Upgrade Advice

[mr_lewington]

I've recently aquired enough money to get a PC upgrade and could use some guidance as to what to get. As of now I have AMD Athlon Dual Core 3800+, 2.0 Ghz processor, 1.5 Gigs of Ram and an 8600 GTS, on a 32bit XP OP. Right now I have my eyes set on an 8800 GT for $170 which I have been told will double the performance of my current card and last me for quite a few years to come.

I am largely looking for is what my computer needs most to give me exceptionally high graphics for 2 or so years with low load times, which I have been told will be given to me by the 8800 GT. (A question also comes with this, do graphics cards drastically reduce loading times?) I do not have an LCD monitor blush however, which I have been told will really limit the 8800's full potential. A video card update would most likely come with a gig of Ram for $50 or so.

Thanks.

 

[GVBN]

Too expensive. Get the HD 4830 and 2 gigs of DDR2

 

[Jazzmail]

I don't know how the prices are in the OP's country, but if you can buy a radeon HD4830 or a GF9800GT or a GF8800GT based on the new chip, go with the cheapest one.
They all perform roughly equal, though the radeon will also win more often with AA enabled. If all roughly the same price over there, pick the HD4830.

edit: forget that. The OP's CPU is only a 2,0ghz X2. A gf8600gt is about right for that rig. More would be overkill... unless you upgrade the CPU aswell.

 

[lndm]

A doubling of performance is barely worth the effort of upgrading, especially at that price. In my opinion, a 4 to 10 times increase is more worthwhile.

Loading times have a lot to do with HDD speed. There are some fast drives out there or you could consider RAID.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

(A question also comes with this, do graphics cards drastically reduce loading times?)

I do know that the slowest computer in the school has a really crummy video card. I know this cause I asked the technician why was it so slow.

 

[Aramazd]

I do know that the slowest computer in the school has a really crummy video card. I know this cause I asked the technician why was it so slow.

A bad gpu does not cause a whole computer to be slow. The computer is probably just bad altogether.

 

[mr_lewington]

So the graphics card would not decrease the load times by a signifigant amount?

 

[Zelig]

I've recently aquired enough money to get a PC upgrade and could use some guidance as to what to get. As of now I have AMD Athlon Dual Core 3800+, 2.0 Ghz processor, 1.5 Gigs of Ram and an 8600 GTS, on a 32bit XP OP. Right now I have my eyes set on an 8800 GT for $170 which I have been told will double the performance of my current card and last me for quite a few years to come.

I am largely looking for is what my computer needs most to give me exceptionally high graphics for 2 or so years with low load times, which I have been told will be given to me by the 8800 GT. (A question also comes with this, do graphics cards drastically reduce loading times?) I do not have an LCD monitor blush however, which I have been told will really limit the 8800's full potential. A video card update would most likely come with a gig of Ram for $50 or so.

Thanks.

Is it S939 or AM2?

If AM2, you're easiest bet is probably just dumping all the memory you have now, and throwing in 2x2gb for $50:
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=27526&vpn=PVS24G6400LLK&manufacture=Patriot&promoid=1001

There is very likely no video card you can get now that will give you exceptionally high graphics for the next 2 years. Two years ago, the best card available was the 8800 GTX, which is solidly a midrange card now.

Your CPU is also going to be a limiting factor in games, so something in the range of the 8800GT would be a good match, but you shouldn't need to pay $170 for it:
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=35958&vpn=512-P3-N977-TR&manufacture=eVGA&promoid=1001

So the graphics card would not decrease the load times by a signifigant amount?

No, it would not decrease load times by any amount.

 

[ainwood]

So the graphics card would not decrease the load times by a signifigant amount?

No, they don't.

Load times are affected by hard drive access times, amount of RAM and (generally) the processor & motherboard combination you have (which affects how quickly data can be moved around the system). If you have slow load times, an increase in RAM to 2 GB might help (see caveat below), but the very first thing you should do is defrag your hard drive. Why first? Because its Free!

If AM2, you're easiest bet is probably just dumping all the memory you have now, and throwing in 2x2gb for $50:
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=27526&vpn=PVS24G6400LLK&manufacture=Patriot&promoid=1001

Actually, with a 32-bit OS, increasing RAM from 1.5 GB to 4 GB may not make that much difference, because of the addressing limitations of the OS, and the fact that some of the memory addresses in the 2GB - 4GB space are assigned to devices.

