Curse

Dahl · Mar 13, 2007, 04:35 PM // 16:35

As I said before, I don't need the best of the best. We're talking about my system running gw, not talking about the best possible everything in existance.

Remember that.

Empedocles · Mar 13, 2007, 05:50 PM // 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahl

By the way, is a x1950 too powerful for a 500w ps? I know a lot of places overkill on ps just to be on the safe side and everything, but I'm on a 450w right on on my junker and my GF5500 blew up. I dunno if it even had anything to do with the ps, or maybe it was defective cause I had just bought it a few weeks beforehand. I don't know.

I have a 430W Antec Neo HE, which is more than enough for x1950 pro. Just pay attention that you get your psu from a quality manufacturer such as Antec/Seasonic, bequiet and their ilk, it matters more than the wattage sticker glued to the psu

.

Of course, if you happen to have 6 hard drives and three optical drives and 10 fans, then you might want some leeway and have a bit more powerful psu

.

Dex · Mar 13, 2007, 06:14 PM // 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

I agree with most of what you are saying. Having been in this industry for over 20 years, I have seen video cards come and go. And I always thought it was foolish to invest large dollars into either newly emerging technology, or in technology that is on it's way out.

I've been doing the system building thing for about 13 years myself. Thing is, isn't all technology sort of "on its way out" by the time the next big thing is released? I think that DX9 hardware has quite a bit of life left in it. Most of the hardware being sold today is not DX10 hardware.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

In my store, I am reccomending that people not go above the range of the X1300 512 MB (or equivelent) video card. These are a great card for the money, play just about anything you want at the moment, and are cheap enough where you will not think to hard about replacing it with a DirectX 10 card when they hit "mainstream".

First, I wouldn't bother with 512MB of video memory with an x1300. That GPU won't be able to process all that texture info quickly enough to make it worthwhile. Also, it depends on what you want to play. IMO, even trying to play a game like Oblivion with anything less than a x1600 or a 7600GT is pointless. That game isn't even coming close to reaching its potential with an x1300. It also depends on your budget. For some people, spending $200 on a card to tide them over for 6-12 months isn't unreasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Sure the X1950 is great, but it is also "old technology". And unless you have bottomless pockets, it is rather foolish to spend a large amount of money for video card(s) that are going to be totally eclipsed within the next 6 months.

How about spending $600 on a video card that's going to be totally eclipsed within the next 6 months? Unless you have a big hardware budget, buying a 8800GTX right now is just asking for buyer's remorse once the 2nd generation of DX10 hardware comes out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

In fact, I predict that within 6 months, a DirectX 10 card will cost within $50 of the price of an X1950 today. And the X1950 will more then likely be roughly half the cost of the card today. That has been the general trend for the last 20 years, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

Well, that's how computer hardware (and tech in general to a lesser degree) pricing tends to work. For video cards it's really only been that fast-moving for the past 8-10 years. I agree, though. However, if you're always waiting for the next big thing you'll never have your new system. Personally, I think the x1950 Pro is a great buy if you're a real gamer and you're holding out for better and cheaper DX10 hardware.

Mushroom · Mar 13, 2007, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

I've been doing the system building thing for about 13 years myself. Thing is, isn't all technology sort of "on its way out" by the time the next big thing is released? I think that DX9 hardware has quite a bit of life left in it. Most of the hardware being sold today is not DX10 hardware.

Pretty much. This is why I always caution people towards the end of the current generation of hardware

Just under a year ago, we were selling a lot of Socket 754/939 systems. And in every case, I suggested that people might want to wait for AM2. But a lot of them simply wanted to buy the best that day, without waiting. Now we are starting to see them trickle in, wanting to upgrade. And needless to say, a lot are upset when I tell them what it would cost to go to AM2 (and going from 478 to 775 is no different).

Most components have a good long lifespan, 3-5+ years. But as things get closer to the "next gen", it startes to get to be foolish to invest money on something that is definately going out soon. I built my current system just over 2 years ago, right before PCIe was prevelent. So until my next upgrade I am stuck with AGP. But I got a decent card, and am happy with it's performance (even under Vista).

One thing that is unusual in the last 2-3 years is that we had a lot of technology become obsolete at once. 32 bit processors, single core processors, IDE drives, AGP video bus, and DDR Ram all have gone out the window since 2004. The last time I probably saw this much go out in such a short amount of time was in 1994-1995, when the 80486, ISA, EISA, VLB, SIMM/SIPP, and the AT form factor all went obsolete. Before then, it was probably around 1988, when the old XT system went obsolete, and AT required almost new everything. The only thing missing this time is the new form factor, since BTX died bacause of non-acceptance and an improved layout for ATX boards solved a lot of the heat issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

First, I wouldn't bother with 512MB of video memory with an x1300.

