What is the best bang for the buck?

Considering upgrading my system from an XP2100+ to XP3000+ and the Video Card from an ATI9250 128MB to an ATI9800PRO.

Question is this: Is it worth going for the 256MB($159) Video board, or will the 128MB($125) be ok?

I am on a budget, so the $35 does make a difference.

Thanks!

Double the power for only a 25% increase in price. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Keep in mind if you get the 128 now, you'll find yourself wanting to upgrade to a 256 sooner or later. If you get the 256 now, you'll be set for much longer.

Thanks for your reply.

Based on the results I find on Tom's Hardware Site here:

http://www1.graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html

I do not see a significant performance increase for the doubling of the Video Ram in any of the benchmarks used; do you have any reviews that would substantiate the statement that performance does in fact double?

SL uses vid ram like crazy, again dont compare SL to a normal video game you have everything installed on your harddrive, SL streams texture like nothing else, theres litterally millions of them in SL,

Benchmarking doesnt do much since it rarly ever use half the vid ram a modern vid card can use, SL will eat it alive if you jump around ,,, more vid ram preferable in SL .

I wouldnt say you get twice the power, but more room for textures to thrive in ^^

It's definitely not double the power, but I'd say the RAM is worth the higher price. SL will run fine with 128, but personally, I'd get the 256MB one... and that wouldn't take much debating and hemming and hawing over the expense, which is quite the statement, coming from ME, of all people.

If you can make sure that your new CPU has 512K of Level 2 cache, you'll get the biggest performance boost. I'm not sure how easy that will be right now, though. AMD aren't selling 512K L2 cache socket 462 CPUs anymore, as far as I know.

Your insights are much appreciated!

I have read elsewhere that the CPU plays a major role in SL, which is why I intend to upgrade to the Barton XP3000+ (which in fact has a 512K Cache, I would not buy a CPU with less). Toms Hardware and Anandtech have proved invaluable in researching these issues.

One other perspective regarding the Video Card issue - Since I am using an ATI 9250/128MB card right now, it seems logical to expect that moving to the 9800PRO would be a big improvement, and since I am very budget and value orientated, and do not play any other games, i may well settle for the 128. Previously at this price point my options were nowhere near a match for the specs of the 9800PRO.

I also considered moving to the A64/3000+/939/NF4 family to get the advantage of PCIe with a reasonable upgrade path, but found to my chagrin that the NV6600 was not really performance competitive at this price point. (Plus I would be out $225 for a Mobo bundle that would not be that much faster than the XP3000+/NF2 Ultra)

So, in restrospect, I think the relative improvement in performance, coupled with a reasonable value index, would ultimately make me happier than a blazing, Balls-to-the -Wall approach, wherein i would have to give up cigars for a month . . . lol

Thjanks again for your input!

Well, in terms of SL performance, an Athlon 64 and a crappy video card would give you a far, far greater performance boost than just getting a somewhat faster Athlon XP and a good video card. If you don't use your computer for games, then there's not a lot of need for that good a video card. However, the GeForce 6600GT is a far faster card than the Radeon 9800 Pro, and costs around the same amount of money. The price point is best for PCIe models, of course.

In your current system, the 9800 Pro will make a difference over your current card, but it won't make as great a difference as it would in say, Half-Life 2. Personally, I'd go the Athlon 64/Nforce4 route and consider getting a cheapish video card. In future, if the 2.0 renderer places a greater burden on the video card, you could upgrade it then.

The difference between the 9800 Pro/Barton route and the Athlon 64/GeForce 6600GT route is about $100, depending on motherboard and which brand of video card you end up with. Personally, I think it's worth it, and I would go so far as to consider what I could get for my current parts when budgeting.

Catherine, i do appreciate your response, and have some questions and comments:

"Well, in terms of SL performance, an Athlon 64 and a crappy video card would give you a far, far greater performance boost than just getting a somewhat faster Athlon XP and a good video card".

Do you have numbers to back up this statement? The biggest difference I see in benchmarks is in terms on memory management, which is understandable, but only if one takes advantage of the dual channel as afforded by the 64/3000+.

regerence: Tomshardware: http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

"If you don't use your computer for games, then there's not a lot of need for that good a video card. However, the GeForce 6600GT is a far faster card than the Radeon 9800 Pro, and costs around the same amount of money. The price point is best for PCIe models, of course."

According to Pricewatch, the best prices break down as follows:

9800PRO 128 AGP - $120 (380/680Mhz, 256bit Interface, 8x1 pixel pipes)
9800PRO 256 AGP - $162 (380/700, 256b, 8x1)
6600GT 128 PCIe - $168 (500/1000, 128b, 8x1)
6600GT 256 PCIe - $229 as above.
X700PRO 128 PCIe - $125 (425/860, 128b, 8x10
X700PRO 256 PCIe - $158 as above.

And just for interest:

5900 U 128 PCIe - $103 (375/700, 256b, 8x1) (Pretty good Value!)


"In your current system, the 9800 Pro will make a difference over your current card, but it won't make as great a difference as it would in say, Half-Life 2. Personally, I'd go the Athlon 64/Nforce4 route and consider getting a cheapish video card. In future, if the 2.0 renderer places a greater burden on the video card, you could upgrade it then.

The difference between the 9800 Pro/Barton route and the Athlon 64/GeForce 6600GT route is about $100, depending on motherboard and which brand of video card you end up with. Personally, I think it's worth it, and I would go so far as to consider what I could get for my current parts when budgeting."