THis link gives a good explanation.

 

[mr_lewington]

My load times aren't bad, and I generally run my games on graphics that are 4/5. Right now based on what you guys are saying I'm largely going to go for the ram update so i have 4gigs, though I have a friend who says "Do not get 4gigs of ram for a 32bit OS". Do you guys agree that a full ram upgrade would be the best long term investment?

 

[Zelig]

Actually, with a 32-bit OS, increasing RAM from 1.5 GB to 4 GB may not make that much difference, because of the addressing limitations of the OS, and the fact that some of the memory addresses in the 2GB - 4GB space are assigned to devices.

THis link gives a good explanation.

I'm fully aware of the limitations of 32-bit operating systems.

For years before 64-bit computing became commonplace, the standard amount of memory for high-end workstations was 3GB, as the max a program could address was 2GB, leaving 1GB for the OS and other programs.

I'm just recommending 4GB over 3GB, since it's likely cheaper and easier to get 2x2gb for dual channel than 2x1gb+2x512gb.

 

[mr_lewington]

Ah, thanks. Just wanted that clarification.

 

[lndm]

I suspect that upgrading from 1.5G will not make much difference unless one of your games requests it...at least compared with upgrading other parts.

 

[Zelig]

I suspect that upgrading from 1.5G will not make much difference unless one of your games requests it...at least compared with upgrading other parts.

Or if you actually use a decent amount of memory. In general computer use, without any virtual machines, games or media editing software open, I'm generally between 2-3GB of memory used.

 

[ainwood]

I'm just recommending 4GB over 3GB, since it's likely cheaper and easier to get 2x2gb for dual channel than 2x1gb+2x512gb.

Yeah - I'm actually evaluating that now. Trying to decide on 2x2GB vs 2x1GB vs 4x1GB.

 

[lndm]

Zelig, I feel we've been through this before (we discussed your unused cache preallocation?)

I have been following memory usage since my computer had 4kB of RAM. That's one millionth of what you're talking here.

If you are trying to suggest that this behaviour you describe is typical, then I don't believe you (yet....maybe in the future).

Anyway, every serious gamer knows that rebooting windows before a gaming session is good on so many levels. Therefore a person could take a look at the box for a good memory recommendation.

 

[Zelig]

Zelig, I feel we've been through this before (we discussed your unused cache preallocation?)

Probably, I'm here to edumacate.

I have been following memory usage since my computer had 4kB of RAM. That's one millionth of what you're talking here.

It sure is. And it probably cost more at the time.

If you are trying to suggest that this behaviour you describe is typical, then I don't believe you (yet....maybe in the future).

I'm sure my behaviour isn't typical, I'm far more efficient than the average computer user. If I were going to build a new computer for myself today, I'd love to stuff 16GB or 32GB of RAM in it.

That being said, a bottom of the line desktop from Dell ships with 2GB of RAM, I bet that if the average user wasn't going to see the difference with less RAM, they'd ship with less, and save themselves some cost.

Anyway, every serious gamer knows that rebooting windows before a gaming session is good on so many levels.

Totally unnecessary on any modern operating system. I use my computer far more heavily than the average user, and can't notice any performance difference after a month of solid use. (Need to reboot monthly for patch Tuesday)

 

[lndm]

If I were going to build a new computer for myself today, I'd love to stuff 16GB or 32GB of RAM in it.

Yep

 

[Jazzmail]

I'm sure my behaviour isn't typical, I'm far more efficient than the average computer user. If I were going to build a new computer for myself today, I'd love to stuff 16GB or 32GB of RAM in it.

Yeah and you would run a 64bit OS on that rig. The OP only runs winXP (32-bit).

For XP: always 2GB, no more, no less.
Something in the order of 10MB RAM will be wasted on the system processes if you run a fairly clean configuration. The rest is available for the game. Which is perfect, because the game will reach the 2GB VAS barrier a wee bit earlier than the RAM limit.

 

[Zelig]

For XP: always 2GB, no more, no less.
Something in the order of 10MB RAM will be wasted on the system processes if you run a fairly clean configuration. The rest is available for the game. Which is perfect, because the game will reach the 2GB VAS barrier a wee bit earlier than the RAM limit.

Or you could just put in 3GB (or 4GB), and not have to close every single program whenever you want to play a high memory-consumption game.