Looking for advice on a new System

> My Mobo (ECS KM400-M2) can handle up to Barton XP 2800+...and the max ram
> is pc2700 (2 Gigs) which I have a 512 pc3200 and a 256 pc2700 in
> there....so I may just get a 1 Gig stick of 2700 and sell the 512 to be
> sure there are no conflictions.
> Robo29
Oooops....I meant a 3000+ I just looked up the cpu support on the site
http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Support/CPU_Support_Model.aspx?detail...365&Men
Robo29
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:50:48 GMT, "Robo29" <hard DeleteThis @work.ca> wrote:

>> My Mobo (ECS KM400-M2) can handle up to Barton XP 2800+...and the max ram
>> is pc2700 (2 Gigs) which I have a 512 pc3200 and a 256 pc2700 in
>> there....so I may just get a 1 Gig stick of 2700 and sell the 512 to be
>> sure there are no conflictions.
>> Robo29
>Oooops....I meant a 3000+ I just looked up the cpu support on the site
>http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Support/CPU_Support_Model.aspx?detailid=365&MenuID=69&LanID=0
>Robo29
>

You'll be surprised what that will do compared to your 1800 Duron.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:03:41 GMT, "Messa" <Me DeleteThis @Sir.com> wrote:

>I thought frame rate limits were also goverened by your monitor refresh in
>UT?

That's true... if you have v-sync turned on. For benchmarking
purposes you should always turn v-sync off.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

Folk wrote:
> Like I said, I've benchmarked both games extensively.
>
I'm all ???? as to why we experience such different results. I will try
and dig up my old benchmark results but I do fear they went away with a
hard disc that died on me. Still I'm thinking we have been playing UT in
very different resolutions which perhaps explains why I view UT as
graphics limited rather than CPU limited.

Fx. I upgraded from a 9700 Pro to a X1900XTX and promise you it did make
a difference in UT at 2048x1536.

As you I had trouble finding data covering old and new hardware so let's
go with UT 2004:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page7.html

Note how the CPU used seems to offer aprox. 118 fps and how enabling AA
and AF makes a huge difference, fx. more than 100% on the 9600 card,
with only the fastest cards still bringing the 118 fps. Of course UT
will provide different figures but going high res you'll see a similar
effect.

Kind regards
Bruno
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:37:00 +0200, Bruno <dont.use RemoveThis @this.address.ever>
wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>> Like I said, I've benchmarked both games extensively.
>>
>I'm all ???? as to why we experience such different results. I will try
>and dig up my old benchmark results but I do fear they went away with a
>hard disc that died on me. Still I'm thinking we have been playing UT in
>very different resolutions which perhaps explains why I view UT as
>graphics limited rather than CPU limited.
>
>Fx. I upgraded from a 9700 Pro to a X1900XTX and promise you it did make
>a difference in UT at 2048x1536.

Jesus, I guess so. Most earthlings don't game at 2048 x 1536. What
kind of monitor are you using?

>As you I had trouble finding data covering old and new hardware so let's
>go with UT 2004:
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page7.html
>
>Note how the CPU used seems to offer aprox. 118 fps and how enabling AA
>and AF makes a huge difference, fx. more than 100% on the 9600 card,
>with only the fastest cards still bringing the 118 fps. Of course UT
>will provide different figures but going high res you'll see a similar
>effect.

The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF. We can see that there are 16
cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
the same results.

In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
AA/AF or resolution settings. There's certainly nothing wrong with
that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
in UT.

Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html

Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3. Now which game engine would
you call CPU limited?

If you're gaming at 2048 x 1536, then you could certainly be vid card
limited, but then who wouldn't be at that resolution? I would highly
recommend an SLI solution to push that number of pixels. For average
gamers using a 19" flat panel (1280 x 1024) and not going nuts with AA
or AF, then you're going to be CPU bound using the Unreal engine.

FWIW, UT99 is much friendlier than UT2004 when it comes to vid card
requirements. Textures are *much* smaller.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

Folk wrote:
> Jesus, I guess so. Most earthlings don't game at 2048 x 1536. What
> kind of monitor are you using?
>
It's a 21" Sony F-520 which I bought something like 6 years ago. It does
2048*1536 at 85 Hz and I'm sad to say they don't make them like that
anymore. Playing UT in that resolution has some benefits like being able
to tell friend from foe on a long distance, something which actually has
gotten me accused of using a zoom cheat while playing Instagib on Face

Before the 21" I gamed using a 17" SONY 17se which was able to do
1600x1200 so I have allways been pushing graphics cards to the limit


> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.

I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!

I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).


