Hi folks,
I'd like to get better frame rates and a bit more eye candy
(normally orthogonal requests, I know ;-) in N2003 and F1 2002
(GPL is usually maxed out unless I play with the detail bias
slider ;-), so I'm considering buying either a new gfx card or
a new CPU.
My current system consists of
- Athlon XP 1800+
- GeForce 4 MX 440 (64MB)
- ECS K7S5A / LAN /w 384 MB SD-RAM
and right now I am looking at a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 or an Athlon
2400+ which is as high as the mobo will go or so I have heard.
What is the best upgrade path in this situation? How about the
Radeon line of gfx cards? Will switching to DDR-RAM have a
considerable impact on performance?
Thanks much in advance for any ideas,
Uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
Hi Uwe,
IMHO your gfx card and CPU match quite well, therefor by buying a stronger
CPU you'll get some speed increase but not as much as the new CPU could do
with a new gfx card. OTOH, the Ti4200 doesn't seem to be much faster than
your card (friends of mine have them and aren't overly impressed).
As for the Radeon, it will be a lot faster than the GeForce if you're using
High Resolutions, Anisotropic Filtering and FSAA. If not, the difference
will not be big. However, I like the Radeon's gfx and image quality better
than Nvidia's.
DDR-RAM will have an impact on performance as well, although probably less
than the CPU you're looking at. It is a good idea to perhaps buy 512 MB
sticks, as according to what I've read they're faster than 256 MB sticks
because they can keep a lot more RAM pages open at the same time.
If Nvidia is still selling th
"Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
...
> I'd like to get better frame rates...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:28:51 +0200, Joachim Trensz wrote:
> DDR-RAM will have an impact on performance as well, although probably less
> than the CPU you're looking at. It is a good idea to perhaps buy 512 MB
> sticks, as according to what I've read they're faster than 256 MB sticks
> because they can keep a lot more RAM pages open at the same time.
Thanks for your advice, Joachim! I'll check out some Radeon
benchmarks (currently I'm not running FSAA or filtering on the
MX440)
>
> If Nvidia is still selling th
>
Hey! Did the NVidia Task Force grab Joachim while he was typing
or what??? ;-)
Thanks again,
Uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
I meant to add, if Nvidia is still selling the Ti4600 at a decent price,
that would be much faster than the Ti4200.
Achim
"Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
...
> Did the NVidia Task Force grab Joachim while he was typing...
Your CPU isn't too bad but your vid card is definitely the weakest link.
Upgrade your vid card much higher than a 4200. I'd look into a 9700 Pro
or FX 5800 to see a noticable improvement.
Uwe hoover Schuerkamp wrote:
Quoted text (26 lines)
> Hi folks, > > I'd like to get better frame rates and a bit more eye candy > (normally orthogonal requests, I know ;-) in N2003 and F1 2002 > (GPL is usually maxed out unless I play with the detail bias > slider ;-), so I'm considering buying either a new gfx card or > a new CPU. > > My current system consists of > > - Athlon XP 1800+ > - GeForce 4 MX 440 (64MB) > - ECS K7S5A / LAN /w 384 MB SD-RAM > > and right now I am looking at a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 or an Athlon > 2400+ which is as high as the mobo will go or so I have heard. > > What is the best upgrade path in this situation? How about the > Radeon line of gfx cards? Will switching to DDR-RAM have a > considerable impact on performance? > > Thanks much in advance for any ideas, > > Uwe > >Uwe hoover Schuerkamp wrote:
Hi folks,
My racing box is XP 2100+ and TI4200(128MB) with 512MB of ram, all on a
nforce 415D motherboard (onboard 5.1 sound)
Chip isn't overclocked(amazingly) but the ti4200 is tweaked from default
core:250MHz Mem:444MHz to core:260MHz mem 520MHz[1]. Sometimes I run it
faster, but not by much, all depends on the temperature of the room.
I've recently put ram sinks on the graphics chips as it gets hot.
I either run nascar2003 at 1024x768x32bit with FSAA 4x or 1600x1200 no
FSAA (this is faster) both in D3D mode. All eye candy is on apart from
project shadows onto cars and into cockpits.. (the big fps killer) view
42 ahead, at least 5 behind.
(low detail other pit crews)
Get great frame rates averaging 38+ most for the time. Indy[2] full
grid, starting at the back, watching counter during start your engines
drops to 31 but still very driveable.. lowest it gets it 26 as they go
green on the main straight
As others say get that graphics card upgraded to either a ti4xxx[3]
series or a 9500/9700 (AFAIK you can used software to up levels to the
pro versions - check this out 1st tho. You won't be able to convert a
9500 to 9700 any more.. ATI have changed the design and stopped OEM's
selling the board that could that).
I would go for ATI 9500/9700. [4]
Try get barton cored XP chip in your motherboard. The 512Kb L2 cache
really helps with the CPU crunching tasks.
--
SteveL
(clear the weather to reply)
[1] It a Gainward golden sample and designed to run this fast.
[2] Most graphic heavy circuit.
[3] The Ti4200 will be twice as fast as the MX card.. I've got an
nforce2 IGP motherboard (shuttle box) with MX built in.. and it Ti4200
in that box makes a big differance.
[4] Just because the ATI look better and FSAA doesn't seem to hit them
as hard..
Quoted text (19 lines)
> > I'd like to get better frame rates and a bit more eye candy > (normally orthogonal requests, I know ;-) in N2003 and F1 2002 > (GPL is usually maxed out unless I play with the detail bias > slider ;-), so I'm considering buying either a new gfx card or > a new CPU. > > My current system consists of > > - Athlon XP 1800+ > - GeForce 4 MX 440 (64MB) > - ECS K7S5A / LAN /w 384 MB SD-RAM > > and right now I am looking at a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 or an Athlon > 2400+ which is as high as the mobo will go or so I have heard. > > What is the best upgrade path in this situation? How about the > Radeon line of gfx cards? Will switching to DDR-RAM have a > considerable impact on performance?Hi Uwe,
Based on your recommendationa few months ago I bought a K7S5A when my PIII
mobo failed. I have a XP1800+ and SDRAM just like you, but my vid card is a
Radeon 9500 non-pro. This system gives me a 10,000 score in 3D Mark 2001
which i am quite happy with and run 1024x768 with 2X FSAA and 4X AF in GTR
and NR2K2. I consider this pretty good eye candy for the money I spent on
the system.
Therefore, I would highly recommend you upgrade your video to a Radeon...
9500 if you're on a budget, or 9700 if can afford it.
P.S. You can O/C the radeon core quite a bit without worry ie. 325MHz and
probably get the memory close to 300MHz. If you haven't already, download
the hacked bios for your mobo which will allow you to O/C and squeeze a bit
more out of that 1800+. I'm running mine as a 2000+ with 147/147 bus/memory
speed. If you're lucky and have good quality ram, you may be able to get
that board running at 166/166 using a Windows program like Speed Fan.
According to the ECS forums, not many people have been able to get that
board to post at 166 bus speed. You can get the bios here:
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2002/ecs/k7s5abios/cheepobios.htm
Spudster
"Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
