PDA

View Full Version : I... I Can't Take It Any More!


Mex
11-21-2004, 10:34 AM
My slow computer that is. I'm tired of having to run Half Life on 800x600 with low graphics, its driving me nuts when ever I walk into a new area and everything slows down to a halt. CS:S is even worse, I was playing it a few minutes ago and I got around 15 fps on a 20 player server. The source beta was alright, but now the full versions out its decided to go slow.

So I'm looking for some help from you guys! I need to start deciding on what upgrades for my pc I want. All I can afford is RAM and a new graphics card. My budget is around £200-300 pounds.

I've pretty much decided on what graphics card I want to get. (http://www.pcwcomponentcentre.co.uk/invt/bfgr6800oci) That costs around £160-200 pounds. If anyone can suggest something better thats cheaper, go ahead. But I'm a rookie to ram so if anyone could find some cheap, but good 512mb it would be great.

Thanks for the help in advance. ;)

TiE23
11-21-2004, 10:45 AM
Get an ATI X800 instead if you are going for the current generation cards. nVidia isn't as good in some games, and its only better in Doom 3 by like, 5 frames than ATI.

TiE

Mex
11-21-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by TiE 23
Get an ATI X800 instead

I'm not sure.. From what I've seen the 6800 beats the X800 in ALOT of tests.

Datheus
11-21-2004, 11:31 AM
Pause.

What kind of processor are you running? What graphics card do you have currently? How much RAM do you have?

wassup
11-21-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Pal™
I'm not sure.. From what I've seen the 6800 beats the X800 in ALOT of tests.

For Half-Life 2, the X800 is about 20% faster than Nvidia.

TiE23
11-21-2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Datheus
Pause.

What kind of processor are you running? What graphics card do you have currently? How much RAM do you have?
Yeah, what are they? Just a good video card and lots of ram isn't going to fix a bad CPU

TiE

Agen
11-21-2004, 01:07 PM
First of all, It'd be a safe bet for me to say that you current graphics card is on the same level of technology as your current processor (which sounds crap the way you put it). If your processor is inferior to your new graphics card and can't keep up with it, then your new graphics card is pointless, as the processor can't push it. Must be equal

Also, X800 doesn't do shader level 3 textures, whereas 6800 does. Just about every next-gen game is gonna use shader level 3, The x800 is no-more than a 9800 with a better clock speed.

:)


For Half-Life 2, the X800 is about 20% faster than Nvidia.
no-one will notice... 40 fps is the threshold of human seeing supposedly, 100 fps vs 80 fps is like a mansion with a 20 foot swimming pool vs a 15 foot swimming pool. It hardly matters.

HL2 is optimised for the x800 i believe, but Nvidia will just update their drivers...

I say go with the 6800.
:P

Altus_Thrawn
11-21-2004, 01:37 PM
Ugh I know the feeling, inside buildings in some games, even with graphics turned down, I pull oh 13 fps. I know it's my processor...but that doesn't help me since I'm broke. *shrug*

Tyrion
11-21-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Agen_Terminator

Also, X800 doesn't do shader level 3 textures, whereas 6800 does. Just about every next-gen game is gonna use shader level 3, The x800 is no-more than a 9800 with a better clock speed.

That does little, though. PS 3.0's biggest feature is that it can have up to 60,000 intructions in a single operation, which is alot compared to the X800's 768 instructions in a single operation. However, the most complicated operation in Half-life 2 is a little under 100 instructions...

Almost everything else that PS 3.0 has, the X800 has in PS 2.0B, aside from the instruction count.

no-one will notice... 40 fps is the threshold of human seeing supposedly, 100 fps vs 80 fps is like a mansion with a 20 foot swimming pool vs a 15 foot swimming pool. It hardly matters.

24 fps are what movies run at...however, in a video game it's just isn't the same and you can easily tell the difference between 40fps, 60fps, and 80fps. Less so from >60fps, but at <60fps it's very very noticiable.

Treacherous Mercenary
11-21-2004, 02:27 PM
If I remember correctly, you have an Athlon 2000+ which is 1.6Ghz. You'll be bottlenecked by your CPU with that video card. A somewhat cheap fix would be the Geforce 6600 GT for $200 and it's as good as the 9800 Pro if not better in certain cases. AGP versions have been announced. Also, I'd recommend upgrading the processor and ram at the same time. I'd recommend OCZ with low timings. The h, the faster. Now with Athlon XPs, it may be slightly higher as it can be rated more for P4s. If you're into overclocking, I'd recommend Athlon XP 2500+ Mobile, the multipliers are unlocked by default so you can bump up the speed without having to mess with the FSB.

TiE23
11-21-2004, 03:39 PM
Its like the weakest link. The slowest component is the speed your comp is gonna run.

CPU=RAM=GPU

TiE

Agen
11-21-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Tyrion
That does little, though. PS 3.0's biggest feature is that it can have up to 60,000 intructions in a single operation, which is alot compared to the X800's 768 instructions in a single operation. However, the most complicated operation in Half-life 2 is a little under 100 instructions...

Almost everything else that PS 3.0 has, the X800 has in PS 2.0B, aside from the instruction count.



