 |
|  |
 |
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
Your comp isn't top-of-the-line, but it isn't that bad yet.
Yup, the processor is definitely the weak link now. The graphic card isn't the best, but it's still able to handle most of what is done today.
What you will upgrade depends mainly about the kind of upgrade you wish to do.
If you wish to just get some more power to make your computer last a bit longer, but no more, then just changing your CPU (a 2400+ or 2500+ would do the trick, and is dirt cheap by now) will do.
If you wish to get a good PC right now by changing all that isn't that great, then you could get a GF 5900 XT and a 3000+ (or a 2500+, it would still run pretty well and be less costly), both very efficient and still in the medium prices.
In all cases, I would advise to get a new HD. Their prices have dropped nearly to the ground these days, and you can find a good 160 Go for less than 130 $.
And yes, you CAN change the CPU and the motherboard without reinstalling Windows, but well, I would not advise it. Not that it will do harmful things to the comp, but it's usually a bit messy in the OS after that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sava
I currently have:
Athlon XP 1700+
512 meg RAM
GeForce 4 Ti4200 128meg vid card
3 Hard-drives for a total of 60 Gig
I'm noticing my PC isn't performing as great as it was a few years ago when I built this PC (duh). With Doom3 and Half-Life 2 coming out, I wish to have optimal performance without having to change a lot of my hardware. I've come to the conclusion that my processor is my weak link. I also plan on getting more RAM, but I have two questions.
1. Is my processor the weak link of my system in terms of overall performance?
2. Can I buy a new motherboard and processor and install them without having to format a hard-drive and install Windows XP again?
I'd also like to hear some other recommendations about upgrading my PC... perhaps some processor recommendations. Currently, I'm considering another AMD processor because cost/performance edge that AMD processors have with their Intel equivalents. I haven't been keeping up with the latest prices, so if I am wrong in my assumption, please correct me.
Also, if I upgrade my processor, I don't want to get the absolute top of the line because of the cost. I'd prefer to get a processor that is like 1 to 2 steps behind the top of the line.
Thanks in advance. |
1) We don't know what speed your hard disks are... but I bet, considering the sizing (3 totalling 60 megs) they are 5400RPM models. These will be slow and have tiny amounts of cache. A nice spiffy new WD with 8 meg will give you the most significant speed increase in the system overall... HD's access speeds are judged in micro, not nano seconds. This would be my first choice.
A Western Digital Raptor WD740GD (10k rpm SATA drive, and you'd obviously need an SATA controller as well as the drive) would be nice... but almost any 7200rpm 8mb cache IDE drive will be nice (in comparison to what you have.) Look at the leaderboard at storagereview.com. They are the hard disk geeks.
2) The rest isn't terrible... (although what speed is that DDR ram... it IS DDR, right?) but if you want to run the latest FPS's you'll probably be better off with a graphics card upgrade... since typically that is the component with the most load.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sava
oh BTW, my motherboard can only handle up to Athlon XP 1800+ :/ |
I'm thinking a nice new ATI gfx card, then... if you want great FPS performance, and/or a new HD for overall performance.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
quote: Depends. What I've heard, more often than not Windows goes all bonkers with the strange new hardware and will refuse to work properly.
|
quote: I'm noticing my PC isn't performing as great as it was a few years ago |
I did this a few moths ago and had no problems at all. I did do a clean re-install but the point is, that you should be allright.
Having said that, I do advice to do a clean install, you might be pleasantly surprised about the speed increase afterwards. (btw, why are you so reluctant to do it? put cd in drive, boot-up, done)
quote: 1) We don't know what speed your hard disks are... but I bet, considering the sizing (3 totalling 60 megs) they are 5400RPM models. These will be slow and have tiny amounts of cache. A nice spiffy new WD with 8 meg will give you the most significant speed increase in the system overall... HD's access speeds are judged in micro, not nano seconds. This would be my first choice.
|

Unless you have money to burn, upgrading isn't going to do you much good IMHO, at least not money-worth.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Well.. UR. All except for those HD's... they are screaming "Upgrade me", seemingly, and even games (map load times, etc) will be significantly improved in the process.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
okay, I was wrong... my BIOS does have incremental settings for my FSB... not just 100 or 133. I tried 133, it didn't like it. So I did 110, which seems to be running fine. But my clock speed (at system startup) still said 1100 MhZ... is there a way to test it in windows? maybe that thing was wrong. Strangely, when I set it at 133, it named my processor Athlon XP 1700+ at startup... it usually says 1100MhZ processor.
thanks for the input guys, I think I'm going to hold off buying anything new for the time being. I am going to tweak my stuff some more though. There were some other settings I wasn't familiar with in my "Advanced Hardware Monitor" settings in the BIOS. Let me find out what I don't know, and could someone please explain them to my dumb ass. 
One other weird thing happened, however. I remember I made a thread a while ago about my brightness being all ****ed up. Well, when I adjusted the FSB to 110, my brightness seemed to be back to normal (it was super bright when I came into windows because I had turned up the settings to compensate for the darkness I had when my FSB was 100). Does that sound strange? Why would my vid card be so affected by a small increase in FSB settings?
Thanks again you guys... you are all being very helpful to me. I am learning much from your superior intellects.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sava
okay, Control Panel > System says my processor is still 1.10 GhZ... how come this didn't change when I set the FSB to 110?
another thing, my processor temperature was 55 degrees Celsius when I set the FSB to 133. That seemed high, is it? At 100, it's usually 50 degrees Celsius. I assume the temperature was too high, causing my system to not like the FSB set at 133. |
Up to 60-65 is fine.
75 or 80 is high.
It starts to be a serious problem at 90.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
Well Sava. I kind of doubt it's the graphics card...
Because I'm using a TI 64MB and it runs just fine...
My processor is an XP2600 with 333 DDR Ram... Gives about 2GHz of raw speed.
Mind you, I haven't tried half life 2 yet.
I just don't think it's your GFX card.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|