Author Topic: Advice on CPU + video card (Read 1303 times)

Martlet · « **on:** October 17, 2003, 03:47:47 PM »

I'm looking to upgrade, and have several that my dealer recommended.

For video cards, I'm looking at the FX 5200 128 or the FX 5200 256 . There's 40 bucks difference, but is the quality difference worth the cost?

For CPU, I'm thinking about the Athlon Barton 2500+ and I currently have the Athlon XP 2000+ . Again, would I notice the difference for the cost? Would it be better to go up to the Athlon 2800+ for an extra 100 bucks, or am I fine with what I have? My motherboard will handle either.

JB73 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 17, 2003, 04:24:39 PM »

mart... i just bought the Ti 4600.

everyone been saying bad stuff about the FX series... ill let you know how this ti works.

though i never found out why there was a ti4600 from chaintech that was over $60 more than the ti4600 by MSI that i bought.

i paid $179 US BTW on newegg for the MSI.

it was shipped out today to me ill let you know how it works.

(im running an XP1900+ so similar system to yours though 768mb DDRRam)

Tarmac · « **Reply #2 on:** October 17, 2003, 04:29:41 PM »

Any particular reason you're not looking at ATI cards? That's the way I'd go if I were in the market for a new video card right now.

mrblack · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2003, 04:44:47 PM »

I have the g force ti 4600 and my next card will be ATI.
As far as motherboard goes I have and love the Abit IC7MAX3
also I would say go INTEL you can get a p4 2.4 800FSB for about
165.00 at http://www.newegg.com
good luck.

Martlet · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2003, 04:44:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Any particular reason you're not looking at ATI cards? That's the way I'd go if I were in the market for a new video card right now.

I know absolutely nothing about this stuff. That's just what they suggested. I'll take any suggestions others may have.

Tarmac · « **Reply #5 on:** October 17, 2003, 04:53:09 PM »

Ahh ok. I haven't been doing research since I bought my last card (GF4 Ti4200), but from the occasional article I read, ATI is the way to go now. The GF4 series was soundly whomped by the Radeon 9000 series. Nvidia came back and answered with its Geforce FX series, which was found to be only marginally better than its GF4 series, and was still soundly whomped by the Radeons.

Look at ATI's Radeon 9000-9800 line and find one that fits your performance and cost needs. I wouldn't even bother with the Geforce FX series.

Martlet · « **Reply #6 on:** October 17, 2003, 05:31:38 PM »

I checked out ATI. I guess my problem is I can't tell the difference between a 100 dollar card and a 400 dollar card. They both look the same to me.

I don't want to spend the money on "the best", since it will be half the price in less than a year. I want it to be significantly better than my GeForce 2, though.

Any suggestions?

What about my CPU? Any thoughts on that? I just want it to run AHII ok.

JB73 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 17, 2003, 05:41:44 PM »

tarmac .. the benchmarks @ tomshardware said the ati 9000 was POS compared to the gforce4ti4600

different story about the 9500 and 9800

9500 about being equal looked like.

yes the 9800 is better... but i wouldnt justify spending that money.

+ im a fanboiy of geforce (cause i HATE ATI from the past... but thats just me. i got a 32mb card for $300 back when it was "supposedly" the best thing available. it was an utter POS with absoultly zero support)

back to topic. Martlet... i have been out of touch with most of the latest updates in processor power and stuff but i swear by AMD personally. much faster and also cheaper.

last i saw an athlon XP1700 was still way faster than an intel 2.2ghz (which is going back a way but look at the difference in mhz between the 2)

oh well like i said im out of touch with the newest and bestest so ignore this post anyway.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #8 on:** October 17, 2003, 05:42:12 PM »

Martlet, take a look at the ATI cards over the FX cards right now. The radeon 9800 or 9700 would be as good or better then them.

mrblack · « **Reply #9 on:** October 17, 2003, 05:49:00 PM »

Naw INTEL spanks AMD in the FSB department and thats a BIGGY.
I have mine overclocked 2.4 to 3.6 and FSB from 800 to 1200
You aint gonna get that with a AMD.

BB Gun · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2003, 07:00:49 PM »

he's recommending the FX5200 series because they are DOGGIE DOO cards.

If NVidia, FX5900, minimum. You can overclock them to 5900Ultra speeds. But if you're gonna spend that much money, radeon9800Pro is better/faster at 90% of all games. Neither one will leave you unhappy, just that radeon is better performance at similar price.

For midrange cards - Radeon9600Pro or XT is the way to go. I'd go with the Pro, not enough difference to justify the extra 30-40 bucks at the moment. The similarly priced nVidia FX5600 series just gets beat all to hell by it.

Note that the differences become aparent more as you turn on/up the quality settings like anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

At low quality settings, the radeon/nvidia series cards are somewhat on par, but as you up the resolutions and anti-aliasing for a better visual experience, the radeons really shine over similarly priced GF cards at this point in time.

As for processor, I just got a barton2500, and I overclocked it by changing the multiplier from default (11) to 12.5 and now have a barton2800 for the price of the 2500 (180 bucks vs 90 bucks) - using stock cooling, too. on the other hand, people who get the 2800s can frequently run it at 3200+ speeds. YMMV.

But the processor upgrade won't give you as big a boost as your vid card - especially if your just going from XP2000+ to barton2500/2800+. insted of dumping the money into the processor, use your old one, and move to the next higher vid card. Then in 3-6 months, when processors are even cheaper, you can pop a 2500 or 2800 or maybe even 3200 in there for a smaller investment.

BB

mrblack · « **Reply #11 on:** October 17, 2003, 08:15:59 PM »

But no matter what you do with an AMD you will not be getting 1200 FSB:D

BB Gun · « **Reply #12 on:** October 17, 2003, 11:14:44 PM »

*shrug* you had to spend HOW much on that cooling system for that?

*feh*

2.4/2.6 400FSB oc'd to 3.0+ works for most people. Without spending an arm and a leg for a phase change or water cooling system.

Its not about pure performance (for me) its about performance/price.

and AMD still wins that one in the midrange processor level, IMO.

Right now, best bang for the buck is an Nforce-2 Ultra400 Mobo, Barton2500, and Radeon9600Pro vid card combo. Sure you can get better performance, but the price curve starts getting pretty steep.

BB

Martlet · « **Reply #13 on:** October 18, 2003, 12:20:54 AM »

I'm with you BB on "bang for your buck".

I don't want a new motherboard, since mine isn't bad. I have a MSI KT3 Ultra 333MHz FZB, PC2700DDR

I have an AMD Athlon 2000+ on there now, and I'm just wondering how high I should go to see a noticable difference, without spending a fortune. I know I can put a 2600 and 2800 on there. The 2800 is $100 bucks more than the 2600. Is the difference noticable?

also, I don't know anything about video cards. If you guys say go with an ATI over GeForce, then I'll take your word for it. Which one should I get? I'm not going to spend 300 bucks on a new card. Should I wait until the price of the 2600 Pro goes down next month like Skuzzy said? Is that a noticeable difference over my GeForce 2?

mrblack · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2003, 12:29:03 AM »

I would go with the ATI 9600
check them out at http://www.newegg.com

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/index.html