Right now I’m running a t-bird 800 (at 945, 105*9) on a kt7-raid (kt133). This board can max out at a 1.4 ghz t-bird, 200 fsb - and only can use SD-RAM. I have a geforce 4 ti4200.
This is primarily a gaming machine, at least in as far as I need the horsepower. I’m wondering if it’s worth it to upgrade my CPU to the 1.4 ghz it is capable of. By this, I mean, can the sdram or any other bottlenecks provide enough data to the CPU to really see proportional performance gains? I mean, would it ‘feel’ like I was increasing 450 mhz in speed, or would it be barely noticable because of the other bottlenecks?
I realize it varies with the specific application, but I’m wondering general opinions as to whether I should max out this motherboard or just leave it as is. I’m very reluctant to upgrade to a newer board because I have legacy hardware I don’t want to replace.
Wow, what a stone-age pice of crap. I’m surprised the gerbil running on the wheel that powers your museum piece hasn’t already petitioned the U.N. for better working conditions. Maybe he’s already died of asbestosis.
Just kidding. Wait until Unreal Tournament 2003 is released and then use its own benchmarks to determine how many frames per second you’re getting. If you consistantly get 25 or more, upgrading the hardware will make a trivial difference. Tom’s Hardware Guide routinely publishes Quake 3 frame rate results on high-end machines and to be honest, why would you need 239 frames/second when your monitor’s refresh rate is only 75-85.
If you want a real boost in your gaming experience, get a subwoofer and crank it. BOO-yah!
Well, just set an arbitrary point at which an upgrade becomes necessary. Me, I don’t upgrade until my new system will be at least twice as powerful as my old system (preferably closer to thrice as powerful).
Or you can pick some game that’ll require a big boost in power. UT2003 may not require an upgrade. However, something like Doom3 most likely will (that’s what I plan on upgrading for).
For action videogames you want it to run as many FPS on whatever graphics settings you want as the refresh rate of the screen. The reason is that you have to be able to move/spin quickly and still see what’s going on around you clearly. Mine runs about 40 FPS, a pal’s runs about 70, and I definitely do notice the difference and can do better playing on his than I can on mine.
~
Well, I’m not comtemplating upgrading the whole thing right now, just little chunks. I’m wondering if the CPU upgrade, from 950 to 1.4 ghz, will be worth it. I’ve heard that past a gig or so it doesn’t really matter since the memory can’t provide data fast enough, and was wondering what you guys had to say about that.
And… some of the newer games, like America’s Army (advanced UT engine) can make my system strain quite a bit, so I’m not just upgrading for the sake of upgrading.
No, it’s not really worth upgrading. You’re just wasting good money. You are better off buying a new computer and salvage usable parts from the old machine.
If you have a reason to do so, of course. Otherwise it’s perfectly good.
I wouldn’t upgrade either. If gaming is your biggest use then the GPU is a lot more important than the CPU and you already have a GF4. But like SPOOFE said, Doom 3 is definately going to require some upgrading.
On the other hand, an Athlon 1.4GHz is pretty damn cheap right now. You’d probably see a definite improvement from your 950, but it wouldn’t be night and day different. Your video card is obviously up to snuff, so unless your games are slow right now, I’d stay where your at. However, if you have a $50 to burn, and want a bit of an improvement, go for it.
I’ve got you in the CPU department (AthlonXP @ 1.57GHz), but I’m only running an overclocked Gf3ti200 (@220/500). Anyway, that’s fine for me until at least late this winter…then I might head up to the next gen video card (after the GF4).
SPOOFE and I have the same rule of thumb: Don’t upgrade until you’re getting twice the performance/size/speed out of it. Upgrading in increments like that will usually cost you more money in the long run, or keep you too far behind the curve depending on the tastes you have in the latest power-hungry games. I also never buy the absolute bleeding edge hardware either. I let it simmer with the other early adopters and lurk for performance reports on the Internet. Then I’ll wait six months or so for the first several batches to be bought up and get the next ones with chip revisions (if they were needed) already in place.
Are you having issues with your games now? Are they really unplayable or do they just have some annoying stuttering once in a while? Are you planning on overclocking the new chip? What OS are you running?
Depending on your budget, there are several good suggestions already here. If money is tight and will remain tight for a long time to come, upgrading to a 1.4 on your current system might be a good deal. If you’re expecting a small windfall (say like a tax refund), wait and do a mobo/cpu/ram upgrade like Urban Ranger suggested. Your video card should last you for a good 1 to 1 1/2 years at the very least.
I’m not a ‘upgrade whenever anything new comes out’ kind of guy, definitely. And I usually follow the 2x-3x gain rule… but my current situation is that I’m probably going to have this motherboard for another year - and I’m thinking I might a well max out the performance I can get with this motherboard - which means a 1.4 ghz cpu, a good video card, good ram, etc.
**
Some of the really new games (like America’s Army) run at 15-25 FPS at reasonable quality settings, which is too low for my taste. If the CPU is the problem, upgrading my cpu should move them to 30-40… but then perhaps the fundamental design of the MB is the problem (memory speed, fsb speed…) and adding a CPU won’t give me more than a 2 or 3 frame boost. That’s mostly what I’m wondering… if I’ll see proportional gains with the CPU or not, or if the memory limitations will just screw me anyway.
**
Probably not OCing it… after 1.25 ghz, my MB doesn’t support custom OC increments, and so to OC it, I’d have to start painting all of the bridges with electric pens… given the risk involved, and the fact that I’d have to keep redoing it for trial and error, OCing it doesn’t seem worth the hassle.
I’m probably not going to overhaul the whole system for at least a year… so I’m leaning towards just maxing out this system. Just wondering if the CPU upgrade will do me any good, or if the bottlenecks are elsewhere.
I had to look America’s Army up (I’m not much for FPS games) and I see it’s based on the Unreal Warfare engine. From the AA site:
So yeah, I’d say go for the 1.4GHz CPU upgrade now for this game, but it would be really hard to say what you could expect for a frame rate increase based on that upgrade alone. Other game genres like RTS rely more on the CPU than the video card for frame rate, so it really depends on the particular games you are playing. You may need to evaluate the games you plan on playing to make your decision here. Or, buy up some of the older games you missed the first time around and play them until you can get a spankin’ gaming rig together.
Because there are so many other factors involved than just CPU speed, I don’t think you should upgrade unless you at least triple its speed. I went from a 281MHz Cyrix to a 950 AMD a year and a half ago and won’t bother building a new one until at least 2.8GHz CPUs are cheap…
