Posts by Coconut Monkey

If you plan to move to a new, high end motherboard, you'll need a new CPU and RAM to go with it (and more than likely a new power supply as well). The chipsets and sockets (where the CPU plugs in) on motherboards have changed many times since the Celeron 766, so any up-to-date upgrade you plan will result in many components being replaced.

If you just want a new motherboard for your 766 Celeron, then there isn't much point, because it won't give you more than a couple of extra frames per second in games. The motherboard just provides a means to connect everything in a PC together, allow communication between them, and maybe throw in the odd extra feature here and there (overclocking, onboard sound/video/network, etc). Of course, newer motherboards are considerably faster, but you need the newer and faster compatible components to make use of the speed!

the model is intel(R)Celeron, manufacturer is Asus, the speed is 768Mhz, im still working on finding out the wattage, on the PSU its says something like "maximum continous output power 100w"

If your CPU is really a 766Mhz Celeron, then your new 6800GT will be severely bottlenecked by it (i.e. you're plugging a V8 engine into a small plastic hatchback). The card might be incompatible with your motherboard's AGP slot (if you have one), if it is AGP2X (AGP1.0) only. Finally, your power supply is far too underpowered (if indeed it is 100W) to provide juice to something like the 6800GT (I would be using a 350W+ PSU).

Sorry to say this moderate_rock, but buying a 6800GT with that system you have now is not a good idea. I would be coupling a 2Ghz+ system with a card like that. If you can't afford a complete upgrade, consider a Geforce 3/4 or Radeon 9200 card instead. Nice and cheap, and you should get a good performance increase in many older 3D games.

Otherwise, it's time to start saving!

If Junior89 wants to play Doom 3 with an acceptable level of image quality and a decent framerate, then a FX5200 is not the card to buy!

What is your system? More importantly, your motherboard and the wattage of your power supply unit (PSU).

I'm curious here, Zachary. The only real way to test is to benchmark the system with AGP set to AGP 8X, then change the setting in BIOS to AGP 4X, reboot and benchmark again. I've never seen a motherboard produce appreciable difference when tested that way.

Agreed. Your large performance increase could not have come from an increase in AGP transfer speeds (mind you, there probably are exceptions!). If you check that link I provided, you'll find benchmarks that prove this (as well as links to previous benchmarks on older, slower cards).

I'll even give it a whirl myself, if need be (9800 Pro). :cheesy:

Actually it does, there is a much higher ammount of data that can be transfered in 8x when compared to 4x, Ive seen it personaly. We moved my friend from a motherboard with 4x to one that supported 8x. the improvement in game play was fantastic.

Actually, it doesn't! Your perceived performance increase came from another source. Either the old motherboard was slow, had poor drivers, or you stuck in some new, faster components (like a new CPU or RAM).

Gaming performance will only differ by a few frames per second.

I'm 99% sure you have a system that uses SD-RAM.

I'm 75% sure you can just buy a decent brand-name stick of PC-133 SD-RAM and put it in.

I'm 90% sure that your system will take single sided sticks (the RAM chips are only on one side) up to 128Mb.

But to be 100% sure about everything, it would be best to know what motherboard you have there!

It's late, so excuse me for being inept!! I thought the apature couldn't exeed the RAM on the Video Card, or it could only be half the VC RAM. I can't remember off-hand and don't feel like looking it up to re-assure myself!!!

The AGP aperture size should only be set to a maximum of 128Mb in most situations.

Mixing different speeds of RAM can work just fine - mixing brands is another story! You've also got to ensure that both sticks can run at the same memory timings (timings are basically an indication of how fast a stick of RAM responds to, say, a request to transfer some data - the lower the better).

You might also find that PC2100 and PC2700 RAM is more expensive than PC3200 (or the price difference is very small), being outdated and all. A PC3200 stick would work just fine, and you could carry it across to a new system in the future if you so desired.

To further confuse you, PC2100 DDR RAM actually runs at 133Mhz, but due to the way Double Data Rate RAM works (2 operations per clock-cycle), it's rated at 266Mhz. PC2700 runs at 166Mhz, which is effectively 333Mhz.

It could help. All kinds of grief can occur if you don't uninstall old drivers, especially if the previous video card chipset was made by a competitor!

It's a good idea to start afresh (format or a clean install of Windows) when installing a new video card, if you want trouble-free operation.

Do you have the latest drivers for your card (www.ati.com) and Directx 9.0c (www.microsoft.com/directx) installed? Make sure you remove the previous drivers from Add/Remove Programs before installing the new ones.

If you have an add-in display card, then the system RAM CANNOT be shared! In fact, if you have an add-in card then the Shared RAM function should be disabled, or set to the lowest amount possible if there is no option to disable it.

