Most bang for buck?

phekko · Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 1:36 pm Post subject: Most bang for buck?

I've got a low budget here, but I thought that I'd upgrade my comp a bit. I know I got a shortage of memory, only got 256 and am planning to upgrade that to 512 for something like $55 now. I got me a GF4200ti with 64M and have been quite happy with that. Gaming is ok and the TVOut rocks. I looked at GFX card prices and you can get a GF5600 for like $100. Think I should get that or just forget about it and get a DVD roaster or new HD instead?

In other words what I'd like to know is if the performance boost from 4200 to 5600 (or it might have been 5700, I don't remember) is worth 100 bucks or not.

Oh, and here's my processor in case you're wondering:
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 6
model : 8
model name : AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2400+
stepping : 1
cpu MHz : 2001.026
cache size : 256 KB

neilhwatson · l33t Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Posts: 719 Location: Canada

It all depends on what you do with your computer. If you mostly game then memory and a new graphics card may be in order. Do you notice any performance issues now? If so, what are they? If not, why upgrade?
_________________
The true guru is a teacher.
Neil Watson

Aman9090 · Apprentice Joined: 04 Nov 2003 Posts: 234

Agree. Only upgrade when you feel the need to do so, when the games you play start lagging horribly and not playing at the customized graphics levels you want them to.

I went from a Radeon 8500 64mb to a GeForce FX 5700 256mb last upgrade. I was astounded by the difference. The Linux support was GREAT compared to the ATI stupport, which was my main reason for upgrading. Additionally, however, the performance was much better... Max Payne 2 ran flawlessly (yes, IN LINUX! WineX).

Hard drive won't get you faster game speeds, but if you get one of those new 10k SATA drives on your new system, you'll see a huge speed increase for one.

The main two parts that "hardcore gamers" want to upgrade frequently are the Processor and the Graphics Card.

LinuxRocks · Guru Joined: 27 Nov 2003 Posts: 397 Location: New Mexico

What ever you do , and its your desision, but dont get the 5600... I have one of those with 256 megs ram and my TI4200 blows it away.

Just as an example, glxgears on my TI4200 was over 3500. With the FX 5600, it was a little above 1800. Now, I dont know about the 5700, but if I were you, and I know I'm not, I would save a little more and get a 5900 or 5950 when they drop in price a little...

Just my 2 cents

Joe

blueworm · l33t Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 962

Stay with the Ti4200 Its the best bang for the buck.
I upgraded from a Ti4200 to a FX5900 and at normal resolutions performance is similar.
The FX5900 will only blow it away when using AA and AF and at higher
resolutions.

LinuxRocks · Guru Joined: 27 Nov 2003 Posts: 397 Location: New Mexico

WOW... Thats interesting...

What about other games, like ET or RTCW. Was the 5900 better there?

Thanks!!

Joe

phekko · Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 5:57 pm Post subject:

blueworm · l33t Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 962

IMHO this is true for most games. What you are paying for In these newer cards is Image quality not frames per second.

blueworm · l33t Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 962

phekko · Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 6:19 pm Post subject:

No, I haven't. Guess I should. Just sorta grown accustomed to Gnome.