Mayday Mayday Read This Asap

[micamica1217]

ok guys you are wrong.

I gain 2 3dmarks per MHz increase in the cpu. never tried the increase in quake3. I gain 1fps in u2004 per 100MHz cpu increase. how bout I try quake3 at 640x480 fastest setting with my cpu at max, at 1GHz and 1.5GHz all using the same fsb? 200 for all cpu speeds tested. I will gain much more going from 1GHz to 1.5 than 1.5 to 2GHz

while I can not quote you about Q3A....
(the thread was deleted.) still, only 1fps gain in UT2004 for every 100mhz seems strange....???

first, is there a demo test in UT2004?????
next, in UT2003 I get about 3fps increase for each 100mhz, CPU increase....and this is with a intel CPU.
this game does far better with a AMD cpu...you should be getting a little more then just an extra frame.

""I will gain much more going from 1GHz to 1.5 than 1.5 to 2GHz ""

this statement shows that your vid card limited....
if your video card had more bandwith in it, then you should be getting the same increase in performance, all the way up to, and far beyond 2ghz.
if your increase in performance takes a nose dive after 1.5ghz then what is the point at running a 2ghz or faster?????
inother words, why buy an A64 and stick that ti4200 in it???

back to Q3A for a moment.....
running the timedemo at 640x480 will basicly only test the CPU.
(and you know this)

run the test at 1024x768, 32bit, 32bit, at least.
btw, if you still play this game, what res do you play it at????
if it's 1600x1200, then that is the res you should be testing the game at....
and it will show more of the vid card in this test then at 640x480.

I realy wish I had the time (and my injored hand didn't hurt so much) to explain bottlenecks to ya OC550....
but you seem to understand it.

I just don't understand why with everything your saying, you still think that a faster CPU will solve your bottleneck???

mica

 

[Overclocker550]

laws of diminishing returns man. no cpu will ever scale linear, not even with the fastest 9800 pro. a 10% gain in cpu clocks, reguardless of video card will never ever gain you 10% more fps in games, that is, if your fsb remains constant. youd need to up both cpu and fsb to scale almost linear. that means I can set my cpu to 1GHz then overclock it to 2GHz and keep the fsb at 100 for both, I gain only 50% more fps in 640x480 and even less in higher res. if I bring the fsb up to 200 for 2GHz I gain 90% more fps. a fast cpu helps all right but you pay $$$$$$$$$$ much for $$ much more performance. thats why I am waiting in early 2006 for a 4GHz a64. itll have like 4 times the cpu power of my cpu but get me "only" 3 times more fps but I can live with it

 

[micamica1217]

thats why I am waiting in early 2006 for a 4GHz a64. itll have like 4 times the cpu power of my cpu but get me "only" 3 times more fps but I can live with it

sorry, but you'll never get 3 times more fps in any game with the cpu you stated....at least with that ti4200 of yours.

btw, 3 times, is the same as 300% ......

I wish I had the means to make this understandable....
please, somebody, help a poor fella out and teach OC550 about bottlenecks.

mica

 

[dkitt10]

a bottleneck is tyhe top of a bottle...thats the only one I understand

 

[Overclocker550]

sorry man but when I upgraded my packard bell 233mmx pentium that was getting 12fps in quake3 at any res on my tnt to my 550MHz celeron, I gained 5 times the performance in 640x480, less and less as I went up. in 1600x1200 I got like 15fps because the tnt became the bottleneck. This means I wont be running 1600x1200 with my a64 and ti4200, but like 1024x768 should scale very nicely

 

[NewbiePerson]

Because its near the games requirement to begin with.
Take a minimum requirement for a game upgrade from that 1ghz then 2ghz. You would notice a bigger difference with the 1ghz and with 2 ghz the performance increase would begin to lvl off. So going up another 3 ghz from the original would result in only a minor increase and probably not even be noticeble.

 

[micamica1217]

Because its near the games requirement to begin with.
Take a minimum requirement for a game upgrade from that 1ghz then 2ghz. You would notice a bigger difference with the 1ghz and with 2 ghz the performance increase would begin to lvl off. So going up another 3 ghz from the original would result in only a minor increase and probably not even be noticeble.

and the funny thing is that OC550 is basicly stating the same thing....
as contradictory as it may be.

again, OC550, if running your cpu at a faster mhz is not helping you right now, how would getting an A64 with that ti4200???

better yet, you'll more then likly spend more money on a new mobo and the A64, then just getting a 9800pro.
yet with the new vid card you'll notice a huge increase in performance.

mica

 

[funnyperson1]

OC550 if you dropped a 9800Pro into your rig and overclocked it you would get like 18-19000 points.