That may or may not be. But I know that the price difference from our wholeseller is only around $12. For $12, I am sure that most people would pay the extra to go from 256 to 512 MB RAM.

We currently sell the 512 MB X1300 card for $115. We sold the 256 MB version (HyperMemory 256-512) until 2 months ago for $100. We finally built the last 256 MB card into a system, because nobody wanted to buy it when for $15 more, they could get double the RAM. Even if it is not used very often, it is a good investment of $15.

Dahl · Mar 13, 2007, 11:17 PM // 23:17

This thread is quickly turning into "what is the best in the world" When really, all this thread was for is "Will this pc run guild wars on max settings" Guild wars is Guild wars, and won't require anything bigger to run smooth. It won't become harder and harder to run things smoothly on max settings.

All I really wanted to know if that junker system would run it properly, and it wouldnt. So I did research and found components that greatly exceed gw's requirements. I'd suggest making a new thread for discussing what is perfect and what's not.

Dex · Mar 13, 2007, 11:27 PM // 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

That may or may not be. But I know that the price difference from our wholeseller is only around $12. For $12, I am sure that most people would pay the extra to go from 256 to 512 MB RAM.

We currently sell the 512 MB X1300 card for $115. We sold the 256 MB version (HyperMemory 256-512) until 2 months ago for $100. We finally built the last 256 MB card into a system, because nobody wanted to buy it when for $15 more, they could get double the RAM. Even if it is not used very often, it is a good investment of $15.

Ah, finally found an article that directly compares the two:

http://www.hardwarelogic.com/news/61...006-04-28.html

As you can see, in most cases the x1300Pro with 512MB or memory was slower than the one with 256MB. It makes a bit of difference when you crank the AA and AF, but in most games cranking the AA and AF is going to bring a x1300 to its knees anyway. This, currently, is an architectural reality of pairing a GPU with more video memory than it is powerful enough to effectively use. I've found this to be true in most cases (you really need at least a Radeon x18XX or x19XX or GeForce 78XX or 79XX to effectively use 512MB). I'm not finding it now (I will), but I recently came across some benches showing that moving from an x1600 256MB to a x1600 512MB results in a net loss of ~5-8 fps in Oblivion. Presumably the GPU is attempting to utilize the 512MB and actually slowing itself down trying to bite off more data than it can chew.

More video memory only results in better performance when:

1. The game uses large (or many) textures and it becomes advantageous to cache more data in the video memory.

2. The GPU is powerful enough to process that amount of data at a rate wherein the texture processing and memory management doesn't interfere with its other rendering tasks.

dansamy · Mar 14, 2007, 03:25 AM // 03:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahl

So then no one who plays any sort of online game can play their games without buying a $600 video card? That's a little farfetched, as, like I said, I'm on a geforce2 mx400, 64mb, which is a card from what, 1995? And I'm running guild wars.

I never said anywhere (nor did I imply) that you wouldn't be able to play smoothly without a $600 card. Personally, the downstairs PC is running a budget card and the upstairs is the cheap-arse eMachines. Downstairs will get upgraded (or replaced) after the upstairs machine is replaced with a custom built. I think it's a GeForce 6600 or 7600, neither of which are pricey. I currently run GW on max at 45fps in most areas.

Quote:

Once I've got my luxuries then it's all going towards and car and college tuition

I think you have your priorities a wee bit screwed up.

Dahl · Mar 14, 2007, 08:28 AM // 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by dansamy

I never said anywhere (nor did I imply) that you wouldn't be able to play smoothly without a $600 card. Personally, the downstairs PC is running a budget card and the upstairs is the cheap-arse eMachines. Downstairs will get upgraded (or replaced) after the upstairs machine is replaced with a custom built. I think it's a GeForce 6600 or 7600, neither of which are pricey. I currently run GW on max at 45fps in most areas.

I think you have your priorities a wee bit screwed up.

I come from a family that pretty much neglected me, so I always had nothing. My dad ran out and my mom never had any money, so I was always the kid who was left behind. Until last year or the year before I was running a pc that was 233 mhz, 32 mb RAM, etc etc, basically an early 90s pc. A few years before that, I didn't even HAVE a pc.

I just started rolling in the money, and I think I deserve a little bit of fun before I buckle down and use my money for more important things.

