. I need what I have now... plus something.

Lemme compare this to something else. My favorite car of all time was a 1980 Datsun 210. It was a loser by most people's standards, but the important part is that it did what I needed it to do (I'd probably still have it today if it hadn't been stolen and totaled by some jackhole who decided to take it offroading over railroad tracks LOL!). Whenever it had little problems, people would start railing at me, "Just get a new car! It's only money!" and suchlike. I neither wanted nor needed a new, different, bigger, badder car - I wanted that one, just running as well as it could.

And that's all I want to do with this computer - upgrade it a little bit, bringing it closer to my level of preference (which, again, seems to be a lot lower than people are suggesting it "should" be) within my means. Low expense, noticeable improvement, not higher expense and huge improvement - that's all.

Does this clear up my position?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Actually, I've already tested it using a similar method. 1024x768 gets me anywhere from 20-60 fps; going up to 1280x1024 (my cheapo monitor's native resolution) drops that range by about 10. Going down is out of the question - the UI onscreen takes up too much space when I try 800x600. Does this info help?

Pirate, I don't want a silk purse. I want to turn my sow's ear into decent pork rinds LOL! But your expression points out exactly what I'm running up against - people seem to be thinking I want the silk purse (well, I DO, but I know I can't afford it any time soon at all), when all I want to do is to shore up that sow's ear.

That just proves one thing. You need a better graphics card. The lower the resolution, the harder the cpu has to work. The gpu has less to do, being as there is less pixels to have to fill. The cpu, on the otherhand, has to work harder, as the gpu is working faster with such a light load. As you increase your resolution, it reverses, the gpu has more pixels, thus more work, slowing it down, and allowing much more time for your cpu to keep up. Get a better gpu

 

[Shecky]

Can someone actually explain to me why and how a video card upgrade would be more beneficial than a CPU upgrade? I'd really like to actually understand this.

 

[Shecky]

That just proves one thing. You need a better graphics card. The lower the resolution, the harder the cpu has to work. The gpu has less to do, being as there is less pixels to have to fill. The cpu, on the otherhand, has to work harder, as the gpu is working faster with such a light load. As you increase your resolution, it reverses, the gpu has more pixels, thus more work, slowing it down, and allowing much more time for your cpu to keep up. Get a better gpu

That's... so freaking counterintuitive that I can't even start to understand the reasons. Truly, no offense to your response (and thanks loads for stepping up - to EVERYONE), but I can't begin to understand the why and wherefore of all that. It just seems bass-ackwards; would you mind explaining?

 

[Grimmy]

But did your system perform better than it did before? If so, then judging by my needs in this thread, you succeeded.

Nope... not for Quake 4, perhaps some older games, not to mention when I got my 6800 GS, the cd driver were beta, and stayed beta for over 4 months (one of the things I was disappointed by nvidia). The only other thing I did was us a Q4 mod that make it easier on the GPU. :lol:

Anyhoo... yes a better GPU can do wonders. But, if you insist on a better CPU.. good luck. Better for you to find out yourself perhaps. Hard to say what your MB will be able to use for an upgrade, and I wouldn't count too much on OC to get more performance.

 

[swifty_morgan]

from the poster above, and something for you to think about. Your motherboard might not support a dual core processor, and if it doesn't, you might not be able to get a bios update for it. I have a 3700, and a 3200 single core processor left. You can play a lot on both of them. It's not the processor.

Stop fighting it. Your graphics card is crap. Also, if you don't have enough memory in your system, that would be another thing to think about.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, lets make this simple. If your graphics has 4 pixels to light up, itll do it easier than 8. Less work. Now, the cpu works together with the gpu, and has its own responses to deal with. OK, at 4, the cpu has the same amount of work as at 8, BUT, since the gpu works faster at 4 than at 8, being there is less to do, the cpu has to work faster to keep up with its responses. Gte it?

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

Shecky,

I was in a similar boat to you a while back and believe me, the video card is the way to go. When I built my current rig back in '05 I started out with a 3700+, 2 gigs of DDR-400, and a 6600GT. Not too far off from where you are now. I later upgraded to an 4200+X2, which helped when multitasking (i.e. encoding a DVD while gaming) but did nothing as far as gaming performance. Later on I bought a used x1950Pro off of ebay for $65 and it made a HUGE difference in games. Even now I can still play all but the very latest games at decent settings. I would definately encourage you to take a similar route. There is no way your CPU is going to limit a GPU unless you are talking about one of the current high end GPUs, which would be outside of your price range anyways.

One thing I should mention though is that your current power supply probably won't be able to handle even a lower midrange video card. The power supplies included with OEM computers are typically of marginal quality at best. You may want to look at investing that $100 in a decent power supply in the 400-500W range. I know that won't help your performance now, but it will allow you to upgrade to a much better video card when you have that next $75-$100 saved up.

 

[Shecky]

Honestly, jay, no. I don't get it. By that reasoning, I would have BETTER performance at HIGHER resolutions. The logic just doesn't follow. What am I missing here?

Grimmy, I'm not "insisting". I'm trying to resolve absolutely conflicting advice from two different camps, which is why I'm asking people to explain - I can't learn until I understand, right?

Swifty, see above.

 

[Shecky]

Shecky,

I was in a similar boat to you a while back and believe me, the video card is the way to go. When I built my current rig back in '05 I started out with a 3700+, 2 gigs of DDR-400, and a 6600GT. Not too far off from where you are now. I later upgraded to an 4200+X2, which helped when multitasking (i.e. encoding a DVD while gaming) but did nothing as far as gaming performance. Later on I bought a used x1950Pro off of ebay for $65 and it made a HUGE difference in games. Even now I can still play all but the very latest games at decent settings. I would definately encourage you to take a similar route. There is no way your CPU is going to limit a GPU unless you are talking about one of the current high end GPUs, which would be outside of your price range anyways.

One thing I should mention though is that your current power supply probably won't be able to handle even a lower midrange video card. The power supplies included with OEM computers are typically of marginal quality at best. You may want to look at investing that $100 in a decent power supply in the 400-500W range. I know that won't help your performance now, but it will allow you to upgrade to a much better video card when you have that next $75-$100 saved up.

Thanks for the informative, friendly response!

FYI, I've got a 600W power supply in there - had to upgrade when I got the video card to replace the integrated one.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Honestly, jay, no. I don't get it. By that reasoning, I would have BETTER performance at HIGHER resolutions. The logic just doesn't follow. What am I missing here?

Grimmy, I'm not "insisting". I'm trying to resolve absolutely conflicting advice from two different camps, which is why I'm asking people to explain - I can't learn until I understand, right?

Swifty, see above.

Only if your gpu could keep up. 8 being greater than 4 etc. The cpus load doesnt increase, only the gpus. So, by lowering your resolution, youre effectively putting more stress on the cpu, as the gpus load is less and produces more frames per second. The cpu has as much to do as always, just less time to do it in. When you increase the resolution, the gpu has much more of a load, slowing it down, while the cpu has an easy time keeping up with it, being its slowed down

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

Thanks for the informative, friendly response!

FYI, I've got a 600W power supply in there - had to upgrade when I got the video card to replace the integrated one.

You should be good then. You can pick up one of the previous generation cards (i.e 7800GT, x1950Pro, x1950xt) for less than $100 off of ebay. This will be a huge improvement, believe me. I used to encounter stuttering with my 6600GT whenever I played above 1024x768 but with the x1950Pro I can play most games at 1280x1040 and high settings without a problem. (caveat: most of my games are 1+ years old)

I'm only using a 480W PSU and it is able to power my x1950Pro as well as my memory an 4 HD's without any problem so your 600W PSU should have no problems providing that the 12V rail amperage is sufficient. I think the recommended amperage for the x1950Pro is 30A. Not sure about the other cards I mentioned but they are probably in the same ballpark.

Good luck!

 

[MooseMuffin]

What jaydeejohn is saying is basically true, though hes not necessarily explaining as clearly as it could be. Basically, increasing the resolution makes more work for your video card, but the cpu workload hardly changes. Seeing big fps drops when moving up in resolution is a sign that you're limited by your card.

On the other hand, if you could go from 800x600 to 1024x768 with no/minor fps changes that would mean your video card can finish rendering a frame so quickly, that it has to wait for the cpu to give it the data needed to render the next one.

 

[Rip181]

What I would do to help you visually see what a better video card can do is. Call a friend that has a better PCIe video card than you and ask him if you can try it out on your computer.

