What to upgrade first?

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

I really dont care about anything other then UT2K3, and 2004.
Since I dont find many games worth the price, I never buy any.

I have
Gigabyte KT400 motherboard. Has 8Xagp, and 333fsb. Says it can take an xp3000.
XP2200 266 fsb.
TI4200 64mb 4xagp.

Upgrade to a higher fsb cpu with a few more mhz speed, or a new video card?

How much of a difference does the fsb make? I see the highest AMD processor that my motherboard will take is only 3.5 faster then the one I have, but the fsb would be 333 instead of 266 that I have now.

CamH · Dec 8, 2003

How about a new motherboard and CPU? An NF7 and a 2500+ are a really strong combo.

A new video card is also a good deal. A 9600 Pro or a 9600XT are both quite a bit better than what you've got.

You seem to have a well balanced system right now, I think.

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

No, its horrible for ut2k3.

I just got this motherboard a few months ago, Im not buying a new one.

Why get a new motherboard, and a 2500? The speed is 1.83. My 2200 is 1.8.

Why would I need a new motherboard when the one I have can take a 2500. It can take 3000.

Bulwark · Dec 8, 2003

Is there a reason why you want to upgrade? If you don't have ne performance issues now, I don't see why you should bother. If you have performance issues with the few games you play, then opt for a new vid card. I would concur with the 9600 pro or XT, you might want to hurry though I hear that the 9600 Pro is being discontinued by ATI to increase XT sales I guess.

EDIT: sorry I just read your last reply, must have posted it while I was making mine. Go for the vid card.

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

Oh, I see thats what you have, and you are trying to sell it to someone that you think doesnt know any better. Well, g.f.y.

Bulwark · Dec 8, 2003

What? I'm still using an 8500 LE...I have ordered a 9600XT but it hasn't come in yet. So I'm not trying to sell anything

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=5754

here that's the article where I got the information from.

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

Not you.

Bulwark · Dec 8, 2003

ohh sorry about that.

Overclocker550 · Dec 8, 2003

you should not have problems with ut2003 on that system, dude it requires only 700MHz to run and my xp1600 and ti4200 ran that game fine at 30fps in 1600x1200 max details. make sure to disable all apps in the background in this case including screensavers, prime95, folding, seti, antivirus, etc. also do not get a new cpu!!!!!!!!!!! overclock yours!!!!!!!

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

Ok, I have come to the conclusion(like many others), that overclocker550 is a compulsive liar.

Im not going to play ut2k3 at 30 frames for god sake, I wouldnt even be able to aim. If I see my frames going yellow 30 to 40, I feel like I cant hit anything.

I play at 1200x760 with no antisoptric, no anti-aliasing, no texture sharpening, no vertical sync. Textures on highest, player textures on low, world detail low, and world geometry low. I have projectors enabled.

It is playable like this rarely going below 40 frames. If I put player models higher, or a couple of the check boxes(dynamic lighting etc) it starts to dip into the 30s a lot. 2 boxes checked aside from projectors, and player skins up to normal or high, it lags like crap.

I would over clock, but I cant find the damn program that tells me what my cpu is running at, and this motherboard doesnt tell me at start up like my old one.

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

By the way. Maxed out with a lower resolution I get a max of like 10 frames, so youre just a flat out liar saying you get 30. I have a faster cpu too.

Overclocker550 · Dec 8, 2003

yours isnt the demo, could be reason why. also your not getting good performance if you get 5500 marks then your ut2003 fps should be much higher!

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

I just looked at old 3dmark scores, and they are only 150 lower then now when I had a 1300 duron with 512 sdram and the same card.

Steven4563 · Dec 8, 2003

drexel y call ppl a lair intill u have seen it for yourself personally i think your a n00b and for being disrepectful to ppl i wont help u

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

He has said it numerous times. "I can max out ut2k3 with an xp1600, and ti4200". Its simply impossible, making him a liar.

