Graphics card and processor

[HaDeS]

hey all you computer ppl out there ( as in the geeks )

i am getting a new graphics card and processor, my price limit is 400 quid but i dunno wat ones to get

any ideas?

 

[Fire_ze_Missles]

What's the cost in American money. I have no idea what a quid is!

 

[HaDeS]

oh soz its about 550 dollars to 600 dollars

 

[UberSkippy]

You'll likely need a new motherboard as well right?

Personally, I'm an AMD fan. If the new x64 chips are inline with prices for the rest of the market (meaning they're not insanely spendy) you might look there. If they're still pricey I wouldn't personally spend much money on one.

Intel or AMD is really personal preference with the exception of the x64 stuff. Spring for a nice board and processor and be ready to buy RAM for that new board. After that, use what you have left to get a video card.

 

[n00b head]

( as in the geeks )

We prefer the term exceptionally enthusiastic. I think I have a Nvidia geforce 9200 in this computer. That's fine for games even if this is my crap computer.

 

[Jung]

Personally, I'm an AMD fan. If the new x64 chips are inline with prices for the rest of the market (meaning they're not insanely spendy) you might look there. If they're still pricey I wouldn't personally spend much money on one.

Personally, I wouldn't spend the cash on an AMD 64 just yet. They're still more expensive than the 32 bit cpus, don't offer enough performance gains over 32 bit yet and the price of motherboards and RAM is a factor as well.

I'd suggest a regular AMD 3200, and one of these motherboards. For a graphics card, I'd also suggest the XFX 6600GT, nothing comes close to its performance for the price. Of course you can always spend some extra money and get a 6800 or ATI X800. Especially if you save some money by not going 64 bit.

I think I have a Nvidia geforce 9200 in this computer.

Nvidia never made a 9xxx line, it's probably an ATI.

 

[dull_bullet]

if his budget is only 550, i don't think he can get a 6600GT

but do go with the amd 3200+ , that's a good one. for graphics, get a ati radeon 9600xt, they're cheap now

 

[Jung]

if his budget is only 550, i don't think he can get a 6600GT

Why not? The CPU I listed was $145, both the mohterboards were under $100 and the 6600GT is $160.

145 + 100 + 160 = 405 (+ shipping)

That even leaves him some room for more/faster RAM.

 

[Cyn]

I've got an AMD 64 2800+, which is bottom of the line in that arena, and it out performs any of the Intel's in that same price bracket even running 32 bit apps on a 32 bit OS. On my 64bit OS it's like butter on hot bread. I paid about $160 for it and a little over $100 on my Mobo. However, I'd suggest that you got a newer socket 939 cpu because upgrading will be more possible. As for graphics find something that is PCI express, just make sure that the mobo supports it.


To break it down:

I'd go with a motherboard that has PCI express and a socket 939 chipset.
A socket 939 AMD 64 the fastest that you can afford.
A PCI express GPU, fastest that you can afford.

I think with the money that you've got you can get some MAJOR performance increase if you go this route. BUT, MAKE SURE that your case and power supply support the new hardware cause that could be another $120 or so unless you get a cheap one, which I would never suggest. Cheap cases are usually too loud and the cheap power supplies have led to many dead PC's. I say NEVER trust a cheap power supply. I've got an ANTEC with the extra cpu air tunnel on the side and the large cooling fan(which means quiter and cooler) in the back. It was about $100 with a 350 watt power supply. It's not flashy at all. It's black and square and that's about it. Just the way I like it though.

Hope this helps and happy shopping. Oh, one more thing. You may want some new memory to. It depends what the new mobo and chipset supports. Also, do alot of homework first. DO NOT go into some major computer outlet acting like a computer dummy. Alot of them will try to rip you off. It's happened to many friends of mine that didn't take my advice. One example of something that they'll do is try to sell you brand name memory for a PC that you have no use for it in. Brand name memory is usually better but not if you don't plan on trying to get the absolute best out of your system. And the price difference is usaully 2 to 3 times that of the perfectly fine generic brand.