My priorities are just fine exactly the way they are. I have computer skills, I have writing skills, I have cooking skills, I'm good with kids, good with women, and I have a pretty bright future. I wouldn't be pampering myself if I didn't think I could handle it later on.

Not that anyone needed any insight on my personal life.

And yes, I was implying that you were saying it's a requirement because you're making a huge deal out of something with an immense amount of diminishing value. a jump from $200 to $600 when really both cards will work EXACTLY the same on guild wars? It's not like it can run BETTER than perfect.

I would be perfectly happy running gw on dx9. In fact, I won't be buying a dx10 card until 1) ATI releases their version of the 8800 generation card and 2) That ATI card drops severely in price, it seems that after a short while they drop to about half? That's when I'll pick it up. I don't need to stay on the very edge of technology.

Can we drop the subject of the video card though? I've made up my mind about the sapphire ati x1950 pro. Let us please get on with our lives.

dansamy · Mar 14, 2007, 12:45 PM // 12:45

I didn't make a huge deal out of it. I suggested a DX10 card that's currently available so that you wouldn't need to upgrade it later when you started to play DX10 games. (That of course assumes you are going to play other games besides GW.) It was merely a suggestion, which I promptly dropped after it was clear that you preferred to keep the ATI card. The last 2 pages have been other people discussing the merits of DX10-capable cards now vs later.

Mushroom · Mar 14, 2007, 02:11 PM // 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahl

This thread is quickly turning into "what is the best in the world" When really, all this thread was for is "Will this pc run guild wars on max settings" Guild wars is Guild wars, and won't require anything bigger to run smooth. It won't become harder and harder to run things smoothly on max settings.

All I really wanted to know if that junker system would run it properly, and it wouldnt. So I did research and found components that greatly exceed gw's requirements. I'd suggest making a new thread for discussing what is perfect and what's not.

OK, back to the original system specs.

The system has an Asus motherboard, and that is always good.

I would look at an X1950 with 512 MB, not 256 MB. Better yet, get a cheaper card for the moment, and in a month or so get the X2900.

Unless you have one hell of a speaker system (and do not plan on useing Vista), skip the Sound Blaster card. Even though I use one (for high level audio recording), I am not a fan of "add on sound cards". The on-board are good enough for 80% of the users. If you want a remote, simply get XP Media Center or Vista Premium, and get an MS approved remote.

And one of the things not mentioned is the OS. XP, Media Center, and Vista all have slightly different "sweet spots", and knowing which you plan on useing can help determine what other changes might be suggested.

The case is a somewhat mixed bag. I have worked with that case myself, and was not really impressed with it. It may look cool, but there are 10 cases I would reccomend over that. After all, is the most important thing looking cool, or having a good solid case?

http://techgage.com/article/antec_nine_hundred/3

I am going to throw out something I always do if somebody is looking for a "Customized Computer". And that is to check out your local computer stores. You might be surprised at what they can build, and for what cost. This also has the added bonus of in the even tof something going wrong, they are close to you. The internet is full of horror stories of people who got screwed by on-line venders that did not deliver as promised, or who folded within months of making a purchase.

Empedocles · Mar 14, 2007, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, back to the original system specs.

The system has an Asus motherboard, and that is always good.

Unless you have one hell of a speaker system (and do not plan on useing Vista), skip the Sound Blaster card. Even though I use one (for high level audio recording), I am not a fan of "add on sound cards". The on-board are good enough for 80% of the users. If you want a remote, simply get XP Media Center or Vista Premium, and get an MS approved remote.

In particular, if you want quality on-board audio, you should consider Abit motherboards instead of Asus. Abit AB9 and AB9 pro have in-built dolby-digital surround support - which means it's true digital/optical 5.1. For instance, X-Fi cards can support true 5.1 only analogically, that is, with 5+1 cables.

Quote:

I would look at an X1950 with 512 MB, not 256 MB. Better yet, get a cheaper card for the moment, and in a month or so get the X2900.

In regards of most of the games run in 1600x1200 or smaller, going ftom 256 to 512 isn't too smart, smarter is to buy X1950 XT (not XTX, which is more expensive) instead of X1950 pro 512Mb, if you want to spend that extra 30-50$ money. That being said, it might speed up the games a little if you have a very large display, 24" and onwards. For instance, I run GW on x1950 pro 256Mb on max settings, 1600x1200 and the average fps is about 90.

Also, @Dahl, you can save quite a bit if you buy c2d 4300 or 4400 and overclock them just a tad, thus making them as fast as non-clocked 6400.

dansamy · Mar 14, 2007, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Quote:

After all, is the most important thing looking cool, or having a good solid case?

