wait ...or jump in!?!?

Do you have the $$$ ?? Jump in..... enjoy the fun.
I vote 9800pro

because what you said hit it on the nail. youd only get 2/3 of the performance the r420 is capable of dishing out on the cpu I have, if that. I doubt id get even half of what an r420 could dish out with my cpu. Id even bottleneck anything higher than a 9700 pro and my ti4200 still isnt maxed out. Ive always favored fast cpus over fast gpus, I hate bottlenecks!

but in your case OC550 the Ti4200 is the bottleneck

but i vote to jump in and get a new cpu/mobo/ram and keep the Ti4600

So if I were to get a next gen card, then I would be bottlnecking it by my processor? Oh god... this is like me getting fat and being in denial about it... I didn't realize I was getting outdated so fast. Oh well, the 9800pro suits me fine. For now.

you have only 2.31GHz barton. even a 9800 pro isnt getting its full potentional. youd gain little with an r420. that would be like me sticking my ti4200 back in my old 504MHz celeron

I would see how the r420 would be bottlenecking my system, but I guess I am still in shock, I just built this machine last summer

Wasn't the highest available AMD processor the Barton 3200+ when the r9800pro came out? I don't see how it is being bottlenecked as of now tho.

micamica1217 said:

after relooking at your sig, I'm thinking that a new mobo/CPU/ memory is a better upgraid then getting a new card.

mica

Click to expand...

You gotta listen to this post. That is THE 1st thing to do! Or it'll be a Ferrari (vc) slowed down by a GEO Metro (cpu).

And if you really want to get a video card, get an ATi 9800 Pro from newegg.com, they have it for $212 so it'll be cheaper even then in Best Buy!
NewEgg.com.........BestBuy (i.e. WorstBuy):
simply = $212.......$250+tax=$275 - $50 MIR = $225

dreIU said:

I would see how the r420 would be bottlenecking my system, but I guess I am still in shock, I just built this machine last summer

Wasn't the highest available AMD processor the Barton 3200+ when the r9800pro came out? I don't see how it is being bottlenecked as of now tho.

Click to expand...

no point anyway, a 9800 pro should run any game at 1600x1200 except maybe doom3, but a good a64 can fix this

$money is actually no prob. The puter in my sig is my HTPC..wanted something that would run quiet and cool.

My gaming/everything else rig does have a slow processer (Dual AMD MP2000, which brings up a good question to upgrade my gaming rig.
The GF4 Ti-4600 was originally in my Dual AMD MP2000, but I would guess even my main workstation (Dual Xeon 3.06) would be slow for the next gen video card?!?! wow.. which currently has a quadro fx2000.

hmmmm ....what to do

whoa, you got a quadro fx2000? wow can you run 3200x2400 resolution? at least in 2d it should work. maybe I should get one of those when prices drop so I can run 3200x2400 on my monitor at 48 Hz

Overclocker550 said:

because what you said hit it on the nail. youd only get 2/3 of the performance the r420 is capable of dishing out on the cpu I have, if that. I doubt id get even half of what an r420 could dish out with my cpu. Id even bottleneck anything higher than a 9700 pro and my ti4200 still isnt maxed out. Ive always favored fast cpus over fast gpus, I hate bottlenecks!

Click to expand...

maybe I misunderstood you, when I asked about why you quoted me....

but, dude, I can't agree with this:

""Id even bottleneck anything higher than a 9700 pro and my ti4200 still isnt maxed out.""

OC550, in your post that got deleted, you stated that:

""when running your cpu at 100mhz faster....you get only 1fps more in Q3A.""

this is proof that your CPU is bottlenecking your ti4200....
in the games you said you played (like Q3A), you should be getting 10 extra frames per every 100mhz your cpu is increased.

I can not stress it enough....
not only would you get a performance increase with a 9700pro, but you have long past, maxed out your OCed ti4200

you are VID CARD BOTTLENECKED.


while you have a nice system, my system is far faster then yours...
and I'm first starting to use the full potential of the 9700pro.
if you got a 9700pro, you would not be bottlenecking your system.

