View Full Version : How long should i hold out?
9th Oct 02, 11:06 AM
OK, I'm thinking of getting a new graphics card. Im currently runing an AMD Athlon 655 processor, 256 MB RAM, TNT2 Pro. Im thinking about upgrading for the slew of new games with high sys specs. When should I think of upgrading? now? or when its ABSOLUTELY neccesary like when my chip can no longer handle anything new? Right now im not happy with its performance but I can tolerate it. I was looking for your oppinions on when YOU think it would be neccesary to upgrade, and what to upgrade.
9th Oct 02, 11:10 AM
Wait as long as you can, until this game you really want to play runs like shit. There will always be new things coming out (and also expensive) but that means older stuff will always come down in price - if you wait till the most expensive thing to become the second most expensive thing, you might as well get the second most expensive thing now if you really want to get 100 fps.
I'd wait and see where DDR400 goes with all the new chipsets coming and how AMD's Hammer will do. Nvidia will be cranking out their new chips before Christmas and others will come down in price, I would upgrade that video card first around Christmas, you can always grab mobo/cpu later.
during christmas more new technologies will come:
i mostly wait out these tech changes, and afterwards decide to upgrade or not,
you will eventually always feel bad after upgrading anyway(SHOULD have waited etc...)
but then that feeling comes after 6 months rather then 3 weeks :mad: .
10th Oct 02, 6:11 AM
Pontipicon, were I you, I'd save my money and plan on building a new system sometime next year. You'll likely be able to harvest some of your equipment from the old computer, but maybe not much.
In any event, with your system, you're not going to have much luck with a new graphics card alone. Furthermore, you'd be best served by waiting for the price of the next generation graphics cards to come down. They should have full DirectX 9 capability and be able to be fully programmable (by the game software).
I know that I like my Ti4600, but I also realize that I got it near the end of it's "cutting edge" life. The new Raidon card and others that are coming down the pipe are going to blow away the ti4600.
But the best graphics card in the world is not going to make a brand new game that requires real processor power play well.
10th Oct 02, 9:44 AM
1. AMD Hammer is gonna kick ass! :)
2. DDR400 is already out
3. P4 + Gaming system *choke* Pentium sucks.
4. Nvidia NV30 (hope they give it a better name) hopefully will kick Radeon 9700 Pro's butt!
I don't think I like how DDR400 is sounding already from reviews, and other sources. They say that DDR333 is actually better. We'll see. I'm gonna build a new comp as soon as I see what nVidia says to ATIs Radeon! I'll wait for the hammer only if Microsoft releases their 64bit Operating System. Otherwise, getting 64bit technology would be worthless.
11th Oct 02, 3:00 AM
1. Hammer -> kick the s**t out of Intel.
2. DDR400 is out, but not in many mobos.
3. Refer to Stewart Ramses' post.
4. nVIDIA is going down, down, down, down...
I would stick with FallenSolo's advice - wait until Hammer and the next-gen DX9 cards are released before upgrading. If you really need an upgrade before then, grab a GeForce2 MX - they're going for about $50 - $60 - you can always flog it to some unsuspecting soul when you do upgrade.
nVIDIA's cards are worse than ATI's at the current time... the problem is ATI only tends to release their cards just as nVIDIA's competing ones are becoming obsolete, so everyone still thinks nVIDIA is the best. If I had the choice, I would buy an ATI anyday... they cost less too.
The new M$ OS, "Palladium", is rumoured to be 64-bit (as per my Oct edition of PC Format) - it's also rumoured to have even worse privacy-invasion than XP, so beware...
Stewart - how can DDR333 get better if DDR 400 is 20% faster? Or are you talkin' about price here?
11th Oct 02, 4:14 AM
Originally posted by The Assimilator
The new M$ OS, "Palladium", is rumoured to be 64-bit
great, gg M$ .. now to get myself a 64bit application :rolleyes: *throws away all his software*
11th Oct 02, 9:51 AM
They have to make a 64bit OS for 64bit chips. You don't HAVE to buy it. Though, the Hammer is said to be a 32/64bit chip which can go both ways. So I would think the OS would be too.
11th Oct 02, 9:53 AM
@Assimilator. Actually, the Radeon is a much newer card than the GeForce 4. And as far as image quality is concerned, they aren't alot different. And the GeForce 4 is still an excellent card. Right now I would say nVidia and ATI are on the same level. They have different release dates no doubt so they can see what they have to beat.