Comparison breakdown for upgrade options:

XP3000+ - $115.00
9800P 128 - $125.00
----------
$240.00
Versus

64/3000+ - $147.00
MSI NF4 - $ 85.00
6600GT 128 - $168.00
----------
$400.00

Delta is $160.00


I would love to buy the 64/3000 solution, but find it very hard to justify - The CPUs need to come down considerably in price to be really attractive. The 6600GT PCIe Video cards are not all that well priced at the moment, contrary to common sentiment, the X700s are somwhat similarly specd, and much better value, i think.

Regards!

We really seem to lack solid comparable benchmark numbers for PC systems and their components in terms of SL usage; what is there available in SL that could be used?

I realize that SL presents challenges that few other applications do, such as heavy CPU usage, etc, while there seems to be quite a bit of difference of opinion as to the influence of the video card.

It would be really nice to have definitive results that could be logged, and thereby be subject to rational analysis.

I have several machines by far the fx and a64 beat the stuffing out of any xp, its like another machine when i changed from my xp to a64,

a64 also run cooler then a xp

socket 939 is a64/fx/x2 right
what is XP slot again?, sorry im having a idle mind and SL IS SPAMMING ME,,, anyhoo ,

Remember SL is cpu hog , and its easier to change a vid card then to change a cpu (um well not by much)

"

Understood - I see my XP2100+ and my wife's Duron 1.3Mhz solidly at 100% when in SL.

Actually, you're going to see ~100% CPU utilization pretty much regardless of what processor you have. I have an Athlon 64 3000+ Winchester and I see around 95%. SL will "expand" to use available resources, though of course, with a better CPU and more RAM, you can do more things at once. Just be cautious of using CPU usage as a benchmark tool.

The Tom's Hardware article Thili mentioned is pretty accurate in gauging relative performance between different chips in SL. My personal advice is that in terms of cost/performance increase in SL, you're going to get the best result by upgrading your CPU and motherboard.

Going from the 9250 to the 9800 isn't really going to knock your socks off as far as the game is concerned. Getting the 256 would make a good bit of difference as it has been stated previously simply because of textures but with the relatively anemic CPU I kinda doubt the upgrade to the 9800 would be worth it. You have to keep in mind the ATI cards can't usually run with FSAA filtering and such with SL so the extra video horsepower the 9800 has isn't really going to be able to help all that much.

Going from the 9800 to the 6600gt didn't knock my socks off either. With the same CPU it didn't make a big difference at all really, at least at first. Later I played with the 3D settings and was able to run SL with the AA filtering and other goodies turned up and not crash like the 9800 did. Now SL looks gorgious and runs pretty reliably.

I have to agree with Catherine that the wise money would be on upgrading the CPU and motherboard since you would be skipping an upgrade step and would be cheaper in the long run. (spending the $160 now then when you want to upgrade the CPU, you can't use the 9800 video card since it is not PCIe, in another 6 months AGP motherboards are going to be hard to find and expensive)

Thanks Kathmandu, your coments are appreciated!

So, If the consensus is that i would be better off with a 64/3000+ Winchester core than with upgrading to the Barton XP3000+, let me ask you what chipset and MB manufacturer you would recommend. I have seen NF4 boards retailing from $75 up, and there are all kinds of others, but I I have been told that Chaintec is pretty reliable, and their VNF4-Ultra can be had for about $90.

Secondly, the issue of a video card. Lets say i do not want to spend more than $130.

Please rate the following specs in order of importance:

128MB v 256MB memory
128Bit v 256Bit interface bus width
Chip/Memory Clock speed
Number of Pixel Pipes

Examples of PCIe VCs to be found at Newegg that are close to this price:

FX6200 256MB - $83 (300/550, 128, 4)
PCX5900 128MB - $134 (375/700, 256,
ATI X700 256MB - $125 (400/700, 128,
ATI X700 PRO 128MB - $125 (425/860, 128,
GF 6600 256MB - $128 (300/550, 128,
PX6600TD 256MB - $129 (300/550, 128,

Which of these do you believe would give me the best SL performance?

Thanks!

After trying SL on couple of ATI cards, id recommend any gforce for SL, they both have some good and weak parts for SL, but i never had any problem with gforce compared to the ati's i have tried.

GF 6600 , is a pretty decent card for its price, (i use a 6800gt asus), but i dont think most of the cards on that list would make much of a diffrence for SL really.

None of the cards are bad, none stick out either, im pretty sure ATI/SL will get better eventually , i ran SL on a r9800pro till it died, went back to gf and its so much smoother.
Id stay clear of the FX6200 though.

Im not trying to start ATI vs GForce thread ,
This is my obersvations on the cards i have run on SL ,,
Older r9800pro got wooped by a older nvidia 4600 (4800?) card (its so old card i dont even remember if i have the number on the nvidia correct) just shows you SL like GF

I have some friends who use both Ati / GF , so far ati looses on the compability side for SL. i have yet to see much problem as i had with the ati (why am i going to hear ,,,"yes but you had dirt old ati card ^^ well yeah it wasnt new)

All of those cards are good for just about every game

dont flame me

I would like to sincerily thank all contributors to this thread . . .

Now to figure out how long I can go without the solace of a cigar . . . ; wifey says I gotta choose between 939 upgrades and cigars . . . *sigh* the sacrifices one has to make . . . maybe I should find a less demanding hobby, like tiddlywinks . . or writing Haiku. . .