HL2 Hardware Upgrade [need opinion]

[iamg30hd3]

From
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB ---> Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB ?
or
512MB Corsair XMS3500 ---> 1GB Corsair XMS3500 ?

Video Card upgrade? or more ram?

Thanks

 

[Neutrino]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1337

 

[ZEROarmy]

Ha! Do NOT get the 9800 Pro 256MB. It will make NO difference. Same goes for the XT.

Definitely get a gig of ram, or save for a X800.

 

[[[LuCkY]]]

From
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB ---> Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB ?
or
512MB Corsair XMS3500 ---> 1GB Corsair XMS3500 ?

Video Card upgrade? or more ram?

Thanks

How about you wait until theres A) benchmarks or B) the game is released.

:|

 

[ZEROarmy]

How about you wait until theres A) benchmarks or B) the game is released.

:|

It been known for a long time that the extra memory in the 9800 Pro will not make much of a difference.

 

[[[LuCkY]]]

It been known for a long time that the extra memory in the 9800 Pro will not make much of a difference.

It is a generic message for all those people who seem to think we know how everything is going to perform on what hardware without even playing the game or seeing any benchmarks.

 

[h4vvok]

Definately the ram, not only will you see a boost in system performance but your video card is already ready for all games coming out this year. Too little ram= performance drops. Planetside I know is a big ram user, and proof that frame rates are nice, but having enough memory to run the program is a lot more crucial . Also REMEMBER...get ram with equal speed or you will experience lots of crashes (by speed I mean DDR 2700, blah blah)

 

[h4vvok]

And Lucky, benchmarks dont show anything really...not everyone has a computer like the ones that run the benchmarks, so ram may be more important on their system than more video memory

 

[sHm0zY]

Defenetly more ram

 

[Krynn72]

Yeah, ram it up baby.

Also, because im too lazy to search, and too afraid of you guys to make a new post, im gunna ask a question in here

I have a ati radeon 9600 pro 256mb, I have a feeling that people are gunna say that an uprade to the 9800pro wont do much. Is this feeling correct? And also, if I were to get some new ram (because I think I have two different brands, which are both shitty) what brand and type should I go for? Ive got a asus A7V8X-X mobo.

 

[deathryuu]

im also in the process of upgrading...im only on a 16 year old's budget(part time job at just above minimum wage) so....

anyways im going from a

Athlon XP 1600+(1.4ghz)
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb
512MB(2 sticks of 256) DDR PC2100

to

Athlon XP 2400+(2.0ghz)
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb
1GB DDR(2 sticks of 256 and 1 512) PC2100

i know its not much but im on a limited budget so i cant afford the best of the best video card and CPU, or else i would be getting a Athlon 64 FX-51 and Radeon X800 XT blah blah 512mb.

 

[yadalogo]

Actually Ram has nothing to do with fps in any game at all! The more ram u have the quicker the loading times are, it doesnt increase ur fps or visual quality. The two main things to worry about when upgrading are getting a good CPU or Video card. And even gabe him self said that higher memry memeory on cards will show a significant increase in performence in hl2. Id also recomend upgrading to a processor 2.0 ghz or more! im set with my radeon 9800xt 256 mb (with Hl2 coupon ) and Amd Athlon 3000+ mghz (2.2 ghz) CPU and 512 ram. Im thinking of getting another 512 when hl2 is out. :upstare:

 

[Agent.M]

Im about to buy a new system but cant decide which to get Im a big gamer and want to run halflife 2 the best which would you guys go with?

P4 3.2
1024 DDR2 pc4300 Ram
x800 xt 256mb PCI EXPRESS
or
AMD64 fx-53
1024 DDR pc 3200
x800 xt 256mb

 

[deathryuu]

if i had to decide i'd go with the athlon 64 config since athlon 64 is better for gaming.

 

[Buckyfg]

RAM can increase FPS because it can save you from having to load in textures constantly and slow down your machine.

I'm pretty sure thats the case, I had a very noticable increase in FPS and smoothness when I went from 512ram to 1gig.