If you upgraded to an Athlon 64 and kept the Ti4200 you would get like 17, 000 points, and the 9800Pro in the A64 rig would get around 20-22,000 points.

YOU ARE VIDEO CARD BOTTLENECKED.


Now I apologize to dkitt for everyone crapping in your thread.

Buy the card .

 

[Overclocker550]

17k on an a64? you are mistaken kind sir, I am not far from 17k on this xp2000 rig. I should get 19k or 20k with an a64 and ti4200 or about the same with a 9800 pro and this rig. however I will have alot more cpu power with an a64. athlon xp's dont scale well past 2GHz but a64s should scale nicely even past 3GHz. there is a reason amd stopped making xp's cause there maxed out, a new archieture was needed.

 

[dkitt10]

LOL as soon as I goto the city near me im picking it up

good you guys answear my question hear please

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=283823


ty

o and crap a way

 

[funnyperson1]

17k on an a64? you are mistaken kind sir, I am not far from 17k on this xp2000 rig. I should get 19k or 20k with an a64 and ti4200 or about the same with a 9800 pro and this rig. however I will have alot more cpu power with an a64. athlon xp's dont scale well past 2GHz but a64s should scale nicely even past 3GHz. there is a reason amd stopped making xp's cause there maxed out, a new archieture was needed.

I'll spot you 18-19 then, but honestly you will not get far past that because your Ti4200 will be the bottleneck as it is now.

I challenge you to buy a 9800 and see what you get.

 

[Stee]

the game isnt dx9 needed, runs best obviously on one, 9800 has better pixelshaders etc. which can effect the looks of the game.

you willneed AT LEAST 1gigof ram to play bfv properly.

my pcs gettingalil outta dateso overthenext few weeks ill be buying 9800pro/xt andanother 512to get me up to 1 gig.

i canplay bfv at 800x600 and med detail level withoutmuch jumping (apart from the first 5 mins as textures areloaded in)

but i desperately need the memory and a new graphicscard wouldbe nice too.

specs are

2500barton 200x10 1.6v (41c idle)
512mb xms3200 corsair
gainward gf4 ti4600
80gig wd 8mb cache

with thisi getaround 50fps average (40-60)

sounds pretty decentbut its really not that greatas jumping performancedue to a lackof memory causes no end of pain.

hl2was tested on a 9700 andaveraged around 40fps ibelieve.

this of courseis during its official testingmy valve so wasusing a beta non optimised version.

this is all something to take onboardwhen you spendsome cash for getting your pc running forthis yearsgames.

(sorry about lack of spaces my keyboards just about givingup)

 

[cV]

with a 9800p and a64 he'd get at least 21000. And no, it's not very possible to get greater than 16k raw with a gf4 + athlon xp platform.

 

[micamica1217]

with a 9800p and a64 he'd get at least 21000. And no, it's not very possible to get greater than 16k raw with a gf4 + athlon xp platform.

OC550 is about 500 marks shy of 17k with his OCed ti4200.
I also can't see why he wont do at least 19k with a 4ghz A64...

but what everyone seems to forget is that 3dmark01 is a 3 year old benchmark and hasn't predicted the performance of a game since max pain 1

while 3dmark03 is not perfect, it has predicted how some games will perform on our systems.
halo, X2, deus ex:iw, and KotOR all seem to behave "performance wise" like 3dmark03.

also, I think we can all agree that using 3dmark01 in the year 2006 might be a little off beat, I just don't see it as a realistic "be all, end all" system benchmark for gamers right now.

no matter what benchmark numbers we are getting with '01 right now, it still doesn't show what type of performance we'll get in any of todays games.

mica

 

[Overclocker550]

those with money get both a fast cpu and fast gpu. those that dont, a faster cpu is far the better of the two. I may upgrade my ti4200 if sticking it in my 4GHz a64 still doesnt cut it

 

[funnyperson1]

those with money get both a fast cpu and fast gpu. those that dont, a faster cpu is far the better of the two. I may upgrade my ti4200 if sticking it in my 4GHz a64 still doesnt cut it

If you simply want your computer to play games then that is true, and I will definately keep my 8500 for as long as I possibly can.

But most people like to play their games with a degree of Image quality at higher resolutions with AA and AF turned on.

On newer games such as FarCry the 4200 struggles above 800x600 and I have always tried to play games at 1024x768 or higher.

That may not be your opinion, but you need to respect other people opinions and stop trying to force your philosophy on everybody else.