24 fps are what movies run at...however, in a video game it's just isn't the same and you can easily tell the difference between 40fps, 60fps, and 80fps. Less so from >60fps, but at <60fps it's very very noticiable.

Well, if you have compared both cards on far cry, it is very noticable. Far Cry doesn't even use full support, so imagine what it is capable of. I'm an ATI guy but i believe the 6800 win over the x800. ALL the big titles comig soon will use ps 3.

For me, I there's no difference when it reaches over 50, even though 40 is the stated figure. I just don't tell the difference. Overall, the 6800 is much more future proof.

Processor must be equal to graphics card or it's a waste of money. Choose wisely or upgrade both. :P

Tyrion
11-21-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Agen_Terminator Well, if you have compared both cards on far cry, it is very noticable. Far Cry doesn't even use full support, so imagine what it is capable of. I'm an ATI guy but i believe the 6800 win over the x800. ALL the big titles comig soon will use ps 3.

I'm not quite sure on what changed with Farcry PS3.0, but I'm pretty sure the biggest changes were Geometric Instancing and HDR. Both of which can be used on Ati cards, Nvidia might've payed Farcry to not use those.

Oh, and if you saw the comparison between Farcry PS 3.0 and the older version of PS, that version is PS 1.1 and not 2.0.

For me, I there's no difference when it reaches over 50, even though 40 is the stated figure. I just don't tell the difference. Overall, the 6800 is much more future proof.

I'd go with the 6800- mostly because it's a bit faster than the 9800 Pro, does have PS 3.0 which can't hurt, and drivers are a little better feature wise. I think Leggie should try to get an AGP version of an x700- faster than both a plain 6800 and 9800 Pro, and cheaper too.

Agen
11-21-2004, 05:22 PM
I have nothing really left to disagree with tyrion about :mad:

Oh and it was definately 3v2... nice difference imo.

btw, to make up for my fps insensitivty, i am over-evil compulsion againt seeing the flickering on low Hz monitors. Not nice :(

StormHammer
11-22-2004, 02:54 AM
Don't upgrade your rig just to play Half-Life 2 - and don't expect upgrades to fix the 'stuttering' issue. Someone has been compiling information about the stuttering issue, and it's hitting a lot of gamers with a whole range of PCs, from low end to high end, Intel/AMD, ATI/Nvidia, even people with 2Gb RAM have apparently experienced the stuttering issue.

Half-Life: Source and Vampire Bloodlines also suffer from the stuttering issue - so it is most likely engine related, rather than simply down to the specification (and performance) of your PC or a quirk in HL2.

Personally, I would wait until Valve (who have recognised the problem) have had time to analyse it properly and come up with a solution. Then, if the solution fails to work for you, it might be time to consider upgrading.

Astrotoy7
11-22-2004, 02:56 AM
...out come the compy nerds :D

*reads intently*

I have a notebook, which is on a lease through work, so in a year I get to take it back and upgrade the sucka :D Im hopin a toshiba satellite(my preferred notebook) will run 256mb grafix.... the current highest is 128mb, running a GeForceFX GO(mobile)...

mtfbwya

Mex
11-22-2004, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Datheus
Pause.

What kind of processor are you running? What graphics card do you have currently? How much RAM do you have?

AMD Athlon 2200+ 1.8 Ghz processor (I know it'll get bottlenecked, but I'm going to have to get each part seperately, because I'm gonna have no money at all.)
Geforce 5900 128mb
512 MB RAM

After I upgrade my graphics card and ram, I'll get a new processor about a month or two later. Its a shame that all this stuff is so expensive, and it'll be out of date in a year.

Agen
11-22-2004, 06:15 AM
AMD Athlon 2200+ 1.8 Ghz processor (I know it'll get bottlenecked, but I'm going to have to get each part seperately, because I'm gonna have no money at all.)
Geforce 5900 128mb
512 MB RAM
You shouldn't be having such problems...
That is a middle-end system. Slightly under-average processer, ok graphics card (! I assume it's the FX) and a decent amount of ram.

You sure you're jumping to conclusions and blaming your hardware. Seems strange that you have problems with CS:S now when you didn't in beta.
Checked for Spyware, adware, viruses?

Mex
11-24-2004, 05:58 AM
I don't think I have any viruses. I'll check on the spyware and adware now. I also defragged my computer last night, should help a tiny bit.

Didn't notice this new smilie. :^:

RoxStar
11-24-2004, 02:34 PM
Aye, I have a 2100= and sometimes i run at 1.7ghz and sometimes at 1.8. What would be the best graphics card for me to have? I'm gonna get some more memory to have aprx 700 mb of ram.

Treacherous Mercenary
11-24-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Dave Grohl
Aye, I have a 2100= and sometimes i run at 1.7ghz and sometimes at 1.8. What would be the best graphics card for me to have? I'm gonna get some more memory to have aprx 700 mb of ram.

Either Radeon 9600XT, or for about $50 more, you could go Geforce 6600 GT for just $200. ;) Just have to wait a little for more AGP versions to come along.

Mex
11-27-2004, 11:53 AM
I've changed my mind, I'll be getting a new motherboard, and a new processor first.