We usually try to build the interior first. Then, choose a case. My downstairs PC has a basic, inexpensive case. It doesn't get moved around. The entire set-up downstairs was two-fold: run my school software and GW. That's it. I probably will not bother upgrading this one for quite some time.

Dex · Mar 14, 2007, 05:22 PM // 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, back to the original system specs.

The system has an Asus motherboard, and that is always good.

<snip>

Unless you have one hell of a speaker system (and do not plan on useing Vista), skip the Sound Blaster card. Even though I use one (for high level audio recording), I am not a fan of "add on sound cards". The on-board are good enough for 80% of the users. If you want a remote, simply get XP Media Center or Vista Premium, and get an MS approved remote.

I agree that Asus is a good brand for motherboards. I would not say they are always good, though. Like most companies, Asus has made some stinker products along with their good ones. Over the past few years several of their budget and midrange boards have been complete garbage (thin PCB, bad layout, weak power regulation, etc.). Not that there's anything wrong with Asus, but always read professional reviews before settling on a motherboard. No company's products are good 100% of the time.

On the sound card...well...I personally do have a good speaker system (z-5500), but even if I didn't I would still buy a sound card with a dedicated DSP. First of all, you can get a decent one quite cheaply, and second, I hate it that onboard sound handles signal processing using your CPU when for <$40 you can set it free of that task. Most onboard sound does use a significant amount of CPU resources. Certain games (again, I'll reference Oblivion) have a pretty difficult time with some onboard audio CODECs. People with certain kinds of onboard sound have been known to be forced to use mods that disable some of the in-game audio because of large framerate drops caused by their onboard audio. I'm not saying it's a must...especially for Guild Wars. It's just a personal preference of mine. I don't like my CPU bogged down with tasks that really aren't its job...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empedocles

In regards of most of the games run in 1600x1200 or smaller, going ftom 256 to 512 isn't too smart, smarter is to buy X1950 XT (not XTX, which is more expensive) instead of X1950 pro 512Mb, if you want to spend that extra 30-50$ money. That being said, it might speed up the games a little if you have a very large display, 24" and onwards. For instance, I run GW on x1950 pro 256Mb on max settings, 1600x1200 and the average fps is about 90.

Video memory isn't all about screen resolution, though. Screen resolution and AA and AF do factor in, it has more to do with texture data volume. One could run at 1024x768 with high quality textures and use plenty of video memory in certain games. It's a fairly small percentage of games available right now that actually get a huge benefit from 512MB of video memory (Oblivion, BF, etc.), but the ones that do get a significant boost from it. However, if you're choosing between more video memory and a better GPU, I'll usually pick the better GPU. That has a lot more to do with overall speed in most games than the amount of video memory does. Benchmarks have proven that time and again.

Dahl · Mar 14, 2007, 05:33 PM // 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, back to the original system specs.

The system has an Asus motherboard, and that is always good.

I would look at an X1950 with 512 MB, not 256 MB. Better yet, get a cheaper card for the moment, and in a month or so get the X2900.

Unless you have one hell of a speaker system (and do not plan on useing Vista), skip the Sound Blaster card. Even though I use one (for high level audio recording), I am not a fan of "add on sound cards". The on-board are good enough for 80% of the users. If you want a remote, simply get XP Media Center or Vista Premium, and get an MS approved remote.

And one of the things not mentioned is the OS. XP, Media Center, and Vista all have slightly different "sweet spots", and knowing which you plan on useing can help determine what other changes might be suggested.

The case is a somewhat mixed bag. I have worked with that case myself, and was not really impressed with it. It may look cool, but there are 10 cases I would reccomend over that. After all, is the most important thing looking cool, or having a good solid case?

http://techgage.com/article/antec_nine_hundred/3

I am going to throw out something I always do if somebody is looking for a "Customized Computer". And that is to check out your local computer stores. You might be surprised at what they can build, and for what cost. This also has the added bonus of in the even tof something going wrong, they are close to you. The internet is full of horror stories of people who got screwed by on-line venders that did not deliver as promised, or who folded within months of making a purchase.

See now there's an idea. Get a cheaper card now and get the dx10 one later, as opposed to buying the best now AND the best later. So what do you figure is a good card to buy that will run gw on max settings with a high fps, but less costly than the x1950?

And by the way.. I won't be getting this stuff for a little while. It'll be about 3 months before I have all the parts I mentioned up there. Oh and by the way I'm NOT getting vista.