> We can see that there are 16
> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
> the same results.
>
Exactly.


> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
> AA/AF or resolution settings. There's certainly nothing wrong with
> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
> in UT.

Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
play to look the best possible.



>
> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>
> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3. Now which game engine would
> you call CPU limited?
>
No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.

I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.


> If you're gaming at 2048 x 1536, then you could certainly be vid card
> limited, but then who wouldn't be at that resolution? I would highly
> recommend an SLI solution to push that number of pixels. For average
> gamers using a 19" flat panel (1280 x 1024) and not going nuts with AA
> or AF, then you're going to be CPU bound using the Unreal engine.
>
SLI is not needed as the current high end cards will do just as my
X1900XTX does - however they are very different than say a 9600 or a
X800. (and a lot louder with all the cooling that's needed!)


> FWIW, UT99 is much friendlier than UT2004 when it comes to vid card
> requirements. Textures are *much* smaller.

Certainly, UT2004 is a lot more complex. Textures are bigger, more
lightning, more polygons, more everything basicly. UT is in sense a Dx6
games build on an engine from 1997/98 and doesn't even benefit from T&L.
I still remember a friend of mine swapping his TNTUltra something for a
Geforce256 only to realize his old card was faster and that he payed a
huge amount of cash for T&L which was only used in tech demos at the time.

Kind regards
Bruno
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

Bruno wrote:
> I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
> did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
> stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
> UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
> fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
>
I forgot the link to the statistics:

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

There are some interesting figures.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use.DeleteThis@this.address.ever>
wrote:


>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.
>
>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!

Thanks for the link. I was already familiar with those stats
(they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
The average system is quite modest.

>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).

There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
could get an extra 10 fps.

>> We can see that there are 16
>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>> the same results.
>>
>Exactly.
>
>
>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>> AA/AF or resolution settings. There's certainly nothing wrong with
>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>> in UT.
>
>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
>play to look the best possible.

Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
in UT2004 ONS. I usually keep it off though. In a fast paced FPS,
looking at the scenery is not high on my list.

>>
>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>>
>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3. Now which game engine would
>> you call CPU limited?
>>
>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>
>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.

I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing. Are we
geeks or what?
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

"Folk" <Folk.DeleteThis@folk.com> wrote in message
news:q16f23hmap4rr0u31ns68fa8l10ril7gcu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use.DeleteThis@this.address.ever>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.
>>
>>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
>>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
>>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
>>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
>>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
>
> Thanks for the link. I was already familiar with those stats
> (they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
> The average system is quite modest.
>
>>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
>>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
>>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
>>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
>>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
>>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
>>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
>>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).
>
> There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
> their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
> could get an extra 10 fps.
>
>>> We can see that there are 16
>>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>>> the same results.
>>>
>>Exactly.
>>
>>
>>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>>> AA/AF or resolution settings. There's certainly nothing wrong with
>>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>>> in UT.
>>
>>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
>>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
>>play to look the best possible.
>
> Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
> in UT2004 ONS. I usually keep it off though. In a fast paced FPS,
> looking at the scenery is not high on my list.
>
>>>
>>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>>>
>>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3. Now which game engine would
>>> you call CPU limited?
>>>
>>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
>>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
>>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>>
>>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
>>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.
>
> I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing. Are we
> geeks or what?

well if you have increased the fsb frequency by 1 mhz at a time looking for
the best perforamce that was still stable I'm afraid so (guilty your honour)

Nick-Dastardly

"quit snikkering Nuttley"
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

"Robo29" <hard.RemoveThis@work.ca> wrote in message
news:EBjTh.62482$6m4.49563@pd7urf1no...
>> Hi Robo,
>>
>> Where in Canada are you ?
>>
>> I'm from Montreal, I could point to a couple of stores in the area where
> you
>> could get a good deal. I just buy the parts, and build my own boxes, but
>> some local supplyers do sell complete boxes. at a good prices.
>>
>> Later
>> Noxx
>>
>> Hey fellow Canadian
>
> I'm on the West Coast of Canada in British Columbia (Vancouver Island)
> I've
> built my last 3 systems (old yes but it was a good learning process) and
> since I haven't been keeping up with the new specs and intel vs amd Soap
> Opera I'm a bit leary building a new one....never used SATA or hooked up
> pci-e and I'd hate to screw something up during the build. Nah
> seriously though...I thought of building my own but finding the time to
> build one with 3 little ones is kinda tough. As it is I only get about 5
> hours a week to play UT (which is why it is still the only game I play)
> Later Noxx
>
> Robo29
>
>

