8800GTX on P4 3.0ghz rig - is it worth it?

[onelegout]

Hey guys,
Turns out that 5 years ago my dad (who died two years ago) put £500 into an investment bond for me just for fun! I only found out today that he'd done this, and when it matures in a few weeks It all goes into my bank account! That means I will have a large amount of money to spend! And thats the best part - my mum says it's not for saving its for spending on whatever I want :D

So, I'm going to get a Kaos Pad for my DJing, another 19" monitor for my 'pooter, and I was considering buying an 8800GTX as well and giving the rest of the money to charity.
My question is, my current rig, (p4 3.0ghz, 2gb XMS pro pc3200 cas2.0, 7900GTX 512mb) maxes bf2142 out easily, but I want to run the DX10 games as I have vista and the technology looks mindblowing. I'm also a game dev so I will need to be familiar with the 'next gen' DX10 games and be able to implement the technology in future work. I was wondering whether buying an 8800GTX would be a waste of money on a rig which isn't exactly top of the line? I mean, a P4 3.0ghz is no E6600!

The problem is that I dont want to just buy pc stuff, I want to get the kaos pad as well, and if I do that I cant afford to upgrade cpu, mobo, ram etc.

So would it give me a big enough advantage to merit going DX10 and spending the money?
If I'm going to do it I have to do it now while I'm about to go to the states!

Peace,
H

[Spawn-Inc]

go for 4gbs of ram is that even worth it or necessary? lets say you have 2gbs of ddr2 pc8500 at 1000mhz and 4gb pc5400 running at 700mhz which is better?


Note: sorry to hijack

if i had what you have i think i would be content i would put the rest of the money away in savings and get a awesome computer once DX10 is common

[Silenced_Coyote]

This is what TomsHardware said:


That said, there are a few things we would like to point out. The first is that Nvidia's cards had better gains from a faster CPU and platform. Part of this can be directly attributed to the driver; Nvidia's driver is known to utilize more of the CPU, so the more the CPU can deliver, the better the performance.


One thing is for certain: you need bleeding edge horsepower to get the most out of DX0 hardware. If you are in the market for a high end card, you'd do best with an entirely new system.


The long and short of this experiment is that you need a high speed platform to get the most out of the new DX10 hardware. If you were planning on getting a $600 graphics card to replace your 1-year-old graphics card, it would behoove you to rebuild your box. Of course, this means that the whole graphics upgrade will cost you a lot more than just the graphics card.

If you don't do the job properly, the net effect will be like hooking up a pair of garbage speakers to a Bose or Klipsch sound system. The effect would be the same... less than optimal performance, and an experience that is far from ideal given the money you spent.

Full article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/index.html

But despite this, I think it would be great for you to get an 8800GTX, especially since you don't go to the states that often. Not only is it for gaming, but you are also a game developer. You might not get the most out of the 8800GTX, but it will still be a very good boost in performance. Not to mention, that you will be DX10 ready.

[onelegout]

So, the new plan is to buy an 8800GTX, and a Kaos pad, and not buy another monitor. Instead, I will save the money until my friend has enough to buy my motherboard/ram/cpu/gfx off me, and put that money together and buy a new E6600 setup (mobo/cpu/ram) to make the most of the 8800GTX.
Silenced_Coyote thanks for finding that article for me - it's just what I was looking for! +rep ;)

Spawn-Inc - I'm not sure what you're talking about - I didn't say anything about 4gb of ram :S

[Silenced_Coyote]

Whenever your friend happens to buy your motherboard/ram/cpu/gfx, I don't think you will have your eyes set on the E6600. Intel is going to release some more Core 2 Duos and they are going to be very cheap. Think of a cpu that is clocked faster than the X6800, but costs less than half of what it is selling at right now.
http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+Next+Desktop+Launch+Details+Revealed/article6484.htm

And who knows what AMD will come up with.

[Drum Thumper]

Whenever your friend happens to buy your motherboard/ram/cpu/gfx, I don't think you will have your eyes set on the E6600. Intel is going to release some more Core 2 Duos and they are going to be very cheap. Think of a cpu that is clocked faster than the X6800, but costs less than half of what it is selling at right now.
http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+Next+Desktop+Launch+Details+Revealed/article6484.htm

And who knows what AMD will come up with.

If Intel can get another 4 MHz out of their frontside bus...I might have to switch to Intel.

Sorry for the slight hijack!

[The boy 4rm oz]

If you don't want a GTX go for a GTS, it's still got plenty of power. You could always go for the extra 2GB ram and run duel channel. A Core 2 Dup E6600 would also be great.

[bartvandenberg]

Whenever your friend happens to buy your motherboard/ram/cpu/gfx, I don't think you will have your eyes set on the E6600. Intel is going to release some more Core 2 Duos and they are going to be very cheap. Think of a cpu that is clocked faster than the X6800, but costs less than half of what it is selling at right now.
http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+Next+Desktop+Launch+Details+Revealed/article6484.htm

And who knows what AMD will come up with.

i completely agree. your system right now is still very decent. a 7900 gtx? and you wanna upgrade? even a p4 3.0ghz and 2 gb xms? you wont get that extra boost you want. in fact, id be suprised if you noticed a whole lot of performance increase. i just built a e6400 ( which is o'c to over 2.9 at the moment), 8800gts, and 2 gb ddr-2 800, and the guy who has it now upgraded from a p4 2.8 ht, 6600gt, and 2 gb ddr400.

sounds like a good upgrade, and according to 3dmark06, (his score was like 2000 or something, and now its 9500.)it is. but.. the real world peformance just isnt there.

with all that crap said. i would personally wait to blow the money till the next wave of kick a$$ stuff comes out.

and i have a buddy who's a game developer too, and hes got a 7900 gt, and hes plenty happy with. Def not willing to spend another $600 bucks for a few fps.

oh yah.. btw....4 gb's or ram would be pretty useless, considering most programs still dont even utilize 2 gb. check to see if the new dx10 games will even utilize it.

[CanaBalistic]

oh yah.. btw....4 gb's or ram would be pretty useless, considering most programs still dont even utilize 2 gb. check to see if the new dx10 games will even utilize it.

Not true at all...

Imagine a system running:
The latest game title @ 2+Gb
Vista @ 1+Gb
Background tasks @ 512Mb
Norton scann @ 512Mb

Most applications dont use much memory. Games, however use an incredible amount of ram. New games that are DX10 compatible will no doupt use up to 6-8GB of ram by the time DX11 arrives. Vista is also a ram hungry OS. I've heard rumors that vista uses 2GB of ram just to run the OS.

In times like thies, "The More The Better" should be ringing in the background of everyones head when it comes to memory upgrades.

[Mitternacht]

Not true at all...

Imagine a system running:
The latest game title @ 2+Gb
Vista @ 1+Gb
Background tasks @ 512Mb
Norton scann @ 512Mb

Most applications dont use much memory. Games, however use an incredible amount of ram. New games that are DX10 compatible will no doupt use up to 6-8GB of ram by the time DX11 arrives. Vista is also a ram hungry OS. I've heard rumors that vista uses 2GB of ram just to run the OS.

In times like thies, "The More The Better" should be ringing in the background of everyones head when it comes to memory upgrades.

Good thing my board can support 8 GB of DDR2. And yeah, even though 1 gb is recommended, it just won't cut it.

It's kinda funny, considering the drastic leap of minimum requirements between XP and Vista. I think Microsoft took too many leaps forward on this one.

[Silenced_Coyote]

I've heard rumors that vista uses 2GB of ram just to run the OS.

Vista uses as much as there is available, not all of it though. So if you are just on the desktop staring at the widgets, it will take up a lot. But when you fire up a program, lets say a game, Vista will back off the RAM and let the game use it. An article showed that Vista will take up more RAM if you give it more RAM. I think it was a comparison between 2 and 4 GB.

This should also apply to graphics too. I remember reading that stuff like Aero won't take up that much power, if any from your video card. I'm pretty sure this was said during an interview with AMD. They released a driver that simply limits/stops Aero from eating it up, which would let your games use it all. Meaning less of a performance decrease compared to XP.

This is all of memory, and my memory sucks. I'll try to find the articles if anyone thinks I am wrong, which I might be.

[bartvandenberg]

Not true at all...

Imagine a system running:
The latest game title @ 2+Gb
Vista @ 1+Gb
Background tasks @ 512Mb
Norton scann @ 512Mb



ever look at your task manager? That in itself will prove you wrong.

i think you completely misunderstand what i said. i said, more than 2 gig's right now is wasteful. dont tell me im wrong because im not. if you can PROVE me wrong, then ill apologize, but....till then. really, the example you gave is way out to lunch. really what your are saying is that to play battlefield 2142 on vista, while having winamp playing songs in the background, and my antivirus on, i need 4 gigs of ram? or nothing runs properly? im sorry, but.. that is strictly your opinion and based on absolutely no real fact. i run vista, i play battelfield 2142 with music in the background. ive got bf2142 on full almost full settings, and still gettin 45 fps min.


Games, however use an incredible amount of ram. New games that are DX10 compatible will no doupt use up to 6-8GB of ram by the time DX11 arrives.

and i dont think anyone should even think about dx11 right now, and especially use it as an arguement for performance needs of today. didnt dx10 just come out? i think gettin 6-8 gigs of ram is just WAAYYY overkill futurproofing.

really, then i should've had 4 gigs or ram when i dx9 came out.

sorry if i sound really rash, but.. i get really edgy when people try to prove me wrong with opinions and state them as fact.