You can specify the AGP Aperture size though, which is the amount of system RAM that can be used should the video card run out of its own memory. Should this occur though, it will result in a noticable performance drop (since video card memory is a LOT faster).

As you know by now I am getting a AMD 64 3400+ well I was wonderng if the AMD 64 3400+ is really powerful enough to help my 9600XT acheive 100FPS in some games.

I am upgrading the 9600XT to a 6800Gt but probaly not for another few months.

I think it's more a case of your 9600XT being the bottleneck, rather than the CPU. Whether or not you can achieve 100fps depends on the game. In games that use the Quake 2 and 3 engines, this would be easily achievable. In a newer game, such as Unreal Tournament 2004, you'd struggle to get close without sacrificing graphics detail.

yes i know that but I am asking this because I dont know if since it runs at 10Hz lower at max resolution it might have to run at 75Hz on 1200x1024 jeez, I didnt know if 75Hz was max or just max at that resolution. I never said I would be running a game at max resolution. because i rather get doom 3 for 8 more bucks then 54 because commandos 3 doesnt look all that great.

I'm sorry for assuming otherwise rc. I'm only trying to help! The refresh rate described is only for that ridiculously high resolution. Lower resolutions will have much higher refresh rates.

and a question for someone else

Am I not allowed to try? :(

is there any major common problem either either XFX or eVGA cards I should now about?
Like is one brand better then the other?

Most card manufacturers follow the chipset maker's reference design, so performance will be near identical. The differences usually lie in the type of cooling (silent, double height) and RAM chips (may be higher-rated leaving room for overclocking) used. I'd just go for the Doom 3 package.

What you need to ask yourself is whether you'll actually be playing a game at a resolution of 2048 x 1536 (I assume that's what you mean by 2???x1???). High end 19" monitors max out at 2048 x 1536 @ 68Hz. Running a game at that resolution would also result in a heavy performance hit since the video card is doing a lot more work!

Oh ok. Let me see if I've got this straight.....

The laptop is part of a "display". Power is easily attached to the display, but to actually press the laptop's power button requires dismantling of the display itself in order to get to it?

Isn't this is how all laptops (and current desktop PCs) are designed? When the power switch pushed in/engaged when the system is on for a certain period of time, it will turn off. This is a built in feature, and not one that is easily changed.

I imagine some systems out there have some setting/power feature/jumper that would turn the system back on if it was off, but a laptop is a different story. There are BIOS options that will turn a PC on if a signal comes through a phoneline or network cable though (Wake-on LAN etc).

Why do you need to keep the laptop on all the time? And why would power be interrupted? Doesn't it have a battery? (although a battery should not be left in a laptop if it's always plugged into the mains power)

point 7: stay out of this :mad: :)

You don't want help?!?!

Bam! thats it wudda think? am I looking at running DOOM 3 at ultra settings with no lag or glitches what so ever? please say yes :D

Doom 3 can slow to a crawl when entering certain areas (e.g. finding a monster), regardless of system specs, but this can be alleviated with some config file tweaks.

1, 1GB stick, will that create performance problems?

No.

lag, crashes,ect?

No.

and Is Corsair a good ram company?

Yes.

point five: I not buying one until december 20th. :rolleyes:

Point Six: A lot can happen in a computer-tech month. Check back with us in December. ;)

Plus whether or not it's actually worth the trouble....... (if you're only looking for a performance increase) ;)

Popular question......

http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread13128.html

like burning dvd

Today's CPUs are not stressed much when burning (being so bloody fast). If you were encoding a movie or some music, then yes, it would make a difference.

listening to music

You'd only notice a performance drop if you were using a CPU from 6 years ago. Playing an MP3 or music CD has no noticable performance impact on any processor currently available.

and opening programs?

There wouldn't be much difference. Running the program is a different story!

For a DVD Burner, I would recommend the NEC ND-3500A. ;)

Have you given much thought to input devices? A fine keyboard/mouse combination would be the Logitech Cordless MX Duo. There are better keyboards and mice models available, but you can't beat this package for performance and cable-less usage.

I'm not trying to have two monitors displaying different things. I'm trying to have two monitors display the same thing, which I would think would be less complicated. Perhaps it ends up being more complicated?

You can set it so that the display is "cloned" rather than "extended".

Or just get a video splitter. :P

See this topic and the site I linked to.

The only video card I've ever seen do anything similar to that is the Matrox Parhelia line, and they're WAY expensive ($500 US for a 256MB tri-output card). They're meant to span 3d modelling apps across two screens, but that doesn't mean you couldn't frag with 'em...

Here's a list of games they support.

Zoicks! Support is more widespread than I imagined. A pity the Parhelias are not the best for gaming. :-|

Nope I dont see much page file usage even when I am working with microsoft office ... so I dont think ram is a problem ... I have the windows classic theme turned on.