 

[ShadowFox]

Indeed. RAM definately has an impact on the speed the game runs. If you don't believe that, take a stick of RAM out of your system and see how well games perform.

 

[h4vvok]

Yea...most don't realize FPS isn't all dependant on videocard....oh and the loading times are primarily effected by CD-ROM speed, HD speed (in RPMs and the buffer size), and CPU speed....as in yadalogo you have no idea what you are talking about.

And Machine, I myself think Athlon FX processors aren't all they are hyped to be...they wont be real useful until applications start using the 64bit advantage. I'd take a Pentium 4 over an Athlon anything anyday, since Pentium 4s are overclockable, have good stock cooling (I mean hell they have a heat reduction system integrated into the processor), and are overall great for virtually anything, from gaming to applications.

 

[Agent.M]

And Machine, I myself think Athlon FX processors aren't all they are hyped to be...they wont be real useful until applications start using the 64bit advantage. I'd take a Pentium 4 over an Athlon anything anyday, since Pentium 4s are overclockable, have good stock cooling (I mean hell they have a heat reduction system integrated into the processor), and are overall great for virtually anything, from gaming to applications.

Hmmmm...well shoot decisions..decisions ...most poeple have told me to go with the amd fx but the intel is a little cheaper.

 

[TheRook]

an AMD64 will serve you well. if you have the cash get the socket 939's if you are using it for gaming the 64's will do you no harm! while for application use its great too... the only major thing P4's tend to win at in benchmarks are rendering and things like that... and to be honest its only because of there higher clock speeds...

(if anyone can sit there and tell me that if an AMD64 and a p4 both had a 3ghz clock speed the AMD64 wouldnt win you must be off your rocker)

Andy

 

[h4vvok]

Thing is the AMD doesn't have a 3ghz clock speed...that and it's way overpriced considering AMD cannot decide on socket 939 or 940 (You wanna get stuck in their debate on which to use? Could effect your future of CPU upgrades...)....also with Intel they are staying with Socket 478 for awhile (the future for them is LGA775, but its not coming anytime soon)...Besides the socket stuff, Intel is more Bang for your buck...AMD is soaking up all they can out of their Athlon 64 bit processors (that are no better than a pentium 4, evenly matched in benchmarks...)

 

[RaBiD WeAzEL]

Actually, from what I've read, even if a Pentium had 3.0ghz, a AMD with 2.0 could basically match that or be even better. The deal is that the AMD technology is better in that it gets more/better use out of the power that it's got... I believe what I read was almost 2x the normal speed because if can process so well... I dunno though, I'm new to the hardware stuff... I'm getting a new computer for Half-Life 2 too, and there are tough decisions... I'm 15 and have a low budget too. meh, I'm gettin' a AMD Athlon64 3200+ Processor my my machine.

Good luck makin' decisions guys!

 

[Asus]

Yea...most don't realize FPS isn't all dependant on videocard....oh and the loading times are primarily effected by CD-ROM speed, HD speed (in RPMs and the buffer size), and CPU speed....as in yadalogo you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yeah, thats true!

I'd take a Pentium 4 over an Athlon anything anyday, since Pentium 4s are overclockable, have good stock cooling (I mean hell they have a heat reduction system integrated into the processor), and are overall great for virtually anything, from gaming to applications.

A64's are quite OCable. My 2GHz CPU can run at 2.4GHz and since AMD isn't all about MHz that actually is a huge speed boost for stock cooling and voltages. BTW Not only do A64's have good cooling too, they also actually run cool. They aren't completely locked like the LGA775 CPUs either. I would say the same thing about A64's, "are overall great for virtually anything, from gaming to applications.". Actually, from my experience P4s have to be optmized and require good system parts (RAM-dual channel and timings) before they can perform at their best for a great number of apps.
Athlons have been great about giving performance out of the box.

 

[Azrael.]

AMD is definitely better for gaming. And for everything, I just got a 3800+ and I love it. I agree with Asus.

You should just bust out a X800 XT and another stick of XMS... This is no regular upgrade, this is a huge jump. If it were a small difference it wouldnt be such a big deal, but the X800 XT can double the 9800 XT at some points. Just go all out, and you will be set for a while...

 

[wayne white]

i got a motherboard with a intel celeron socket,can i upgrade my processor?

 

[Asus]

Just your CPU? It's possble. Make sure it's Socket 478 and go to the manufacture's website to check out what the top Model CPU your board can handle.

Otherwise you can speed ~$100 more and get a board and CPU of your choice.

 

[h4vvok]

AMD Athlon 64s are good, yea, but Pentium 4s still perform a tad better in most applications and games. You want the benchmarks? The P4 is BARELY ahead, but it's still ahead of the Athlon 64 ....and the best of the best Athlon 64s wont be around long, same with the P4 Extreme Editions. Those are actually SERVER quality CPUs, but both Intel and AMD are trying a marketing technique known as the halo effect..pretty soon AMD will start phasing out their slower chips in the 64 bit line...so onsumers will never be able to buy the second fastest versions at a lower price.
Also...Intel is expected to roll out 64 bit versions of the Pentium 4 soon, and even Dual-Core CPUs (those can be expected to debut in 2005)....so Intel is catching up with AMD again .

 

[Asus]

AMD Athlon 64s are good, yea, but Pentium 4s still perform a tad better in most applications and games. You want the benchmarks? The P4 is BARELY ahead, but it's still ahead of the Athlon 64 ....and the best of the best Athlon 64s wont be around long, same with the P4 Extreme Editions. Those are actually SERVER quality CPUs, but both Intel and AMD are trying a marketing technique known as the halo effect..pretty soon AMD will start phasing out their slower chips in the 64 bit line...so onsumers will never be able to buy the second fastest versions at a lower price.

You really think all that?
The Northwood core 'C' (800FSB) was a great CPU and had an advantage over the Athlon XP. The P4 EE CPUs are on the way out because they are a Northwood core with L3 cache. Northwoods are no longer in the making.
Prescott's focus is to save Intel money (90nm) and further increase the speed to reach 4GHz, it's focus is not performance. Longer pipeline and a slow L3 cache to attempt to cover up and save performance. As a consumer product (BestBuy costomers) Intel's prescott and platform will make money. As a CPU, it is a disapointment.

Athlon 64 FX will always be AMD's top Desktop CPU model with both 1MB L2 Cache and Dual Channel memory with an unlocked multiplyer.

The P4 do excel in some applications that take advantage of HT fully but the majority of these simply require time (in seconds/mins) to accomplish. Only if I was paid to use these applications on the job would I consider the P4's advantage here.

Games 1 2 3 4 5

Buisness , Content Creation and Multitasking benchmarks 1 2

Audio+video 1 2 3 4
Adobe Photoshop Chart Link
Workstation round-up

Also...Intel is expected to roll out 64 bit versions of the Pentium 4 soon

They already have launched 'Nocona' Xeon CPUs but it is server only and hardly available. It was a quiet (paper) launch complete with rumors of poor execution. 32bit performance Now only if they would test real server benchmarks. 1 2
Desktop is a last priority and probably won't be on store shelves until next year. There is speculation that Desktop chips will come soon but Intel has said they won't release a 64bit enabled P4 in retail with the 'absence of proper 64-bit operating system and drivers for desktop computers' and have said 'We expect to see comprehensive 64-bit support int he Longhorn timeframe'.

and even Dual-Core CPUs (those can be expected to debut in 2005)....so Intel is catching up with AMD again .

Yep, catching up.
AMD also expects Dual Core next year. Except they have already taped-out (sent it to the fabs) as of June. Link
Intel has not reported if their Dual Core has taped out yet.
I bet Intel's Server CPUs will get Dual Core first. Although they should have their entire line Dual Core by the end of 2005.

Really, it only took me 10 mins to write that up. Ok 15.