 

[Cyn]

Personally, I wouldn't spend the cash on an AMD 64 just yet. They're still more expensive than the 32 bit cpus, don't offer enough performance gains over 32 bit yet and the price of motherboards and RAM is a factor as well.

You're wrong about that sir. You can get an AMD 64 now for around the same price, which is still cheaper than a Pentium and performance is much better. One thing is that they have a 800 mhz FSB but because of HT the FSB actually operates at a 1600 - 2000 Mhz data rate. I know because I have one. The one I have is a 2800+ which operates between 1800 and 2400 mhz, with dynamic overclocking enabled, and cost around $145.00 now. If you look at the bench marks my CPU is performing along side a 3.2 ghz Pentium. Last I checked anyway. And that's in 32bit mode and there IS a definite performance increase in 64bit mode most of the time. I am actually amazed with the performance of this CPU. Price per FPS is the absolute best.

This is the one I have.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=317045&pfp=cat3

These two are the ones I'd suggest. The second one is a little too pricey for his budget but I'm sure there are better deals out there.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=318595&pfp=BROWSE
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=318723&pfp=BROWSE

 

[Jung]

You're wrong about that sir. You can get an AMD 64 now for around the same price

That's fine, but he specifically stated that he's on a budget. Looking on NewEgg, I found these results, both are for the cheapest 32bit and 64bit Athlon 3200s in their respective categories.

Athlon XP 3200 -- $145.00
Athlon 64 3200 -- $177.00


Now, that's not a huge difference, but it's a definite factor for someone on a budget. Now, add the fact that A64 mother boards are more expensive, and the fact that you'll need faster ram and you're already close to your budget. Also keep in mind that he still needs a video card. There's no sense going with a A64 if it means being stuck with 256MB of RAM and your old GeForce 4.

And that's in 32bit mode and there IS a definite performance increase in 64bit mode most of the time. I am actually amazed with the performance of this CPU.

Any performance gain is due to the on chip memory controller, and marginal in a pure 32 bit enviroment. [edit: and additional L2 cache] I'm not advocating that anyone buy Intel, they're not the best all around processors. However, I don't see the benifit from going 64 bit just yet. Unless you're running Linux there's no stable 64 bit OS yet, and hardly any applications support the 64 bit architecture at this time. I'm aware that XP64 is out, but it's driver and software support is horrid right now. I'd give it about six months before I even thought about running it. Also, like you said, the current cores are all but phased out. Buying anything but 939 right now is extremely foolish, but you WILL end up paying for 939. For someone on a budget, it's just not worth it right now.

If you look at the bench marks my CPU is performing along side a 3.2 ghz Pentium.

Hell, my overclocked 2600 does that.

Price per FPS is the absolute best.

Sure, if you're not on a budget. There's absolutely no point in getting 100+ FPS in ANY game. The system I listed above will give him VERY playable FPS in any game on the market right now.

 

[Cyn]

While I hear what you're saying, junglizm, I still say that the best route is the one that I took.

Now, I didn't do any homework before offering him my advice. I expected him to do that first. I can still tell you that he can get the same CPU I have for $149.99 and the Mobo was right at $100. I don't have PCI express but regardless my mobo and chipset is still a better bang for the buck at only a few dollars more than what you posted. Also I just used the PC 2700 memory from my old setup. It supports all the way down to 2100 and all the way up to 3200. If you follow my links above you'll see what I mean.

You are probably right when comparing my original plan to yours, but like I said I was just guessing on that. The fact still remains that he could get my setup for the same price that you suggested. I was on about a $400 budget when I did mine and prices have dropped a little bit since then.

Another thing is that MS's 64bit os is not that far off and for people on a budget we will still be with the same hardware at that point. Also, I'm pretty sure that the FSB offers a huge performance increase in many games and multimedia apps.

With respect,
me

-edit- I would also like to point out that you are right about waiting.......BUT.......I feel that if someone is going to spend $500+ dollars on an upgrade right now they may as well go with a 64 bit CPU because the price difference is almost none and the older hardware will most definitely phase out even before this does. The best advice is to just wait for a few months. But we all know how hard that can be.