So where exactly are you seeing this slowdown? When does it occur?

I've got win xp .. with 256 mb of ram ... and swaping is not a problem as the core kernel files are specified as always remain in the memory.

As you would expect, but what about all the other programs fighting for system memory? 256Mb is bearable on a Windows XP system, but there is still a fair amount of swapping. You will notice a fair increase in performance with 512Mb. Get 1Gb, and you'll have no worries.

What do you mean by slowing down exactly? Is your computer "thrashing" the hard drive more often than usual? If an operating system runs low on available system RAM, it is forced to swap out to "virtual memory", which is an area set aside on your hard drive. Accessing the hard drive is much slower than accessing system RAM, so everything can slow to a crawl if there's too much stuff running in the background. Catweazle's suggestion to remove unnecessary garbage could free up some memory, but you might want to consider a small RAM upgrade if the sluggishness continues. How much RAM do you have, and what is your OS?

This should answer your questions

For the multiple view points, I believe this is only possible if the game supports it (and I think it's limited to certain flight simulators).

Prescott processors have different power requirements, and as such a number of older boards (that worked AOK with standard Northwood 800FSB models) did not have the right hardware to run them.

I'm not sure if this is the case with the cut-down Prescott you have there, but considering that the official CPU support list makes no mention of Prescott, you might have to look in a Northwood direction.

Changing the motherboard would be my preference also. Good motherboards to suit the 2.8GHz Pentium 'C' processor are quite inexpensive, and that processor you have is quite a good one as well.

Agreed! A new board would be the best idea, and you'll probably get some handy extra features in the switch.

There's only one small problem, though. Your RAM would need to be 400MHz PC3200 or better, and I bet it's not!

Not necessarily. Most boards would have the option to run the RAM at a slower speed, which wouldn't have that much of an impact on everyday performance. Mind you, setting it up like this would be a little trickier than simply putting in some PC3200 sticks (some messing around in the BIOS is required), and an upgrade would serve to future proof your system a bit anyway.

Fortunately I already know...

ASrock GE PRO-HT

Sorry Paddy, but that motherboard does not support 800FSB processors, which I'm guessing is what you have there.

A processor's frequency is determined by its multiplier and the front side bus (FSB). For a present-day 2.8Ghz P4, the FSB is 200Mhz (quad pumped to 800) and the multiplier is 14. 14 * 200 = 2800Mhz (2.8Ghz).

In your case, the motherboard has defaulted to a FSB of 100Mhz (quad pumped to 400), which results in 14 * 100 = 1400Mhz (1.4Ghz).

Your board supports up to 533FSB processors (133 quad pumped to 533), so the best you can stick in there would be a 3.06Ghz P4 (533FSB).

go to start,programs, accessories,system tools. or go to your cont. panel, administrative tools, computer management,in the left pane, syst. info :p

Note that the system information utility supplied with Windows is actually rather limited in the information it provides (much like DxDiag really). If you're after clockspeeds and comprehensive chipset information, I suggest you look elswhere.

Nothing is wrong with my PC, I just need simple instructions on how to find my System Information.

Read the thread I linked to a little more carefully - it's actually about a hardware reporting utility.

I was just wondering, how can I find out my system information, like the Processor speed (GHz and MHz) and all of that besides the Run >> DxDiag

Miss the thread sitting at the top of this forum? ;)

Note that a 17" LCD has a viewable area comparable to that of a 19" CRT.

The dark picture issue you speak of has been improved - test drive any LCD monitor you plan on buying (this will also reduce the chance of buying one with dead pixels).

For minimal motion blur in an LCD screen when playing games or watching a DVD movie, ensure your choice of monitor has a response time (time it takes for the individual pixels to change colour) of at most 16ms (less is better).

An LCD screen looks best at its native resolution. Lower resolutios do not look good at all, and higher than native resolutions are not supported.

Make sure you get a screen with a decent warranty, especially if you plan on buying LCD technology - read the dead pixel section carefully. The best manufacturers offer replacement if ANY dead pixels appear during a certain initial timeframe (a week...?).

hey i have a question. Does motherboard effect gaming performernce at all? So far my specs are:
INTEL P4 2.53GHZ
512mb PC2100 RAM
80GB ULTRA DMA HD
Radeon 9600 SE(soon to be 9800 pro)
Intel 845g Mobo

Is this one any good and will it make much of a difference to upgrade to say...asus mobos?

No, not really. Some chipsets and hardware combinations (SD-RAM + a Pentium 4 for example) have noticeable performance issues, but your system isn't a member of this group. It's what you put in it that matters. ;)

The only reasons for changing would be:
1. Stability issues.
2. New CPU unsupported.
3. Lack of onboard features.