Try it out if you dont like the performance increase then you are pretty much stuck.

Just a thought.

 

[briteball]

Graphics card is the way to go... I had the a64 3700+ with a 9800 pro then went to the x800pro and was unhappy with that then went to the 7800gt which I still have with a X2 5200 am2, 2gigs of ram. I can run most everything with my native res of 1440x900

when I added the 7800gt to the 3700 I saw some nice fps...

I'm sure if you added the ati 3650 you would see some great improvement

Usually with each cpu I have. I would go through like 3 gpu upgrades before I would get a new cpu

Get the gpu cause you can take that to a new system if you ever get the spare cash to get a new setup

also the pcie 2.0 is backwards compatible with pcie 1 so if the card is 2.0 able its can also use the old pcie too

 

[coldneutron]

To the OP: In your post you state: "(Dungeons & Dragons Online - a very graphics-intensive game)." Your own statement should give you some clue that you need a better video card! These articles show that you can get substantial gains with a good video card upgrade even if you have an older system with AGP (this also applies to PCIe):
part 1
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/10/agp-platform-analysis/
part2
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/01/agp-platform-analysis/index.html

 

[bliq]

upgrading to 3850 might require an upgrade to PSU, don't forget. Need to check that. X1300s don't use PCI-E connectors so the new PSU might not have one.

 

[EXT64]

Basically, your CPU is near max, however I can almost guarantee your GPU is @ 150%. I have the X1400 in my laptop (basically the same as yours) and it gets beaten by today's integrated.

Your 3700+ isn't the issue. I used my 3800+ @2.6 for many games more intensive than that and it worked fine. I hope everything works out for you.

 

[caamsa]

Recommended System Requirements: For Dungeons and Dragons online.
---
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or compatible (must support SSE)
Video: Geforce FX or Radeon 9800 or better with 128MB
RAM: 1 GB or more
Disk Space: 3GB, 5GB for High Resoultion
DirectX: DX9c+
OS: Windows XP

High Res System Specs Processor: Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or compatible (must support SSE)
Video: Radeon X800 or GeForce 6 6800 GT
RAM: 1 GB or more
Disk Space: 5GB DirectX: DX9c+ OS: Windows XP Home and Pro


Looks to me that your are lacking in the GPU department like most people have been saying.


This card is $120.00 after rebate. That is a steal. And it will still be a decent video card when you decide to do your next upgrade. Just make sure you have a pci express slot and a power supply that can handle it.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261002

If not the ATI 3850 256mb cards are going for right around 100-110 bucks.

You also have to make sure the video card will fit in the case ie (is there enough room) not sure how big your case is.

 

[Shecky]

Only if your gpu could keep up. 8 being greater than 4 etc. The cpus load doesnt increase, only the gpus. So, by lowering your resolution, youre effectively putting more stress on the cpu, as the gpus load is less and produces more frames per second. The cpu has as much to do as always, just less time to do it in. When you increase the resolution, the gpu has much more of a load, slowing it down, while the cpu has an easy time keeping up with it, being its slowed down

Ahh, I think I get it now! Thanks for the explanation!

Let me see if I have this right: a better GPU handles higher resolutions well AND takes load off the CPU. One question, though - if a better GPU handles more intensive resolutions better, it'll produce more frames per second, right? And wouldn't that require a better CPU to handle the increased stress on it? In other words, it takes both together to raise performance? I just want to be clear so I can make an informed decision; if upgrading one and not the other runs the risk of throwing an investment away, where's the breaking point (i.e., how far CAN I upgrade one before we hit the point of diminishing returns)?

I'm beginning to see where you guys are coming from in pushing the GPU, and thanks again for bearing with me this far. Further suggestions on what PCIe card would fit the bill would be appreciated.

 

[Shecky]

Okay, I didn't see the second page - holy crap, is the help pouring out or what???

Got my suggestions before I even asked for 'em.

One more question before I surrender... As I said, to minimize my own personal confusion, I'd prefer to stick with ATi GPUs (one thing I've been told definitively is that HPs are generally made to work best with ATis - correct this if it's wrong, please). What can you tell me about the advantages/disadvantages of the different ATi GPU product lines (e.g., x1k, HD 2k, HD 3k, etc.)? How do they compare to each other and which one comes out with the best bang for the buck?

Damn glad I came by here!