I'll bet that if I would be able to run at 3.6ghz I would still be able to get a sugnifigant increase in 3dmark03.
as well as getting more then 5fps increase in games for every 100mhz increase from my CPU.

what most (AMD) people don't realise, is that there is alot of performance built into the 9700pro/9800pro

for AMD rigs, I wouldn't even think of a 9800pro, untill your OCed cpu is at least 2.5ghz or faster (that is if we had a choice of getting a 9700pro real easy).

OCed AMD rigs will not start to see the full potential of the 9800pro untill you reach 3.0ghz-3.2ghz in OCed speed.

OC550, stop basing everything you say on a three year old benchmark(3dmark01)...it's too old to use as a "one and only" performance test.

mica

There is a LCD made by IBM and Viewsonic that can handle 3840x2400 but it cost 7000 for the screen. I use to use 2 LG 22" LCD at 1600x1000, but recently upgraded to 2 DELL FP2001 @1600x1200 dual dvi ...NICE..

Do you think we could make a topic going beyond one page without it turning in to whether OC550 is right or wrong? Who cares.
I still say wait, what's one month going to do??

micamica1217 said:

for AMD rigs, I wouldn't even think of a 9800pro, untill your OCed cpu is at least 2.5ghz or faster (that is if we had a choice of getting a 9700pro real easy).

OCed AMD rigs will not start to see the full potential of the 9800pro untill you reach 3.0ghz-3.2ghz in OCed speed.

mica

Click to expand...

I normally agree with what you say, but not this time.....


That's like saying a 1.4g system will perform slower with a 9800PRO, than it would with a 9700PRO.

That 9800PRO might not be maxed out running on a 2.0G system (thank god!), but it will outperform a 9700PRO running on the same system. That is so bull to say, that if you have a less than 2.5 cpu, don't get the 9800PRO.

Then to say a AMD system at that, when they are beating the Intel setups at lesser speeds. A damn 2500+ barton only runs at 1.8G, and that's a far cry from 2.5G

You are letting Overclocker550 get to you man, that statement just didn't make since. Although I do agree, it would take atleast a 3.6 intel to max the card out.......

a 9800 pro will always beat a 9700 pro if the cpu speed is constant but stick the 9700 pro in a faster cpu, itll own the 9800 pro

Overclocker550 said:

a 9800 pro will always beat a 9700 pro if the cpu speed is constant but stick the 9700 pro in a faster cpu, itll own the 9800 pro

Click to expand...

I doubt that too.

I bet my 2400+ at default with 9800PRO, would kick a 2500+ at default speed using the 9700PRO.

Now that's only if both are configured equally.

youd own the barton, not enough clock speed differences, but if the bartons at 3200+ speeds now itll own you

football said:

I doubt that too.

I bet my 2400+ at default with 9800PRO, would kick a 2500+ at default speed using the 9700PRO.

Now that's only if both are configured equally.

Click to expand...

haha, but those two cpu's arnt all that different. They was saying 1.4g system, and then place that vs say your 2400+ with a 9700pro in it, you system is going to be faster.

funny... aceshardware had a nice revidew about 3dmark03, where a p2 300 with a 9700 pro was keeping up with a 9600.

http://aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000242

but the 4600 is a good card, regardless. And I personally think that until you start to see uncomfortable frame rates in games... dont worry about upgrading. Honestly, can you tell the difference between 150 and 200 fps with a monitor running at say. 85hz?

3dmark 2003 is unusually gpu intensive, alot like what nature in 2001 is so cpu speed helps little in 2003 but in 2001 ocing your card mostly gains you in nature. One guy only gained 400 marks going from 380/340 to 440/370. 20fps gain in nature, a couple fps gain in draothic, no gains elsewhere. Thats how games behaive, thats why I can get away with my ti4200 and good fps