[monoflap]

If you're getting an 8000 series card make sure you monitor is big. Think at least 1600 X 1200 res. The cpu bottleneck happens when card has nothing to do and is waiting for your cpu's commands. That processor will most likely be fine but belive it or not, a higher resolution would be faster. Just my two cents.

[CanaBalistic]

You've got me all wrong.
What i am saying is this:

Vista system requirements are 1 GB of system memory. Now we all know that when MS said XP only needed 512, they were full of ****. So 1GB minimum for vista should be taken the same way. I only said 1GB in my pervious post.

Sylenced_Cyote stated above that vista will use up to 4GB of ram if its available.

Since DX9 games like BF2 wont run properly with less than 2Gb of ram, how much ram do you think DX10 games in excess of 6GB will require? I was only using DX11 to stop the time frame. So, from now untill DX11 launches should be about 2 years. Think back to when DX9 launched, think of the min system requirements back then compared to current times. You'll notice a huge diffrence in minimum requirements. This is going to happen for DX10 aswell.

The minimum for new DX9 games is 2GB. The minimum for DX10 should be about 4GB. Im not saying he should go out and buy 32GB of ram. Im saying, he should think of the cheapest way to get the most ram. If he buys 2x2GB sticks now, he'll have plenty of ram to run new releases. He'll also be in a better position to upgrade to 8GB when later games require more ram.

Still arent convinced?
Since you've got vista (i'll asume you have 2GB of ram since you think thats more than enough)...
Shut down all non essential programs and widgets, run a DX10 game and record your FPS.

Now run all your background tasks, scann your computer for virsus, put on some chillin tunes and play a DX10 game and record your FPS.

With the proper amount of ram, you should get close to the same FPS in both scenarios.

I'll be waiting to here your FPS's...

P.S. Dont just assume your right. BTW, 45FPS is nothing to brag about. I get 30-35FPS from my x700.

P.P.S. Do you think he would want to be lagging in the ram department if he is going to blow a wack of cash on an 8800?

[Silenced_Coyote]

Just to be clear. Key word is "available". Basically, this is the thought process of Vista: If it is unused RAM, then it is wasted RAM. So Vista will take as much as it needs, but it does this in order to run smoother/faster. It isn't doing it because it really needs it and if it gets anything less, it will be utterly slow. In a sense, it is a system hog and you might be scared when you are not really doing anything and you look in the Task Manager to see how much RAM Vista is using. But Vista has a new memory management system and will share and give up a lot of its RAM usage to other memory intensive applications.

Also, Vista has a new feature called Super Fetch. So Vista is loading up your RAM with info from programs you use often, which makes the program start up faster. Over time, it will get a better sense of your daily use and the programs you use more often than others. It is becoming "smarter". If you are tight on the amount of RAM, you can disable Super Fetch. There are other optimizations avaible too.

Anyways, as far as this thread goes, onelegout didn't ask anything concerning RAM or Vista. So I think you two should either start a new thread or PM each other as the discussion is getting a bit heated... I know I contributed a bit too... and I shouldn't have. Sorry onelegout for hijacking your thread. I hope your questions were answered/solved before this Vista debate began.

[bartvandenberg]

Yah, im sorry about the whole heated debate i started. that was not my intention. I was just in a pretty bad mood at the time of that post. i just got upset when it seems that people are telling onelegout that having more ram will be the only thing that makes his competer utilize a 8800gtx/gts card. I know there are a lot of programs out there (and im sure dx10 games will be the worst) that will utilize what ram he has, but.. he could have 8gb's or ram and a crappy video card, and not get the benefit of that ram because his card wont process the graphics fast enough. so.. at the moment, if he has a choice, stick with the 2gb's or ram, upgrade the card, and later on.. when the ram is insufficient, get more ram.

he obviously has to make a choice of ram or video card in this situation, and the performance gain right now would tell him to get a 8800 gtx.

Im also sorry, onelegout, for hijacking your thread. And i apologize to CanaBalistic and silenced coyote for being a headstrong jacka$$. i hate seeing people make unwise choices.




.

P.S. Dont just assume your right. BTW, 45FPS is nothing to brag about. I get 30-35FPS from my x700.

P.P.S. Do you think he would want to be lagging in the ram department if he is going to blow a wack of cash on an 8800?

i wasnt bragging about my fps. just stating that its still playable on a 2 generation old card, and i know my system specs are far from the "latest and greatest"

and i know he doesnt want to be laggin in the ram dept. but.. as of right now, the more ram wont be beneficial enough to warrant it. maybe in 6 months it'll be a big performance increase. therefor, a 8800 gtx will be the best choice for upgrade at this time. rather than upping his ram, and keeping an older video card not even capable of dx10, he should do the opposite.

once again.. sorry to everyone. it doesnt take much to get the wrong impression from words when you dont know the person saying them and how they would say them.