 

[Cyn]

Oh and dude. Did you just post your real name on those benches? Just pointing that out.

 

[Jung]

Also, I'm pretty sure that the FSB offers a huge performance increase in many games and multimedia apps.

A64s don't have an "FSB," per se, they have a Hyper Transport.

To clarify, the front side bus is traditionally the link between the northbridge and processor. The northbridge is responsible for talking to the memory, AGP slot and southbridge, and the information is relayed to the processor through the FSB. With Pentium 4s, for example, the FSB runs at an actual 200MHz and transfers data four times per tick, so you get an "effective" 800MHz with a total bandwidth capacity of 6400MB/s (800MHz * 8b/s). This is necessary, since that's the maximum amount of bandwidth dual-channel PC3200 RAM can supply (PC3200 = 3200MB/s, two channels = 3200*2). Unfortunately since data from the entire system has to be squeezed through there, actual memory bandwidth never hits maximum capacity.

With Athlon64s (and all K8 chips), the memory controller is integrated to the processor, so you get a direct 6400MB/s link between the CPU and DIMM slots with nothing in-between. The processor still has to talk to the rest of the system, though, which is where Hypertransport comes in. HT runs at 800MHz or 1000MHz and transfers 8 bytes of data per clock tick, so you get an additional 6400MB/s or 8000MB/s link to the chipset which deals with just the I/O (AGP/PCIe, storage, ethernet, USB, and so on). Basically, the A64 cuts the middle man by integrating northbridge functionality into the processor.

Note that VIA K8T800/K8T890 systems still integrate a "northbridge", which is really just a HT bridge that talks to the AGP/PCIe and links to the southbridge which talks to the rest of the I/O. nForce 3/4 systems use a single-chip that links the I/O and processor directly.

Edit: Oh, and to clarify even further, the "200MHz" clockspeed you play with when overclocking A64 systems is just the clock generator. It controls the memory, processor speed and HyperTransport speed through a divider and multipliers respectively. With a 3200+ Venice system for instance you'd have a 200MHz clock generator with a 1:1 memory ratio by default, 10x processor multiplier and 5x HT multiplier.

I feel that if someone is going to spend $500+ dollars on an upgrade right now they may as well go with a 64 bit CPU because the price difference is almost none and the older hardware will most definitely phase out even before this does.

I honeslty can't see the 32 bit architecture going anywhere soon. Current software/OS/hardware trends don't show this even being close to happening.

I do agree with you though, and would definitely go A64. I actually plan on upgrading to a nice 939 this summer, but my budget isn't as limiting as the OP's.

Edit: And my OC'd 2600 and 6800 Ultra run every game I play at full FPS and 1680 x 1050 res.

Oh and dude. Did you just post your real name on those benches? Just pointing that out.

Thanks for pointing that out. One of the domain names I use for images and such contains my first name as well, I'm not too worried about a first name.

 

[Cyn]

I honeslty can't see the 32 bit architecture going anywhere soon. Current software/OS/hardware trends don't show this even being close to happening.

I don't think that it will either but I do think that withen another year or two the 64bit OS's will be common ground and also will offer a little performance increase in most apps and a big increase in some apps. Meaning less reason to upgrade. I'm not even close to being an expert on all of that other info that you posted. Though I do understand how multipliers work. My system is a terrible overclocker BTW because it doesn't have a PCI/AGP lock. It does support dynamic overclocking, however. And that's not too bad. All in all it looks like we agree on most of this. I guess I should have checked prices on the hardware that I originally suggested. Oh well, I learn something new everyday.

 

[Cyn]

Edit: And my OC'd 2600 and 6800 Ultra run every game I play at full FPS and 1680 x 1050 res.

I wish I could say the same for mine but I had to buy a new case and power supply so I'm still stuck with the same dinosaur GPU.
It's a 4X agp nvidia Ti with 64megs of ram. Yes I know, please don't laugh. But hey, I can run Doom3 on medium setings at a just playable FPS. :shrug

-edit- I should have metioned that I've always got 2xQ Antialiasing enabled. If I can't run it like that then I'd just rather not run it at all.