Grasshopper Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 My second machine (gaming--racing mainly) is an AMD Athlon 2200+ with an nVidia Ti4200. I've been thinking about upgrading the vid card and processor only, but found that my mobo supports up to the 2200+ that I have. Question is...If I found a deal on a vid card that was a lot beefier that my current Ti4200, would the fact that my board/CPU combo (without OC'ing) is maxed out squelch any attempt to upgrade video? Got a gig o' ram so that shouldn't be an issue. And don't want to spend the money to upgrade the whole system. It's been a while since I've done the heavy hardware research....since I built this machine, in fact! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rons Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 (edited) I had to upgrade my video card last year in order to play COD 2, since my old card would not support 3d rendering I beleive they called it.Like you, I didn't want to spend a ton of bucks on a new card and was pleasantly surprised to find a card that met my needs, at a affordable price, and that would work in my gaming rig. as well. Check out the reviews here and also the pricing - there is a $15.00 rebate as well. Newegg.com el cheapo cardHope this helps. :)PS I forgot to mention - this card also works great with Vista beta and NVidia also has the Vista drivers available as well. Edited April 22, 2006 by Rons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted April 22, 2006 Author Share Posted April 22, 2006 Thanks Rons!Yeah, newegg is the bomb!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rons Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 You are welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 As to your question about the MB support, it's my impression that if your MB only supports video up to your current 2200+, any additional properties the newer card may offer wouldn't be enabled. Without the underlying hardware support of the motherboard, higher end features wouldn't function.I could be wrong, as I know you can add in a USB 2.0 PCI card and the onboard processors will convert 1.1 to 2.0 regardless of what the MB supports, as long as it supports USB in general. Do video cards do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 The 2200+ was specific to my AMD CPU, not the video card. But your question is basically what I was asking. I've got an affirmative here and on another forum that even with my bus/CPU speed max'd, I could still improve gaming performance with a newer video card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Motherboards support whatever their video slot accepts. If it is AGP 8X, then they will support any AGP 8X video card. The same for PCI express video cards. You can stick a $50 dollar card in or spend $800, it makes no difference. It has nothing to do with the CPU rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muckshifter Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 You'll be very hard pushed to find a better card than the Ti4200 in that MB ... I'm not a betting man, so I bet you a shilling that your Ti will beat the MX5500. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 One thing is for certain. There is a performance point at which the CPU is unable to keep up with the video card. Once that is reached, more video performance is wasted. I am currently in that situation with an AMD Sempron and an ATI Radeon 9600pro. Please note it is not my intent to contradict Marsden. I agree entirely with that post. However, depending on what you plan to do in the future, you may not wish to pay for more performance than your system can take advantage of.Even though I have already overclocked it from 1.66 to 2.1GHz by upping the front side bus speed from 166 to 200MHz (and then a bit more), the Sempron just can't keep up; overclocking the video card shows minor performance improvement in most 3D apps, i.e. games, particularly using DX9. Mind you, I am not complaining. While it's not as cheap as Ron's suggestion (which I think is a great find btw), the 9600 was still a good deal and is a nice performer as far as I am concerned. I'm not disappointed at all. I just need to get a faster CPU from somewhere. High end socket a's seem to be awfully scarce now.Consider this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814102407I have the 128MB version which is even cheaper. Just a thought. I have no knowledge of the cards mentioned above so I don't intend to compare. I just have found the R9600pro to be a good card for the money.Sorry about the long post. I tend to go on a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 well, it's good reading!Thank you. That's good to know. I'm always thinking I've caught verbal diarrhea but for some reason, sometimes my posts just don't seem complete to me without including my entire train of thought.Again, as on another thread, I apologize for the long delay in replying. Unfortunately, I've just been really tied up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted May 2, 2006 Author Share Posted May 2, 2006 (edited) One thing is for certain. There is a performance point at which the CPU is unable to keep up with the video card. Once that is reached, more video performance is wasted. I am currently in that situation with an AMD Sempron and an ATI Radeon 9600pro. Please note it is not my intent to contradict Marsden. I agree entirely with that post. However, depending on what you plan to do in the future, you may not wish to pay for more performance than your system can take advantage of.Do you have any performance data to back this up?Even though I have already overclocked it from 1.66 to 2.1GHz by upping the front side bus speed from 166 to 200MHz (and then a bit more), the Sempron just can't keep up; overclocking the video card shows minor performance improvement in most 3D apps, i.e. games, particularly using DX9.I'm not sure that an overclocked, low cache setup can be fairly compared to my setup.Consider this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814102407 I'll check into that one. Thanks! Edited May 2, 2006 by tbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Seeing that you are running an emasculated Sempron with barely any cache... no wonder your CPU lags behind the video GPU. You could overclock that sucker till the cows come home before you get acceptable