13th Oct 02, 9:05 AM
Yeah, the next generation will be popping up soon. If you have to wait, I suggest you go for this rig:
4.0 + Prescott
Dual Channel DDR333
Sound Blaster Audigy 2
200 GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA
However, if you can't afford to wait, I suggest this system, which will be appearing before the end of this year. It'll also have fast performance to boot.
3.0 + Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading
Dual Channel DDR
Sound Blaster Audigy 2
120 GB 7200
14th Oct 02, 9:02 PM
I dont suggest that rig. Its way to F***ing expensive.
4.0 Prescott will suck. Anyone that actually believes that it'll use all 4 of those GHz is nuts. It'll just be a bottlneck in speed and efficiency, which Intel cannot afford. WTF is NV35? I heard of NV31, but not 35. Audigy 2 isn't much different from Audigy, but it has an option to get the same card without the drive. So I'd probably lean on that one.
*yawns* Second system... Well you can tell I hate intel hehe. I don't think Intel has many more tricks in their bag other than speed. They brainwash people into thinking pure speed is good. But what good is a sprinter if his endurance sucks? And why do you people need such big drives? WTF do you do with 200 or even 120 GB? Collect Pornos up the yin yang??
I'll enjoy watching the Intel Train Crash when people realize how much they're getting ripped off. Too much damn money.
*steps off the soap box*
Nothing against you Cruiser Carrier, I just don't like your suggestions. :)
15th Oct 02, 6:15 AM
he`s just expressing his oppionion
i think Pontipicon can draw his own conclusions
15th Oct 02, 1:47 PM
I'm just expressing MY opinion. I'm not telling him what to do. :p
17th Oct 02, 4:24 PM
youve all beeen a great help, thanks guys and/or gals.
17th Oct 02, 11:20 PM
I myself am not waiting for nVidias next card. the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro is good enough for me. ^_^ and I've got an Audigy 2 Platinum coming my way too! w00t! Now I can record with my guitar!
Don't wait for the Clawhammer unless you think you'll really need it. I mean, 64 bits really won't be that big of a deal for most people.
18th Oct 02, 11:50 PM
And besides, the new MOBOs for the Hammer will be expensive, as well as the ClawHammer Processors no doubt. And I'm betting that there will be some problems with hardware that is not designed to run on a 32bit PCI or AGP bus for example.
18th Oct 02, 11:54 PM
64 bits will really take off if you got the applications that can utilize its potential. However, even running 32 bit code, the Clawhammer will have a 15% performance increase over a similar 32 bit processor.
And you talk of Intel's unreliableness. Are you simply saying that because of AMD are the underdogs? And what if Intel is the underdog, would you support them instead? As far as reliability and support goes, Intel is one of the best in the industry. I am not bashing AMD, and I believe they are a great company that produces quality products and a deterent to Intel. However, no matter how "efficient" AMD is, it doesn't matter. AMD supporters would say clock speed doesn't matter. Frankly, I don't give a crap what speed it is running at, bottom line is that the P4 is currently the performance champ. It is a proven fact. And I don't favor any company, I will simply buy the one with the best product, period.
NV35 will be the card after the NV30, just as the NV40 will be the next gen card after the NV35. Get it?
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 VS Sound Blaster Audigy is a no brainer. All old technology is replaced by new ones. Maybe the difference is minimal, but it is better nonetheless. Heck, there isn't much difference between the Live! and the Audigy.
As for the hard drive, I can survive on a 10 GB 5400 HDD, no problem. Is technology simply going to stand still because most people may not need that extra 190 Bg of space? Probably not. I wouldn't complain if I had an extra 100 BG of space.
And I don't think Prescott will suck. If it runs at 4.0, it runs the chip at 4.0. It doesn't run "inefficiently." The processor contains two screws, it'll turn those two screws at a speed of 4.0. I don't understand your arguement here.
As for "brainwashing" people, the two companies have different design philosophies. AMD is geared toward brute force calculations, Intel at elegence and speed to pump the performance. I don't care if it does less instructions per cycle, nor do I care if it is twice the clock speed. Performance is king. You can say Intel is successfully brainwashing me, because as of now, their P4 is faster in both performance AND raw clock speed, though the latter doesn't matter.
By the way, it is not a matter of "he doesn't need a rig that powerful." Technology advances. By the time he's ready to purchase the parts, the prices will be lower.
I don't favor any company, just the fastest product. If AMD is better than Intel with their Clawhammer, then so be it. The Clawhammer will begin with performance ratings of about 3000+.
19th Oct 02, 11:08 AM
I wasn't bashing Audigy 2. I actually said they offer the platinum like version without the drive.
Hard drives that big are really expensive. You don't need to waste money on space you aren't going to use. If that isn't logical to you then, I don't know what is.
4.0GHz Prescott will suck because they'll have it at 512k L2 Cache, and that wont allow the full 4.0 GHZ use. A processor can only go as fast as its Cache allows it to. Not enough cache = wasted speed.
Bout the brainwashing deal. I was kinda joking, you don't have to take it so seriously.
I've been looking into my comp for 6 months. Prices haven't gone down that much.
And as I said, personally I don't see what people need with 4.0GHz Processors when they just have a home PC. Nothing will use all of that except a server, and it'll be a 500 dollar + waste of money in my opinion. 2.0GHz is about the ceiling that most home users can really utilize. You don't have to get the fastest, just because it says its the fastest. Sometimes you should look at price instead of just getting the fastest GD machine out there that you wont even use to its full potential.
My suggestion. Get what you need, and a little more. Don't get something just because it says you need it, or says its great, etc etc. If you don't think you'll need it, you don't and that should be final. In My Humble Opinion.
19th Oct 02, 3:21 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption Prescott is armed with 1MB of cache.
And the point I am trying to make is that those components will ALL have to drop in price sometime. It is a wise decision to go for price over performance, as the performance sometimes isn't worth that extra money. 40GB used to be highly expensive, nowadays they are much cheaper. 120GB drives are now replacing them. By the time you can't stand your old system any longer, better quality parts will have come out with lower prices.
Stewart Ramses, I have nothing against you or your opinions. You just make yourself sound unually serious, even when your not. . .
19th Oct 02, 9:30 PM
You make your self sound unusually contradictive of yourself. You say wait for Prescott and get a 200GB Drive. Then you say price over performance. So you discount everything you suggested right there. ^_^
22nd Oct 02, 10:53 PM
Well, I don't have that kind of money, although I wish I did:D If I did, I'll be grabbing Prescott. If not, I'll try to save up for Prescott. If I can't hold out, I'll get the Clawhammer + nForce equipped with the NV34 graphics. If the integrated graphics don't perform up to par, I'll settle for an add-on solution.
I meant that Prescott is the choice if money is not an issue. If it is, you may want Clawhammer instead.
For the time being, Clawhammer will be competing with the Pentium 4 when it arrives. There may even be cases in which the P4 is faster, since the Hammer should debut at either 3000+ or 3400+. Those numbers are compared with P4 performance, so even then, the P4 is not out of the race.
23rd Oct 02, 4:14 AM
Simmer down you 2, or the admins will be on your backs...
*looks over shoulder*
Personally, I'm with Stewart and his Intel Cash Train.
23rd Oct 02, 6:49 AM
Go Take a look at Toms HArdware. You'll see how much faster the PIVs are than the Athalon XPs. The newer the AMD chips, the more they begin to kick Intel's arse. I think that the Clawhammer will destroy the Intel Chips. It probably will be pricy too, but doubtfully as pricey as the Prescott will.
The thing I don't like is that Intel makes you pay an arm and a leg for marketing when their technology isn't really greater. In many cases its not as good as some of those AMD Chips. You ever notice that an AMD 1.53 GHZ chip benchmarks higher than an Intel 1.8 and performs in real situations better as well; and an AMD 2.0 performs better than a comparable P4? No mystery to me. Seems to me that Intel just pushes as much speed as possible to make up for the CPU latency. Then people must proceed to pay 600 bucks for something of lesser quality. :) Thats why I'll never buy intel again. They really aren't very good. Its screaming "typical modern day corporate quality." To me. AMD has not become a victim to the cheaper parts more expensive marketing bug..........yet.
24th Oct 02, 7:57 AM
You're all being too technical!
Basically, only a few people will get the super high-end PC parts, as they cost a premium. I built my PC for about £340 last year, and it still runs every new game at 1024x768x16 smoothy. Paying for a super high end PC just costs more in the long run.
512mb DDR ram
GeForce3 Ti200 (128mb)
Its cheaper than all high end PC's!
24th Oct 02, 8:41 PM
Yeah, you only need high end stuff if you are really going to use it. For example, I boutght the Audigy 2 Platinum both because it is more stable than 1. And I am going to use it for sound mixing and recording etc etc. I bought a great graphix card because I do alot of heavy rendering, or at least I did until I got fed up with this one. Getting an 80GB drive because it was just as expensive as a Maxtor 60 that I was gonna get. etc etc etc.
Get what you are going to use. If you need the high end system, then go to newegg.com and look at the parts. Cut as much as you can. And don't get needless sh*t that you will never use. Before you buy something think... Do I really need this much?
People buy 200GB Hard Drives that cost 400 bucks just because its a 200GB Harddrive and barks that its the best. Pfft. Those are good for servers, not for gamers. If you get an 80GB and you use it up, then you have too much porno on your computer. :)
29th Oct 02, 2:44 PM
I was always told that when HDs get over 120GB, the probability of their reading arms getting out of alignment was pretty high.
As for which processor, the fact of the matter is that even the new Athalon XP 2800+ based upon the new 13micron archetecture is not as fast as the fastest P4, they lost in nearly every benchmark in the new MaximumPC magazine. But for the price they are likely the better deal.
Last February I built my first pc. :)
I used the Asus nVidia nForce chipset motherboard (A7N266) to build my pc on and I'm very glad that I did. The nForce mobo's have onboard video (GeForce 2 core) and onboard sound (5.1). These are very "good" onboard features and play all the current games out there. The only upgrade plans I have for my current pc is a video card, GF 4 Ti or ATI 8500. Maybe Santa will bring me an ATI 9700 pro for Xmas. lol
I do plan to build a new pc this Februay on the new nForce 2 motherboard. It has a 333Mhz FSB, GF 4 core and improved 5.1 sound.
By the time Februay rolls around I'm sure there will be many different nForce 2 makers out there (with different features) and hopefully some new AMD XP 3000+ or 3200+ on store shelves. Plus the NV30 should be out and some games with DX9 features like "HW2 beta testing". :)
I geuss what I'm trying to say is, If you want good preformance at low cost in the near future the AMD/nForce combo is a good platform to build on.
1st Nov 02, 9:32 PM
Thats really strange mister Solo. Since AMD Athalon XP 2400+ perform according to specs at or above a P4 2.4GHz chip. And they do. AMD obviously has something going if they can build a chip thats smaller, and with less transistors and can still outperform one of those Intels.
I dunno about you, but that says something for Intel too. It says that all they're really concerned about is a CPU clock speed on the box than how it really performs next to the other name brand with a lower clock. I for one would buy the cheaper car that runs as efficiently or better than the more expensive car with a bigger engine. But then, thats just my logic. :-p
1st Nov 02, 9:33 PM
Oh, and Lone, btw, chaintech has already launched their nForce 2 boards I believe today. So you can expect ASUS, ABit, and the others to follow suit before february.
Stewart Ramses, thanx I'v already been checking them out.
Only reveiws out so far on these boards are the ones with out the video core. :(
I think they are still working out all the bugs with the 8X AGP and the 128bit twinbank video memory pipeline.
But I'm glad to see them out now, this gives me a few months to check out all the upcoming reveiws and all the new fetures. :)
4th Nov 02, 12:53 PM
Well I've got myself a graphics card to use, and I don't want GeForce 4MX graphics anyways. MX sucks royal ass. I have a sound card too that will make the integrated audio pointless too. Without the integrations needed, I doubt I'll have a use for it. From what I understand Dual DDR isn't showing much of an improvement. So is it really worth the extra bit of cash that it will cost?
For me? No. A7V8X has everything I need. If I wanna get the AMD Athalon XP 2600 333 FSB version then I'd get that or the A7V333-X. But still, I doubt it. I don't need that 2600 anyways. So in reality, I probably wont wait for that nor the hammer.
4th Nov 02, 1:12 PM
Thats really strange mister Solo. Since AMD Athalon XP 2400+ perform according to specs at or above a P4 2.4GHz chip. And they do.
Actually Stewart, that's not entirely true. In spite of what AMD says it's specs are, for most of this year, and some of last, the P4 has been inching ahead of the Athalon. Furthermore, Intel has shown that they are holding back a lot of the potential horsepower of the P4, while I was pleasantly surprised to see AMD tweak out more performance from their Thoroughbred line of processors. IMHO, the AMD habit of naming their Athalon processors to compare to the Intel processor speed they think it should compete with has been misleading for awhile.
Even on processors that AMD says it's thoroughbred CPUs are comparable to, AMD loses on many benchmark tests. For example - There was only one benchmark that the new AthalonXP 2800+ beat the 2.8 Ghz P4 on (I don't recall the particular benchmark, but I think it was audio related). Maximum PC has all the stats in their latest issue. In several benchmarks, the AMD processor was very close, but not faster.