Dex · Mar 14, 2007, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahl

See now there's an idea. Get a cheaper card now and get the dx10 one later, as opposed to buying the best now AND the best later. So what do you figure is a good card to buy that will run gw on max settings with a high fps, but less costly than the x1950?

And by the way.. I won't be getting this stuff for a little while. It'll be about 3 months before I have all the parts I mentioned up there. Oh and by the way I'm NOT getting vista.

My favorite ~$100 GPU is the GeForce 7600GT. You could also go with a x1600xt or x1600 Pro, but the 7600GT seems to bench a little better in most games. I'd take the 7600GT over any of the x1600 flavors, and it would run Guild Wars very nicely. If you go up from there you might as well just go with the x1950 Pro. IMHO the 7900GT isn't worth $200 when you can have the far superior x1950xt for just a little more. I wouldn't go below a 7600GT or x1600. I don't think you'll be happy with the performance with a non-gamer's card if you're looking to run with high settings.

Oh, and I don't recommend buying your parts a little at a time. Buy them all at once. Prices continue to go down, so buying some now and some later is a mistake.

Dahl · Mar 14, 2007, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

My favorite ~$100 GPU is the GeForce 7600GT. You could also go with a x1600xt or x1600 Pro, but the 7600GT seems to bench a little better in most games. I'd take the 7600GT over any of the x1600 flavors, and it would run Guild Wars very nicely. If you go up from there you might as well just go with the x1950 Pro. IMHO the 7900GT isn't worth $200 when you can have the far superior x1950xt for just a little more. I wouldn't go below a 7600GT or x1600. I don't think you'll be happy with the performance with a non-gamer's card if you're looking to run with high settings.

Oh, and I don't recommend buying your parts a little at a time. Buy them all at once. Prices continue to go down, so buying some now and some later is a mistake.

Well the reason I was thinking of buying some now is maybe I can stick some of the good components in my old junker pc to make gw a little more livable... I found a video on youtube that shows pretty much the same lag that I have, ill show it to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-LCM84puo

Note that this isn't MY game or my system or my character. This is just extremely similar to my game performance. It's slightly smoother in explorable areas. It's BRUTALLY choppy in factions, nightfall isn't so bad.

I played with that kind of performance in places like DoA and The Deep, and still did well. I was also in a top guild a long while back when I was into Gvg. I'm surprised I was good as I was running like that, but I got so used to it.

So I figure, hey, if I buy ram and a video card first, I can stick them into my junker pc now so I can at least play a BIT better now. Ya know? But my GF5500 blew up after only a few weeks of playing (note that my ps is 450w) and I'm petrified to put anything good in this system now cause I keep thinking it'll blow up too. Aghhh.

dansamy · Mar 14, 2007, 08:19 PM // 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahl

So I figure, hey, if I buy ram and a video card first, I can stick them into my junker pc now so I can at least play a BIT better now. Ya know? But my GF5500 blew up after only a few weeks of playing (note that my ps is 450w) and I'm petrified to put anything good in this system now cause I keep thinking it'll blow up too. Aghhh.

I wouldn't. First of all, it's unlikely that your current system and new proposed system even use the same RAM type. Secondly, you already stated that you suspect your current system to be the cause of your prior GPU failure.

eggrolls · Mar 14, 2007, 08:47 PM // 20:47

yeah. since you're still using an old agp based board, you probably can't buy any of the parts now and just stick it into the pc. new ram, cpu, and vid card won't work without a new motherboard, meaning you will have replace all four at the same time. the only things you can buy and replace right now would be the hard drive (provided you have SATA) and the PSU (which might improve stability if your current one is giving you problems), but neither would make GW run any faster.

Dex · Mar 14, 2007, 08:56 PM // 20:56

dansamy and eggrolls are right about that. New hardware is most likely going to be a total platform update for you. I doubt your old system can use DDR2 (the type of RAM you want) or PCI-Express 16x (the type of video card interface you want), and your PSU would most likely not handle a x1950.

Dahl · Mar 14, 2007, 09:04 PM // 21:04

My current system believe it or not is really not all that old. It's just that my mom and brother were stupid enough to buy junk components like the video card and whatnot. To be honest I'm not quite sure what this system's specs are besides 2.2 ghz and 512 mb ram. I know it's a 120 gb HD.

When we bought this, I didn't know first thing about computer hardware, and to be honest I didn't know much more than that when I started this thread. I've done a lot of research though, I've had friends help, and I think I've come a long way in the past couple of days.

I'm not too sure what to do though because 3 more months of this garbage performance and I'll be out a head of hair. lol.