I know because I have that card, yet I have an xp2200, and it comes no where near maxing it out. Its completely unplayable half maxed, and thats with no Vsync, af, aa, ts. If he thinks maxing it out, and playing at 5 frames is called maxing it out, then ok.

With that english I doubt youd be much help anyway. Maybe you could help, but I may not understand what you mean.

Steven4563 · Dec 8, 2003

well for one he has his ti4200 overclocked and he properly doesnt run his 1600+ at stock either ive had a ti4200 and i could play all my games without any slow down without AA and AF and by the sounds of it. it doesnt seem like u know what your on about anyway

CamH · Dec 8, 2003

drexel said:
No, its horrible for ut2k3.

I just got this motherboard a few months ago, Im not buying a new one.

Why get a new motherboard, and a 2500? The speed is 1.83. My 2200 is 1.8.

Why would I need a new motherboard when the one I have can take a 2500. It can take 3000.

Ah, sorry, I should have explained.

The board you have sucks. It's not made for overclocking and it has no bus locks. An NF7 (or any nForce 2) has bus locks so you can increase your FSB without negatively affecting your system. I recommended the 2500+ because it is a great overclocker. Most of them will do up to 2.4GHz on air. Plus, the 2500+ has extra cache which helps with speed a lot as well.

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

Steven4563 said:
well for one he has his ti4200 overclocked and he properly doesnt run his 1600+ at stock either ive had a ti4200 and i could play all my games without any slow down without AA and AF and by the sounds of it. it doesnt seem like u know what your on about anyway

Hey, you are missing out on other things he said in different threads. He has been talking about multiple subjects in three different threads. I am almost positive he said, stock in a different thread, but either way I doubt he would be getting the 1.4 1600 to the speed of my 2200 at 1.8, and the overclocking of the ti4200 doesnt mean crap. I have taken mine to 300/600, and it made little difference. He isnt even taking into account image heights etc, which will boost textures in game no matter the setting. My image bar maxed plus textures maxed in game means a whole host of lag, yet if I turn it down all the way, it changes the texture level in game, even though in game it still reads as textures at highest. Turning down all options in properties, or with a tuner, then saying you can max a game out is rediculous. Turn those options up, and you are running no where near max.

drexel · Dec 8, 2003

CamH said:
Ah, sorry, I should have explained.

The board you have sucks. It's not made for overclocking and it has no bus locks. An NF7 (or any nForce 2) has bus locks so you can increase your FSB without negatively affecting your system. I recommended the 2500+ because it is a great overclocker. Most of them will do up to 2.4GHz on air. Plus, the 2500+ has extra cache which helps with speed a lot as well.

Yeah, but I dont overclock. I have a bit in the past, but I dont care to really, cause I know something will go wrong, it always does. I probably should though, since my case keeps things cool for having no extras in it. Could probably get it pretty high. Never seen the temp above 39 celsius.

If I was going to go for a cpu over a card, I would buy as high as my board could handle, so the 2500 would be out of the question. As long as I had the money for the 3000, think its around 180us.

snyper1982 · Dec 8, 2003

drexel said:
Hey, you are missing out on other things he said in different threads. He has been talking about multiple subjects in three different threads. I am almost positive he said, stock in a different thread, but either way I doubt he would be getting the 1.4 1600 to the speed of my 2200 at 1.8, and the overclocking of the ti4200 doesnt mean crap. I have taken mine to 300/600, and it made little difference. He isnt even taking into account image heights etc, which will boost textures in game no matter the setting. My image bar maxed plus textures maxed in game means a whole host of lag, yet if I turn it down all the way, it changes the texture level in game, even though in game it still reads as textures at highest. Turning down all options in properties, or with a tuner, then saying you can max a game out is rediculous. Turn those options up, and you are running no where near max.

it is true: http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251807

oc550 is a character alright. you get used to him though.

What to upgrade first?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads