Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Need Help Quick !! Going to upgrade comp tomorrow !!
Hi Guys I talked to the salesman about which part I should upgrade my comp, and here is my spec:
1.) Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 GHZ 2.33
2.) Gefoce 9800 GT
3.) 4GB Ram
4.) Vista
Anyway, I asked the salesman he said CPU is not the biggest matter for gaming, as you usually don't use all 4 Cores since I'm not those graphic designs. I should be concentrate on other things like graphic card.
Is this true?? I am going to get a new motherboard and now I don't know if I should keep my CPU and just upgrade the graphic card into GTX 260 or 275.
Please give me advice real quick ??!!! thx !!!! I am looking to buy a REAL good graphic card that can play and view the highest settings. Thx !!!
Comments
The thing that will give you the biggest performance boost by far, is upgrading to Win7 64bit.
Your computer isn't bad, and Win7 64 will use what you got alot better than Vista does.
Like Trading Card Games? Click Here.
Interesting....
that might save me a lot of money !! =p
Yeah, a new Video Card would help, but I think upgrading will give you more bang for your buck and just wait till you can afford a card that's going to beat the hell out of that 9800. (like when the 295s go down)
I would get professional though, which is $199.... so you're only saving like $15 from the GTX 260. lol
Like Trading Card Games? Click Here.
You don't have an immediate need to upgrade any of those components. If I was a salesman I too would recommend upgrading your video card since you would need to spend over $200 for an upgrade. It isn't something worth it. If you are already on Vista 64-bit you won't see a performance increase using Windows 7 64-bit. Its the same operating system kernel, and if they game is properly designed for Windows Vista or Windows 7 it won't make much of a difference.
If you really want to upgrade your system, think about a good SSD that usually runs over $300, or BluRay. Thats about it.
Biggest boost in performance are gfx card and ssd. Atm nvidia cards are bad option, look for ati cards depending on your budget.
Cpu nor OS upgrade definitely not needed.
Just dont buy something like this:
You might want to hold off a bit on a new video card. Nvidia is going to release new cards with a new architecture the first quarter of this year. Regardless of what you get, prices on current cards will be dropping for sure.
<LINK>
Not sure about your knowledge base when it comes to computers. A thought as opposed to getting a new processor and mother board is overclocking. It depends on your MB and how the bios is set up but most will let you do some overclocking with a better heat sink/ fan. Certainly not for everyone, just a thought.
I currently have a E8600 which is spec'd at 3.33Ghz over clocked to 4.5Ghz. Been running this way for over a year. Coupled with a GTX 280 and I usually get 200+ FPS no matter the game.
~Hairysun
http://www.straightdope.com/
heh, when I went from Vista Ultimate -> 7 Pro, I got a huge increase in performance.
Like Trading Card Games? Click Here.
Weird thing it doesn't show up on any benchmarks.
My personal experience is that desktop usage is little more smooth with windows 7 compared to vista, with gaming they perform equal.
Weird thing it doesn't show up on any benchmarks.
My personal experience is that desktop usage is little more smooth with windows 7 compared to vista, with gaming they perform equal.
Possibly because I usually game in Windowed mode then or something. Benchmarks are rarely done in windowed mode.
It would also explain why I didn't see a big increase in FPSs, that I play in fullscreen. lol
Like Trading Card Games? Click Here.
Regardless of what any nvidia fanboy tells you, and whatever hopes they have of nvidia releasing a DX11 capable graphics gard in the near future do yourself (and your computer) a big favor and buy yourself a HD5890.
And so no one will say that I'm just an ATI fanboy... I have 2way GTX285 SLI... so no luck there flamers... ATI is simply better.
TU2 Closed Beta Testing... looking very good so far
Your CPU and RAM are fine. Your video card is the only thing that needs upgrading. Problem is the 9800GT is still decent so you would want to get a card in the upper range to make the upgrade worthwhile. Depending on how much you want to spend, a Radeon 5850 would be ideal. A Radeon 5770 or GTX 260 would still be better than your 9800GT but then you are replacing a $100 video card with a $160 video card.. if you have good plans for the old 9800GT (ebay or Physx) then it's fine but if it's just going to collect dust not really worth it.
Also I wouldn't bother buying Win7 over a video card. It's a great OS, better than Vista, but performance difference between Win7 and Vista isn't much, where Win7 does better than Vista is on underpowered PCs - if your PC has enough horsepower to run Vista (it does) then you won't see a difference on Win7. If TheHatter got that huge of a boost it was more likely something to do with going to a fresh install than inherent changes in OS performance. I didn't notice any change going to Win7. A $200 video card would help wayy more than an OS change regardless.
Btw.. why are you getting a new motherboard?
Weird thing it doesn't show up on any benchmarks.
My personal experience is that desktop usage is little more smooth with windows 7 compared to vista, with gaming they perform equal.
Possibly because I usually game in Windowed mode then or something. Benchmarks are rarely done in windowed mode.
It would also explain why I didn't see a big increase in FPSs, that I play in fullscreen. lol
Dfan is right ,there is no performance jump between vista and win7 (1-3 fps mostly) .Your problem was windowed mode , windowed mode=2D and downclocked vga and memory clocks to save power,you hade to raise your 2D gpu and memory clocks from ati catalyst /nvidia control panel.No it is os problem not related to card manufacturers.
I would buy a Radeon HD 5870 graphics card if I were you and possibly replace your Core 2 Quad @ 2.33GHz with a Core 2 Duo @ 3.0GHz since four cores really isn't needed for computer gaming but a higher clock rate is.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
I would buy a Radeon HD 5870 graphics card if I were you and possibly replace your Core 2 Quad @ 2.33GHz with a Core 2 Duo @ 3.0GHz since four cores really isn't needed for computer gaming but a higher clock rate is.