 

[micamica1217]

those with money get both a fast cpu and fast gpu. those that dont, a faster cpu is far the better of the two.

not when you are sooooo vid card limited such as you are.

I may upgrade my ti4200 if sticking it in my 4GHz a64 still doesnt cut it

now, how can your ti4200 "cut it" in 2006, when it's already your bottleneck today?

mica

 

[HiProfile]

Going back to the actual topic...

I'd highly suggest just a 9700pro if you can find it (doubt it though) or a 9800pro. Assuming that Gateway PSU is really rated at 160watts, you don't really need more than 260 watts to power your PC even with a 9800pro AND a newer P4 upgrade. A 3.4ghz P4 hardly requires more than 100 watts for itself, much less for the 9800pro, and on top of it all you subtract what your current gfx card and cpu need atm... For a O/C'd Athlon 64 system, yes 400+ watts is recommended, but I can't see gfx card upgrade needing 200 watts more.

My suggestion for the PSU would be a quiter and cooler-running Antec 300 watt PSU or a Fortron/Sparkle brand. With a those PSU's you almost always get 50 watts more max than what its rated for, but easily 50 watts under the rating with a regular PSU.


One more thing about bottlenecks:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/vgacharts-01.html
Although not everyone trusts TH & company, the charts give some good insight. Despite running a 1ghz Athlon against a 2700+, the FPS are only around half. Done over a year ago, the price difference between the two cpu's would have been 6:1 or so, figuring in present cost of the cpu, mobo, and ram used. 100% increase for 600% the cost - while using the same video card (when not factoring in the vid card's price). Even crazier if you look at it in just cpu/mobo/ram upgrade price.

I'd agree with the "a faster cpu is far the better of the two [vid card]" quote if you don't game too much and rebuild dvd rar archives with par2 parity files all day long, but in my opinion & interpolation of the graphs, the gpu is much more important for gaming.

CPU: $20 (AMD 1ghz) GPU: $200 (9700pro) - UT2k3 = 92 fps
CPU: $100 (AMD 2700+ atm) GPU: $80 (ti4200 128mb) - UT2k3 = 100fps

Keep in mind that in the CPU & GPU worlds, the 1ghz & 2700+ are much farther apart than the 9700pro and ti4200 are as far as performance in their respective field goes. That and the fact that the normal T-bird system is way cheaper than the normal T-Bred system. In dkitt10's case, an upgrade in GPU would bring much more acceptable gains than spending the money on just a new P4 of equal value to the 9800pro. In the end, though, its your money...

 

[Overclocker550]

"On newer games such as FarCry the 4200 struggles above 800x600 and I have always tried to play games at 1024x768 or higher."


you are very wrong, that is your 8500 you tried farcry with. My friend has the same card and must use 800x600 low details. I can run 1600x1200 low details, my ti4200 is almost twice as fast as an 8500. I use 1024x768 all details to max and the fps hovers around 40! who owns the ti4200? me or you? until you get one, please do not speak about it, you have no clue how it performs


"CPU: $20 (AMD 1ghz) GPU: $200 (9700pro) - UT2k3 = 92 fps
CPU: $100 (AMD 2700+ atm) GPU: $80 (ti4200 128mb) - UT2k3 = 100fps"


maybe at 1600x1200 but in 1024x768 the 1GHz cpu will get 93fps while the xp2700 will jump to 120+ fps

 

[funnyperson1]

"On newer games such as FarCry the 4200 struggles above 800x600 and I have always tried to play games at 1024x768 or higher."


you are very wrong, that is your 8500 you tried farcry with. My friend has the same card and must use 800x600 low details. I can run 1600x1200 low details, my ti4200 is almost twice as fast as an 8500. I use 1024x768 all details to max and the fps hovers around 40! who owns the ti4200? me or you? until you get one, please do not speak about it, you have no clue how it performs

I'm sorry I had gotten what I knew about Geforce4 Performance in this game from this thread

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread....=30&highlight=far cry benchmarks&pagenumber=1

One person says his Ti4400 runs around 20fps at 1024x768 with very high details...that to me is struggling. And 40 fps isn't exactly ideal. Also I never got to try Far Cry on my 8500, right now all I have is my laptop with a 9200 . When I get home this summer I will dig this thread up to prove you wrong on the 8500 statement . And dude....relax .


I am well aware that your Ti4200 is a beast,but the fact is that you spent a lot of time searching for that perfect Ti4200 and buying and selling different 4200s before you came to that one. If you did the same with 9800's I am sure you could find one that overclocked to almost twice the speed of your 4200.