results.Save your money and pick up an Athlon XP 2500 333 AXDA2500DKV4D Athlon XP 2500+ 1.83GHZ 333Mhz bus. It will cost you around $40 bucks more than your Sempron 2300. Has twice the L2 cache, easy to overclock. Mine has been running at 2.2GHz on air for the last couple of years. Good enough to edit video with Adobe Production Studio Premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 (edited) I believe the principal is the same regardless of the system. I grant that there also are likely systems available no current video card can keep up to but given the relative life cycles of the two products I think the former occurs more frequently. Further, it is obviously less likely to occur, the faster one's processor.Nevertheless, a responder above implied the original computer for which this new video card is intended is not near the top of the line either. That is why I specified this depends a lot on what one intends to do in the future. Were I to upgrade at this point, for example, I would go with PCI Express on a 64 bit platform. Therefore, I have already essentially ended up with more video card than I need in my current system. I only wished to help avoid that in this case. Mind you, I'm quite happy with this card and it was for that reason I mentioned it in the first place.Please note I made it clear I have no familiarity with the given hardware or it's potential limitations. I was essentially echoing this from the original post: If I found a deal on a vid card that was a lot beefier that my current Ti4200, would the fact that my board/CPU combo (without OC'ing) is maxed out squelch any attempt to upgrade video?I fail to see how the point is rendered invalid if the L2 cache is increased; it may take more throughput to accomplish the same thing. However I concede it may be that no AGP card exists which would do that in the case of this cpu/motherboard combo. In any case, it seems to me that the question could be rephrased, "does the increase in performance justify the price of upgrading only one's video card," with the answer being, "It depends on cpu/motherboard you have." I agree the smaller L2 cache in my feeble system limits it more than one less fettered but of equal frequency. Sorry if I implied otherwise. Edited May 5, 2006 by Shamrock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Your bus speed may not be fast enough.Your chipset may be too slow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 (edited) Your bus speed may not be fast enough.Your chipset may be too slow...But really, what does that have to do with anything? You'll be very hard pushed to find a better card than the Ti4200 in that MB ... I'm not a betting man, so I bet you a shilling that your Ti will beat the MX5500. I was judging by the post above and the given system. Certainly, an upgrade would improve performance. But by how much when the entire system is presumably to be replaced at the next upgrade cycle. I would never presume to say I know what card will be the maximum that system can power effectively. I only suggest a card video card exists such that performance would not be increased by in turn purchasing a faster one, all other things being equal. In the given system I would not go any further than an a 9600, for example if only for the reason that next time around I will buy a whole new system so why blow a wad on a video card now? Better to save the rest of the cash toward the new computer imo while current high end cards fall in price.But what do I know. I only run a weenie cart.Seeing that you are running an emasculated Sempron with barely any cache... no wonder your CPU lags behind the video GPU. You could overclock that sucker till the cows come home before you get acceptable results.Save your money and pick up an Athlon XP 2500 333 AXDA2500DKV4D Athlon XP 2500+ 1.83GHZ 333Mhz bus. It will cost you around $40 bucks more than your Sempron 2300. Has twice the L2 cache, easy to overclock. Mine has been running at 2.2GHz on air for the last couple of years. Good enough to edit video with Adobe Production Studio Premium.Incidentally, what is it with this? I would love it if you can point to anyplace within these forums wherein I have done any of the following:1. Asked what I can do to make my system run faster/better2. Bragged about my system's performance or degree of overclocking3. Denegrated anyone's choice in computer equipmentAny system/overclock info I have included has been for background/exemplar/informative purposes only. Edited May 6, 2006 by Shamrock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Even though I have already overclocked it from 1.66 to 2.1GHz by upping the front side bus speed from 166 to 200MHz (and then a bit more), the Sempron just can't keep up; overclocking the video card shows minor performance improvement in most 3D apps, i.e. games, particularly using DX9. You have observed the Sempron can't keep up.What could be affecting that?Slow bus speed?Slow chipset?Design flaw in chipset?Lack of adequate L1 and/or L2 cache?Until you address every possibility, you will never know for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 (edited) You have observed the Sempron can't keep up.What could be affecting that?Slow bus speed?Slow chipset?Design flaw in chipset?Lack of adequate L1 and/or L2 cache?Until you address every possibility, you will never know for sure.Oh brother. I guess I talk too fast for you people. The original poster clearly stated the reason for his conundrum is that he cannot upgrade the processor in his current mb. Therefore, any new one will perforce include an entirely new bus, chipset, and cache. So whether, on the given system, the cpu, chipset, cache or other bottleneck presents itself, it's all a single unit and affected as a whole in any event, as you have so correctly pointed out. But so what?Are you saying because I have a lame system the original poster should blow hundreds of dollars on a video card?I mean, let's get back on topic here. All I ever intended to suggest is that even at a low price, the 9600pro was plenty for me and might suit the questioner, and also that paying a whole lot for one might not be so smart if one intends to replace the whole shebang on the next go-round. What does that have to do with deficiencies in my system specs ? Edited May 6, 2006 by Shamrock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.