The 939 3400+ is limited to a hypertransport speed of 800Mhz (other 939 chips are 1000Mhz).

Actually, I thought that initially, AMD was pin-compatible with Intel. That was WAY back in the day, though, and I've even forgotten which chips they were...

All I remember was that AMD was coming out as a cheap Intel replacement, and then they eventually moved into their own light, and moved into their own socket format.

Initially, AMD was making chips for Intel! But yes, after setting out on their own, they did make CPUs for the socket 7 format (K5s). They then moved into super socket 7, before utilising the EV-6 bus architecture in their slot A format with the birth of the Athlon.

Imma set it to RAID 1, backup is so fun. :D

You will need 2 separate physical hard drives in order to use RAID. The drives must also use the SATA drive interface, and the one you've selected in your other thread is a PATA interface drive.

The 2 fans are too loud to reviews.

What the reviewer classes as "loud" may be perfectly acceptable to your ears.

And the motherboard is good to set for SATA RAID, right?

That's what I said. See your other topic for more advice on this feature (might help to keep everything in one topic next time).

So is a RAID card at all any good for this PC. Don't forget I am using it for both gaming AND media. What would the RAID card do and what are the modes?

Your choice of motherboard comes with SATA RAID onboard, offering two modes when you have 2 SATA hard drives installed:

RAID 0 - Stripes data across 2 drives, which can be accessed in parallel and so increase performance. Performance benefit is only noticeable in video editing applications.

RAID 1 - Mirrors a drive's contents on second drive. Pure backup, no performance benefit.

Alternatively, you could just have two separate drives with no RAID enabled.

X-Blade Gaming PC Case (PSU Removed)

Fans or Water Cooling System

That case comes with 2 80mm fans.

Sapphire ATI Radeon 9200SE w/ 128MB Memory

Note that the 9200SE is currently one of the slowest video cards on the market, and nowhere near the minimum required for acceptable performance with the latest games.

RAID Card

Your motherboard comes with SATA RAID onboard.

well im running at 4x right now but I wanted to go up to 8x when i got my new mobo

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you do experience instability with your new setup, then following the above tips may solve the problem with hardly any performance drop.

Why do you say that? 'Em, what would you say about adding a RAID card set to 0 and 3 there Catweazle, also, how you like my new, LARGER name. I just donated and subscribed to the forums, I may stay like this, makes my name stand out.

What motherboard did you order? Most Intel chipset boards already come equipped with SATA RAID supporting modes 0 and 1. Despite that, RAID is not really worth it for the average home user unless you happen to dabble in video editing (RAID 0) or you're paranoid about backing up your data (RAID 1).

Chances are a new motherboard will come with RAID onboard anyway.

'Em, let me show you what I have first, dont boo me, but its an Intel Processor, until later when I get me an AMD, da** its gonna suck changing to an AMD processor and using a AMD usable motherboard.

I'm not understanding your logic here......why are you getting an Intel CPU now and an AMD model later? Do you already have a P4 motherboard?

There was some issues with the 9800XT and 9600XT video card models not working with AGp 8x, they would freeze up and run slow. Has that been fixed with the new cataylst 4.9 drivers? because the complaints have died down.

There always have been issues with these chipsets and AGP. A quick fix is to turn off fast-writes and lower the AGP transfer rate down a notch to AGP4X. Performance difference? Bugger all.

Hypertransport, a feature found on newer AMD processors, is a memory management technology, not a processing technology. With AMD Athlon64 and AthlonFX processors, the memory management unit of the system is located on the processor, rather than being left as a function of the motherboard chipset's northbridge chip. The feature is constantly in use, enabling the motherboard chipset to be less complex, and enabling the computer system to operate without a traditional 'front side bus' arrangement being in place and acting as a 'bottleneck'.

Quick correction - hypertransport is not the onboard memory controller found on Athlon 64 CPUs. It is basically a new type of front side bus - the main data "highway" on a motherboard. It offers high speed full-duplex transfers (google it for more detailed specifications). Vanilla A64 CPUs and FX models come with a single hypertransport link to communicate with the rest of the system. Opterons can come with many more for potential multi-processor communication (thus removing the bottleneck of a single front side bus).

What, alright, so you say. AMD is nothing but piece of trash, in gaming wise. Media is what its great for.

I suggest you drop that belief ASAP - it's quite outdated! In fact, you've got it the wrong way round. Intel's P4/Prescott is good for media and AMD's A64 is good for gaming!

Still don't believe us? Then it's time to whip out the proof.

Doom 3? AMD.

Variety of Directx 8 gaming applications.........AMD!

Another gaming comparison......guess who? AMD!

Getting a bit predictable isn't it?