Hey Robo, this is pretty OT, but whens a good time to tour BC? The fam is
thinking of taking a trip up the coast through Seattle into Canada but I
want to stay away from any late snows. Do you guys have the same "rainy
season" we do farther south?
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

"Folk" <Folk RemoveThis @folk.com> wrote in message
news:c3rs135k0kl4or4anqcr98ti0k0t680elk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:01:37 -0700, "goPostal"
> <agutgopostal RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
>>> given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.
>>
>>Not to mention I just read yesterday that AMD is really tightening their
>>belt company-wide because they are getting killed by Intel.
>
> Heh. They have a long history of getting killed by Intel and a
> relatively short period of superiority.
>
> My last 4 boxes have been Intel, AMD, Intel, AMD. That was P2, K2, P4
> and now AMD64 (3500+). I plan to replace my current system this Fall
> (or whenever the UT3 demo hits) and unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of
> their hat I'm going to go Intel this time. I'm certainly not a
> fanboy... I'll use whatever is king at the time I'm building, but TBH
> I'm glad it's going to be Intel this time around. Although my current
> Nforce 3 based system is the most stable I've ever owned (built two
> years ago and nary a problem) it's still true that the industry
> designs toward Intel based platforms.

I'm curous about how you feel on Vista. I'm dual booting but it seems I
hardly use Vista at all. It never seems to take long before I run into some
problem or another that I just don't have in XP. Pretty layout but they
could have used another year of beta testing.
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

"Derek" <del.wattsnospambaby DeleteThis @ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:RsSVh.2690$mk4.1792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Folk" <Folk DeleteThis @folk.com> wrote in message
> news:q16f23hmap4rr0u31ns68fa8l10ril7gcu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use DeleteThis @this.address.ever>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>>>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.
>>>
>>>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
>>>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
>>>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
>>>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
>>>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I was already familiar with those stats
>> (they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
>> The average system is quite modest.
>>
>>>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
>>>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
>>>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
>>>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
>>>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
>>>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
>>>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
>>>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).
>>
>> There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
>> their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
>> could get an extra 10 fps.
>>
>>>> We can see that there are 16
>>>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>>>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>>>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>>>> the same results.
>>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>>>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>>>> AA/AF or resolution settings. There's certainly nothing wrong with
>>>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>>>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>>>> in UT.
>>>
>>>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
>>>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
>>>play to look the best possible.
>>
>> Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
>> in UT2004 ONS. I usually keep it off though. In a fast paced FPS,
>> looking at the scenery is not high on my list.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>>>>
>>>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3. Now which game engine would
>>>> you call CPU limited?
>>>>
>>>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
>>>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
>>>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>>>
>>>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
>>>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.
>>
>> I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing. Are we
>> geeks or what?
>
> well if you have increased the fsb frequency by 1 mhz at a time looking
> for the best perforamce that was still stable I'm afraid so (guilty your
> honour)
>
> Nick-Dastardly
>
> "quit snikkering Nuttley"
>

I bet you guys look like that kid from the movie "Powder".
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/films/powder.jpg

Go outside and get some sun
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System 

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:34:04 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Folk" <Folk.RemoveThis@folk.com> wrote in message
>news:c3rs135k0kl4or4anqcr98ti0k0t680elk@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:01:37 -0700, "goPostal"
>> <agutgopostal.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
>>>> given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.
>>>
>>>Not to mention I just read yesterday that AMD is really tightening their
>>>belt company-wide because they are getting killed by Intel.
>>
>> Heh. They have a long history of getting killed by Intel and a
>> relatively short period of superiority.
>>
>> My last 4 boxes have been Intel, AMD, Intel, AMD. That was P2, K2, P4
>> and now AMD64 (3500+). I plan to replace my current system this Fall
>> (or whenever the UT3 demo hits) and unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of
>> their hat I'm going to go Intel this time. I'm certainly not a
>> fanboy... I'll use whatever is king at the time I'm building, but TBH
>> I'm glad it's going to be Intel this time around. Although my current
>> Nforce 3 based system is the most stable I've ever owned (built two
>> years ago and nary a problem) it's still true that the industry
>> designs toward Intel based platforms.
>
>I'm curous about how you feel on Vista. I'm dual booting but it seems I
>hardly use Vista at all. It never seems to take long before I run into some
>problem or another that I just don't have in XP. Pretty layout but they
>could have used another year of beta testing.

Unless there's some killer app that *has* to have Vista, I'll be
sticking with XP for the foreseeable future.

Microsoft has to be really disappointed with Vista's reception. Every
review I've seen can be boiled down to: "meh... it's not worth the
hassle".
 >> Stay informed about: Looking for advice on a new System