Quads give a very nice boost with many games already and the numbers are increasing all the time. I wouldn't even get a dual core to a new computer unless it's a low budget machine. Amd 720BE x3 is minimum.
video cards atm are very cheap for what you get.A 260gtx or 4870 are both about 160-170 bucks now at most and can handle anything out there on pretty much max setting.Just make sure if you get the 260 that you get the newer core 216 model or if you go with the 4870 and play at high resolutions get the 1gig video memory version.
Also, don't listen to people telling you to upgrade to windows 7.If you have vista 64 bit then there's really no reason to waste all that money atm.Maybe once games start using dx11 graphics, but that wont be for a while.Vista 64 bit is fine for gaming.Buying a new gpu instead of win7 will give a MUCH better boost in performance.Of course, if you don't need to worry about money, then upgrade if you want as win7 isn't bad or anything.
Quads are a waste of money to the computer gamer and that's that.
Crysis (CryEngine 2), Farcry 2, Left 4 Dead (Source), World in Conflict, GTA IV, Dragon Age all run much faster on (equal clocked) 3 cores over 2. GTA IV is the only one I know that gets a boost on 4 cores over 3.
So the question is, do those games run faster on equal price dual core (high clock) vs quad core (low clock).. and that depends on the game. Farcry 2 and Dragon Age are much faster on a $160 quad, while L4D and Crysis are faster on a $160 dual core.
But here's the thing to me.. the games that are dual core optimized aren't CPU heavy games anyway and are much more GPU limited, meaning even a slow quad core can handle them just fine.. while the games that can really use 3 or 4 cores are very CPU intense and can quite easily be bottlenecked by the CPU if it's only dual core.
So I think it's better to get a quad to handle the games that really need the CPU than a dual core to handle the games that don't need the CPU while shooting yourself in the foot on games that do. You also get the added benefit of having extra cores for multitasking/background tasks.
To my knowledge there aren't any games that utilize four cores. Most don't utilize two. Multi-core processors will be most useful for running background processes. For your purpose, I agree with Hatter- go get Win7 64-bit. If you really feel like spending money, throw another 4gb of memory on your board or get an additional 9800GT. That will still be overkill as your rig still meets or surpasses most games "recommended settings"
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
Dammit, Fearless! Quit posting pics of my system!
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
Upgrading to a GTX260 is kind of a waste, its better then what you have now, sure, but not by alot. Personally i would recommend an SSD. The Intel X25-M G2 is really good, but some others are good too. Just don't buy one that has a Jmicron controller.
GTA IV and Dragon Age are 2 games that use 4 cores very well. In fact in Dragon Age a $75 Athlon II X3 435 crushes the $170 Core2Duo E8600 because of the extra cores.
The one big standout is the Phenom II X2 555 which performs the same or better than the X3 710 and X3 720 even in multi-core games because of the much higher clock, but Core2Duo vs Core2Quad is generally half and half depending on the game engine.
Also adding another 4GB of ram isn't useful.. all versions of Windows limit usermode apps (re: games) to 2GB of addressable RAM. 2GB fits into 4GB as easily as 2GB fits into 8GB - RAM is only workspace and once you have enough workspace adding more doesn't help.
GTA IV and Dragon Age are 2 games that use 4 cores very well. In fact in Dragon Age a $75 Athlon II X3 435 crushes the $170 Core2Duo E8600 because of the extra cores.
The one big standout is the Phenom II X2 555 which performs the same or better than the X3 710 and X3 720 even in multi-core games because of the much higher clock, but Core2Duo vs Core2Quad is generally half and half depending on the game engine.
Also adding another 4GB of ram isn't useful.. all versions of Windows limit usermode apps (re: games) to 2GB of addressable RAM. 2GB fits into 4GB as easily as 2GB fits into 8GB - RAM is only workspace and once you have enough workspace adding more doesn't help.
Yeah, maybe. But if he's going to upgrade for the sake of maxing out his board, then he's throwing money away. He already has a quad core and more than enough memory. If he were to upgrade, he should go i7 or go home
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
overclock your cpu to 3ghz after sticking a decent cooler on it and get either a 5850 or 5870
you'll see quite a good boost in performance
i7 920@3.6ghz//Titan fenrir//asus p6t se//6gb patriot viper pc3-12800//powercolour hd5970//CM-690// OCZ ModXStream Pro 700w//500gb WD caviar black and 500gb WD caviar blue//3x 24" monitors running in eyefinity
With 4 GB of RAM and a Quad Core, he is not going to see much of a difference (if any) from Windows Vista to Windows 7. Upgrading his video card is his most cost effective means of increasing his performance. A 9800 GT is not a bad card. I would recommend holding off until the ATI 5800s drop in price. If you are hell bent on upgrading your video card, you might want to try the 5770. It has about the same performance as the 260, but it is a later generation and $30 cheaper.
"Those who dislike things based only on the fact that they are popular are just as shallow and superficial as those who only like them for the same reason."
With 4 GB of RAM and a Quad Core, he is not going to see much of a difference (if any) from Windows Vista to Windows 7. Upgrading his video card is his most cost effective means of increasing his performance. A 9800 GT is not a bad card. I would recommend holding off until the ATI 5800s drop in price. If you are hell bent on upgrading your video card, you might want to try the 5770. It has about the same performance as the 260, but it is a later generation and $30 cheaper.
Has AMD's video-card manufacuring quality improved? I had three new ATI cards burn out on me and I swore off of them entirely. (I am very much an nVidia fan) Also, I recommend Intel chips over AMD because they couldn't compete (at all) with the Cre2duo and Quad Core. Have they released new architecture? Is it comparable with the i7?
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire