Looking for some opinions

gibbon565 · Aug 4, 2004, 05:16 PM

My current spec is the same as the on in my Sig ... Now I was wondering if I would see a notable difference going from my 1600XP to say a 2400XP or 2600XP. It may sound like a stupid qustion, but that is the max my current mobo can support NV7-133R and I really just want a cheap update for HL2.

Thanks
Andy

EDIT: I rarely play games above 1024 by 768

Logla · Aug 4, 2004, 05:43 PM

Moved to Technology Discussion & Support.

Best discussed over here.

You should notice a difference but how much I dont know - I'm not really an AMD man. Whether it would make a noticable difference to HL2 is another question.

gibbon565 · Aug 4, 2004, 07:18 PM

Thanks for your reply and sorry for posting in the wrong section

I just dont feel that my 1.4 ghz will be fast enought to run HL2 smoothly with things turned up. My current processor is hovering around the min spec for HL2 but the 2400+ (being around the 2ghz) is the recommended.

**MIG-31** · Aug 4, 2004, 07:25 PM

personally i think that is a choice you can take by yourself,but in my opinion going to a higher spec cpu should help dramatically.to me a 1.4ghz is still ok for a rig but that extra mhz should be noticeable.

(did not notice the user name but i thought i were talking to no_style)

The_Neon_Cowboy · Aug 4, 2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibbon565
Thanks for your reply and sorry for posting in the wrong section I just dont feel that my 1.4 ghz will be fast enought to run HL2 smoothly with things turned up. My current processor is hovering around the min spec for HL2 but the 2400+ (being around the 2ghz) is the recommended.

does you board supprt 333 fsb? I suggest a 2500+(1.83) @ say 2800 (2.08ghz)

(I'll have one fore sale in about mounth or two... mabe alot sooner depending how my cash flow goes)

gibbon565 · Aug 4, 2004, 07:33 PM

Yeah he asked to use my avatar when he joined the forum and I said sure as he said that he was going to put his own twist on it and I guess he did

At the moment I'm perfectly happy with my rig, the only reason I was considering the update was for Half-life 2. Doom 3 suprising ran ok on my machine. I was able to get it running pretty smooth at 800 by 600 on high detail. Obviously it meant I couldn't have AA and AF and I guess that also had something to do with me wanting to update. I might look into the Barton or AMD 64 option instead as it is more of a long term option.

Thanks again
Andy

gibbon565 · Aug 4, 2004, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
does you board supprt 333 fsb? I suggest a 2500+(1.83) @ say 2800 (2.08ghz)

(I'll have one fore sale in about mounth or two... mabe alot sooner depending how my cash flow goes)

I might be interested in that Neon, though unfortunately my mobo does not support 333 fsb as it is a lowly original Nforce. (as you can see its been while since my last update) If I'am mistaken about this then plz tell me

my mobo being a ABit NV7- 133R.

Jazzyjazz2004 · Aug 4, 2004, 07:50 PM

YES... you will DEFINITELY notice increased fps. One reason, the increased cpu speed... the other, that 9600 graphics card has more headroom to give up for the faster cpu. The increase will be VISUALLY noticeable.

Also, IF your bios supposrts overclocking... you may not have to upgrade the cpu... just the COOLING solution. (This also assumes your RAM can contribute a taste or not.)

I've got to update my specs, but for your information... I am running AMD 2500+ MOBILE cpu at 12*210@1.825V=2520. I "side-graded" from a DESKTOP Athlon XP 2500 cpu, running at 11*210@1.775=2310 and I notice the difference that extra 210 Mhz makes. You MIGHT consider an AMD MOBILE because they run at lower DEFAULT core voltages than the desktop models, hence, MORE room for voltage increases during overclocking.

Jazz

gibbon565 · Aug 4, 2004, 08:44 PM

Thanks for throwing some more ideas around for me jazz

... really I have two options: 1) Go for the cheaper option and just get a 2400 XP for the time being which I think will be enough for my needs as I rarely play about 1024 rez(I would rather play 800 by 600 with anti-aliasing) 2)Or go for a cpu and mobo upgrade as my mobo doesn't support 333 fsb.

I think what I might do is go for the 2400XP and then some time after the year I'll go for a full system update.

I dont think OC is really much of an option since my mobo is suited for it unfortunately

300 posts

(took a while)

Judas · Aug 4, 2004, 11:16 PM

i've got an 1600+ xp cpu sitting here actually.. in my server rig... although it produces a good results... moving from a 1600+ to even a 2500+ barton preduces some amazing results... in some places double ....

gibbon565 · Aug 5, 2004, 12:40 AM

Yeah I like the idea of the Barton 2500 but as I said unfortunately my mobo doesn't support it. Is a 2500 Barton alot faster than say a 2400/2600 thoroughbred ?? as to go for the barton would mean a mobo update also.

pr0digal jenius · Aug 5, 2004, 12:50 AM

to be perfectly honest...i'd try OCing another 100MHz or maybe even 200MHz out of what you have, and just waiting a while for when you upgrade you entire system (mobo, RAM, CPU, etc)

Jazzyjazz2004 · Aug 5, 2004, 01:53 AM

"Yeah I like the idea of the Barton 2500 but as I said unfortunately my mobo doesn't support it. Is a 2500 Barton alot faster than say a 2400/2600 thoroughbred ?? as to go for the barton would mean a mobo update also."

Well, yes... a 2500 Barton is faster than a 2400 just by virtue of faster speed. Is it faster than a 2600 Thoroughbred??? My opinion... it is at least as fast because of the additional 256k in the cache (256k for 2400 versus 512 in 2500 Barton.)

The question you might want to consider asking is "Which cpu will overclock the best?" Recall the days of the AMD 1700 (JIU... series) that ran in the 2.4 Ghz range. It was more advantageous to buy the "lower" speed 1700 cpu and then to overclock it rather than buying an AMD 2000 cpu.

Out of the chips you mention... the 2500+Barton is the best bet because of its renowned overclockability (provided you buy one that is not locked).

"I think what I might do is go for the 2400XP and then some time after the year I'll go for a full system update."

I think that this is your best option... save your cash because the AMD 64 754 pin chip is past it's heyday (no hoots here, please). It has yielded to the AMD 64 939 pin cpu and AMD has already dropped prices... it won't be long till I can afford one... smiles. You will be happy with the results of the 2400, it will satisfy your current needs.

By the way... for inexpensive motherboards... try www.newegg.com and select the REFURBISHED link. I have purchased several of these FACTORY recertified boards and have NEVER had a problem. I have seen some NICE boards going for as low as $19.00. Besides, these boards still can be RMA'd to the manufacturer because they are still under warranty.

swimtech · Aug 5, 2004, 02:23 AM

The math...with some thoughtful guesswork...

Considering that your 9700 should scale well playing at 1024x768 and less, and using the percentage difference in speed rating (1600 vs 2400) which is a 50% CPU increase, you should see roughly a 20% (could be 30%, maybe, in some games) increase in gaming speed for the new stuff - which includes HL2 - taking into account some limiting because of your 9700.

Read an article at Anand's that looked at scaling for Doom 3 on various processors with two different video cards that allows me to give an educated guesstimate of what you might expect - actually listed in today's news on DH's home page:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2149

Nice article if you haven't read it already...

Considering that the price of the 2400 processor is $75.00 (retail, w/fan) it may be worthwhile to you, or not, for that increase. It's your call...

The last upgrade I did was go from a Duron 750 to the Athlon 1.2 (essentially a 100% increase) in the home unit below for 55.00 - then I got a 30%+ increase in gaming speed (and my card is nothing near yours) - I was a happy camper...

gibbon565 · Aug 5, 2004, 02:35 AM

Yeah that was a nice link swimtech. I'd just like to say thanks for all the feedback guys

... I'll let you know how it goes. Though a 20 - 30 % increase in performance sounds nice.

Aug 4, 2004, 05:16 PM	#1
gibbon565 Bouncy BOUNCY! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 316 Rep Power: 0	Looking for some opinions My current spec is the same as the on in my Sig ... Now I was wondering if I would see a notable difference going from my 1600XP to say a 2400XP or 2600XP. It may sound like a stupid qustion, but that is the max my current mobo can support NV7-133R and I really just want a cheap update for HL2. Thanks Andy EDIT: I rarely play games above 1024 by 768 __________________ 3500 x64 ASRock Dual Sata 2 7900 GTO 512 1 gig OCUK HANNS-H HW13D Last edited by gibbon565; Aug 4, 2004 at 05:25 PM.

Aug 4, 2004, 07:18 PM	Thread Starter #3
gibbon565 Bouncy BOUNCY! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 316 Rep Power: 0	Thanks for your reply and sorry for posting in the wrong section I just dont feel that my 1.4 ghz will be fast enought to run HL2 smoothly with things turned up. My current processor is hovering around the min spec for HL2 but the 2400+ (being around the 2ghz) is the recommended. __________________ 3500 x64 ASRock Dual Sata 2 7900 GTO 512 1 gig OCUK HANNS-H HW13D

Aug 4, 2004, 07:25 PM	#4
MIG-31 HardwareHeaven News Mod Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Nottingham,UK Posts: 56,818 Rep Power: 471 System Specs	personally i think that is a choice you can take by yourself,but in my opinion going to a higher spec cpu should help dramatically.to me a 1.4ghz is still ok for a rig but that extra mhz should be noticeable. (did not notice the user name but i thought i were talking to no_style) __________________ Please Post Your News Submissions Here

Aug 4, 2004, 07:33 PM	Thread Starter #6
gibbon565 Bouncy BOUNCY! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 316 Rep Power: 0	Yeah he asked to use my avatar when he joined the forum and I said sure as he said that he was going to put his own twist on it and I guess he did At the moment I'm perfectly happy with my rig, the only reason I was considering the update was for Half-life 2. Doom 3 suprising ran ok on my machine. I was able to get it running pretty smooth at 800 by 600 on high detail. Obviously it meant I couldn't have AA and AF and I guess that also had something to do with me wanting to update. I might look into the Barton or AMD 64 option instead as it is more of a long term option. Thanks again Andy __________________ 3500 x64 ASRock Dual Sata 2 7900 GTO 512 1 gig OCUK HANNS-H HW13D

Aug 4, 2004, 07:50 PM	#8
Jazzyjazz2004 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 64 Rep Power: 0	YES... you will DEFINITELY notice increased fps. One reason, the increased cpu speed... the other, that 9600 graphics card has more headroom to give up for the faster cpu. The increase will be VISUALLY noticeable. Also, IF your bios supposrts overclocking... you may not have to upgrade the cpu... just the COOLING solution. (This also assumes your RAM can contribute a taste or not.) I've got to update my specs, but for your information... I am running AMD 2500+ MOBILE cpu at 12210@1.825V=2520. I "side-graded" from a DESKTOP Athlon XP 2500 cpu, running at 11210@1.775=2310 and I notice the difference that extra 210 Mhz makes. You MIGHT consider an AMD MOBILE because they run at lower DEFAULT core voltages than the desktop models, hence, MORE room for voltage increases during overclocking. Jazz __________________ nVidia 5900 XT @ 351\303,Abit NF7-2 Rev. 2, Athlon XP 2500 MOBILE @ 210*12@1.825V = 2520 Mhz, SLK-947-U HS, 512 MB Corsair 3000 ddr @ 210 Mhz, 200 GB Western Digital SATA, Lite On Cd-Rw/DvD Combo Drive, Antec TruPower 480W PS

Aug 4, 2004, 05:43 PM	#2
Logla HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,311 Rep Power: 0	Moved to Technology Discussion & Support. Best discussed over here. You should notice a difference but how much I dont know - I'm not really an AMD man. Whether it would make a noticable difference to HL2 is another question.

Aug 4, 2004, 08:44 PM	Thread Starter #9
gibbon565 Bouncy BOUNCY! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 316 Rep Power: 0	Thanks for throwing some more ideas around for me jazz ... really I have two options: 1) Go for the cheaper option and just get a 2400 XP for the time being which I think will be enough for my needs as I rarely play about 1024 rez(I would rather play 800 by 600 with anti-aliasing) 2)Or go for a cpu and mobo upgrade as my mobo doesn't support 333 fsb. I think what I might do is go for the 2400XP and then some time after the year I'll go for a full system update. I dont think OC is really much of an option since my mobo is suited for it unfortunately 300 posts (took a while) __________________ 3500 x64 ASRock Dual Sata 2 7900 GTO 512 1 gig OCUK HANNS-H HW13D

Aug 5, 2004, 12:40 AM	Thread Starter #11
gibbon565 Bouncy BOUNCY! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 316 Rep Power: 0	Yeah I like the idea of the Barton 2500 but as I said unfortunately my mobo doesn't support it. Is a 2500 Barton alot faster than say a 2400/2600 thoroughbred ?? as to go for the barton would mean a mobo update also. __________________ 3500 x64 ASRock Dual Sata 2 7900 GTO 512 1 gig OCUK HANNS-H HW13D

Aug 5, 2004, 12:50 AM	#12
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	to be perfectly honest...i'd try OCing another 100MHz or maybe even 200MHz out of what you have, and just waiting a while for when you upgrade you entire system (mobo, RAM, CPU, etc)

Aug 5, 2004, 01:53 AM	#13
Jazzyjazz2004 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 64 Rep Power: 0	"Yeah I like the idea of the Barton 2500 but as I said unfortunately my mobo doesn't support it. Is a 2500 Barton alot faster than say a 2400/2600 thoroughbred ?? as to go for the barton would mean a mobo update also." Well, yes... a 2500 Barton is faster than a 2400 just by virtue of faster speed. Is it faster than a 2600 Thoroughbred??? My opinion... it is at least as fast because of the additional 256k in the cache (256k for 2400 versus 512 in 2500 Barton.) The question you might want to consider asking is "Which cpu will overclock the best?" Recall the days of the AMD 1700 (JIU... series) that ran in the 2.4 Ghz range. It was more advantageous to buy the "lower" speed 1700 cpu and then to overclock it rather than buying an AMD 2000 cpu. Out of the chips you mention... the 2500+Barton is the best bet because of its renowned overclockability (provided you buy one that is not locked). "I think what I might do is go for the 2400XP and then some time after the year I'll go for a full system update." I think that this is your best option... save your cash because the AMD 64 754 pin chip is past it's heyday (no hoots here, please). It has yielded to the AMD 64 939 pin cpu and AMD has already dropped prices... it won't be long till I can afford one... smiles. You will be happy with the results of the 2400, it will satisfy your current needs. By the way... for inexpensive motherboards... try www.newegg.com and select the REFURBISHED link. I have purchased several of these FACTORY recertified boards and have NEVER had a problem. I have seen some NICE boards going for as low as $19.00. Besides, these boards still can be RMA'd to the manufacturer because they are still under warranty. __________________ nVidia 5900 XT @ 351\303,Abit NF7-2 Rev. 2, Athlon XP 2500 MOBILE @ 210*12@1.825V = 2520 Mhz, SLK-947-U HS, 512 MB Corsair 3000 ddr @ 210 Mhz, 200 GB Western Digital SATA, Lite On Cd-Rw/DvD Combo Drive, Antec TruPower 480W PS

Aug 5, 2004, 02:23 AM	#14
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	The math...with some thoughtful guesswork... Considering that your 9700 should scale well playing at 1024x768 and less, and using the percentage difference in speed rating (1600 vs 2400) which is a 50% CPU increase, you should see roughly a 20% (could be 30%, maybe, in some games) increase in gaming speed for the new stuff - which includes HL2 - taking into account some limiting because of your 9700. Read an article at Anand's that looked at scaling for Doom 3 on various processors with two different video cards that allows me to give an educated guesstimate of what you might expect - actually listed in today's news on DH's home page: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2149 Nice article if you haven't read it already... Considering that the price of the 2400 processor is $75.00 (retail, w/fan) it may be worthwhile to you, or not, for that increase. It's your call... The last upgrade I did was go from a Duron 750 to the Athlon 1.2 (essentially a 100% increase) in the home unit below for 55.00 - then I got a 30%+ increase in gaming speed (and my card is nothing near yours) - I was a happy camper... __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Aug 5, 2004, 02:35 AM	Thread Starter #15
gibbon565 Bouncy BOUNCY! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 316 Rep Power: 0	Yeah that was a nice link swimtech. I'd just like to say thanks for all the feedback guys ... I'll let you know how it goes. Though a 20 - 30 % increase in performance sounds nice. __________________ 3500 x64 ASRock Dual Sata 2 7900 GTO 512 1 gig OCUK HANNS-H HW13D