CPU magazine, who also reviewed the new 2400+ XP processor to a 2.4 P4 did somewhat better in the benchmark tests, but still didn't win in all catagories. However, I find CPU magazine to be dumbed down to the 4th grade level, and I trust the benchmarks and stats published by Maximum PC a bit more.
However, In my book, that's good enough for me. . . At the price that AMD charges for their top-of-the-line processors, I'll be getting a new AMD processor next year to upgrade my system.
I am an AMD man - not because it's faster than Intel, but because their products are a better value than Intel's - nearly as fast, but much less expensive. The $$ counts for a lot.
4th Nov 02, 1:44 PM
Benchmarks depend on the system setup. Thats why they vary. But generally, AMDs slower clock CPUs can perform as well as the faster Intels. For the lower price, that says alot to me. Something like, "Why the hell should I pay 200+ more for a comparable product?" Simple answer, "I'm not stupid enough to spend that on marketing schemes."
I'm an AMD man because I can see the future. *snickers* It seems to hint that Intel is diving down and down and down and will crash if they keep it up. Eventually, people will get the picture that intels prices are actually too high. Its just that they have the marketing that overshadows AMDs products that are just as good. Thats why Intel survives. If AMD had a marketing scheme, they probably would gain a good deal of the market, however their prices would go up. But then, I don't think they would have to that much.
Frankly, if the CEO is a billionaire, the prices are too high.
AMD will prolly never get rid of its bad reputation, most people (not always the smartest)
will go with the flow .. and buy P4, that`s the way it is now, and the way it always will be.
CPU availability (Western-Europe)
P4 2,8 - more than enough available
AMD 2200+ = the highest you can get over here, XP2400+ 2600+ etc.,
prolly going the be available no sooner than january 2003,
i mean.. there isn`t really a choice is there?
4th Nov 02, 4:50 PM
Yes there is. Why does anyone need 2.8 GHz? 2.0 is enough, and it (AMD Athalon XP 2400+) has proven to be like a P4 2.4GHz. Plus that intel 2.8 costs 460, where the AMD costs under 200 :). So there is a choice. :)
yes i know they are cheaper, but the typical (no Brainer) customer
will always go for the one with the higher clock speed (and yes, which they prolly don`t need.)
[customer brain process]
ok, the intel is more expensive, so it has better performance .... and it will impress my next-door neigbour....pulls out wallet
[/customer brain process]
i have yet to meet a sales person not willing to sell a more expensive product.
5th Nov 02, 6:52 AM
The computer store I favor around here is one that offers both Intel and AMD products.
If you ask them for the best price for the most power, they'll steer you to AMD every time. The guy I know there says they carry the Intel products, not because they're sold on them, but because people come into their shop and want Intel - even though it's more expensive and they won't see a difference in performance in their day to day computing.
I also walked into a computer store here in W-S, NC that I'd not been in before, and noticed right away that they were an Intel Authorized Retailer. HOO BOY! Talk about walking into a store full of zealots! I felt like I was in a den with the Jehovia's Witnesses of the CPU world! I won't be going back there.
With regard to benchmarks, it is true that system set ups make a big difference. And when comparing AMD and Intel systems, it can often be like comparing apples and oranges, but I think it is possible to compare them.
I recall that the 2.8Ghz P4 is over $400 and the AthalonXP 2800+ is starting right now around $299. The difference is more pronounced as you move down to 2.4 vs 2400+ and 2.2 vs 2200+.
5th Nov 02, 9:08 AM
What do you mean by more pronounced?
And AMDs seem to accomplish more work per clock cycle. So while Intel buyers go for a clock speed, they don't realize that its just a corporate marketing scheme. Thats why the so called slower AMD chips can pass their faster counterparts. Compare an AMD 2.0 to an Intel 2.0 and the difference will be obvious.
5th Nov 02, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Stewart Ramses
they don't realize that its just a corporate marketing scheme.
exactly, and AMD can`t do zilch/0/nuttin about it.
5th Nov 02, 9:19 PM
Nope... and thats what's hurting AMD. Intel has succesfully captured most of the market. I'm gonna go to the various computer building site and see how easy it is to get one with an AMD CPU.
I'll be back with the figures
11th Nov 02, 9:11 AM
Let's discuss "economic" systems that don't use up too much money.
I have plenty of time.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.