[CanaBalistic]

Yeah, i appologize aswell. Rereading thoes PS's got me thinking. It sounds a bit mean. Bart, i only meant that compared to a reasonable priced video card, 45FPS is on the low side. I aint doing any better with my setup either.

And everything i said about ram was assuming he allready had the 8800.

+Rep Bart, good appology.

[Drew]

Sorry, still stuck on...


My mobo supports upto 8Gb RAM.

(or something along those lines, can't be bothered to quote properly...)

I'm about to order my first gig stick, and was impressed with that.

8Gb RAM?

Oh. My. Gawd.

[Guardian]

You guys are getting WAAAY to carried away. I play BF2142 (best game ever) on my 1 gig system, and hell, it runs hella good! Memory gives you preformance, but keep this in mind. If we rated memory on a scale of 1 - 10, lets say 1 gig is a 6. Anything PAST 6 on the scale wouldn't make anything better, faster loading times maybe, but not "Better", What i'm trying to say is, you can only have so much memory to notice a differnce.

Games require CPU power, Video power, and memory. If you want a good CPU you're going to need a good Mobo that has the recent chipsets, then to power the video card you need a powerful cpu, to install all the drivers and the latest games you need alot of hardrive space, so you see how everything adds up.

Take it from a guy like me, I've seen everything, I've tested everything, I've done what there had to be done. True preformance only comes when its necesisary. I think the 8800 would be a complete and utter waste. The 7900 is more then enough. Keep in mind Vista still hasn't been "Mastered", There are alot of glitches and ****, You're better off with XP till the service pack comes out.

My pentuim D gaming rig (which recentley died) had a PD 805 (no oc),x1650 (12 pxlpipe,600 core) and 1 gig ddr 400, it chewed through any game easily. Loading times took a few minutes, but patience comes standard with computers. Now i'm going to cut it short, and here's my overall advice.

Save the money, in 6 months - 2 years, buy you're self a nice brand new core 2 duo beast.

[gaz_the_chav]

So, I'm going to get a Kaos Pad for my DJing


Quite probably OT but lol get the Kaos 2 Pad much better!

-gaz

[intergalacticman]

MS said XP only needed 512, they were full of ****.

umm it was 256 Megs :smoker:

[Guardian]

XP runs on 128 min.

[Redundant]

XP runs on 128 min.
So, uh, how long does it take to open 'My Computer' on 128mb?
Better yet, how long does it take to boot? Half-hour? :p
Yes, I know it will work but it's practically unusable with 128mb.

MS Link to requirements. (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx)
(OMG, it'll work on 64mb?!)

[Guardian]

No 128 runs suprisingly good.

[Drew]

No 128 runs suprisingly good.

...with a sensible processor...

But if you're running 128Mb then you're hardly likely to be running it alongside a core 2 duo now are you...

I've used XP a lot with 128Mb and an AMD Duron 700Mhz, with *reasonable* success.

But I don't recommend it.

When it comes to anything more recent (like anything with more than 256Mb and a 1 Gig processor, I'm clueless).

Just had to butt in....

[CanaBalistic]

When i upgraded from 1gig to 2gig's, i noticed a drastic improvment while playing bf2. It was like a whole new game. Morph walking and the jitters were almost nill to none.

[bartvandenberg]

When i upgraded from 1gig to 2gig's, i noticed a drastic improvment while playing bf2. It was like a whole new game. Morph walking and the jitters were almost nill to none.

i second that for sure. i thought the game kicked a$$ with 1gb.... how clueless i was to how the game was supposed to be run!!

[Guardian]

When i upgraded from 1gig to 2gig's, i noticed a drastic improvment while playing bf2. It was like a whole new game. Morph walking and the jitters were almost nill to none.

No disrespect cana, but it also depends on the sort of memory. 1 gig ddr runs ALOT differnt then 1 gig ddr2-800.


W/e, I never had a 2 gig rig, Only a 1 gig. I have over 3 gigs but mobos never supported that many dimms. My new gaming rigs gonna have 2 gig, lets see how that goes.

[bartvandenberg]

No disrespect cana, but it also depends on the sort of memory. 1 gig ddr runs ALOT differnt then 1 gig ddr2-800.



Actually. the difference would be a lot less than you tend to think. in fact, ddr400 with decent timings is actually exceptionally close to the same as ddr2 800 performance in gaming. In over half of games, outperforms ddr2 677.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2741&p=5

The main reason people dont see it is because it should be a no brainer right? 400 mhz ddr2 800 HAS to be better than 200mhz ddr400. BUT... How often do you see DDR2 800 ram with timings like 2-2-2-5, and that seems to be whats holding back the potential of most ddr2 modules.