Curse

Richard Rahl · Sep 02, 2006, 09:31 AM // 09:31

Hi all, I'm new to this web site.

I'd like to begin playing Guild Wars on my old dual cpu workstation. It has the following specs:
2 x Intel Pentium 3 866 MHz
1 GB RDRAM PC600 ECC
18.2 GB SCSI 10,000 rpm

The monitor is a 15" LCD with a native resolution of 1024x768. That's the resolution I'd like to play with.

I've downloaded the client and looked a the frame time on the login screen. I get very few frames per second with the original 3DLabs professional video card. Replacing it with a GeForce 4 MX440 gives me about 30 fps on low settings (always on the login screen). I guess during the game I'll get much lower frame rate due to much more complex scenes.

During the login screen, total CPU usage is about 60% (100% load on one CPU and 20% on the other), so I guess I can exploit the dual processing capabilities to squeeze out at least a 20/40% of the processing power of the second processor. Reading this article (http://www.guildwarsguru.com/content...rs-id2042.php), it looks like I can play decently if I upgrade the video card.

I've found very good prices from my favourite reseller for:
€70 Inno3D GeForce 6600 (128 MB DDR, 300 MHz core, non GT!)
€80 Sapphire ATI X1300 PRO (256 MB DDR2)
€93 Sapphire ATI X1600 PRO (256 MB DDR2)

What do you suggest? Clearly the X1600 is faster, but it costs a bit more and I'm not sure my system can exploit all that GPU power... What fps do you think I could get and at which settings?

My power supply is an original Compaq PSU, 375W... Do you think it's enough for these modern video cards? I guess power consumption is almost the same between the three, but much higher the the 3DLabs or GF4 MX.

Thanks in advance.

PS My GF4 MX has quite bad 2D output quality (is it expected? or the card is defective? who knows...), compared to the 3DLabs... If possible, I'd like to have a good quality on 2D since I occasionally work with pictures.

bizarresk · Sep 02, 2006, 09:51 AM // 09:51

stay away from x1300.. 4 pipes

Alias_X · Sep 02, 2006, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Are you sure you would like to go with ATI?

If not, GeForce 6800 or better is probably in your price range.

Something like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...N82E1681412154
should be great!

Can you give us an idea of any other games you would like to play aside from Guild Wars.

Richard Rahl · Sep 02, 2006, 05:29 PM // 17:29

I just want to play Guild Wars (Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall) and maybe some older games I've around. Probably when Vista or Vista SP1 will be out I'll upgrade to the new operating system. Very good 2D and video quality would be nice since I like watching movies.

The X1300 PRO has four pipes but performs a little better than GeForce 6600 with DDR (400 MHz). GeForce 6600 with DDR2 (800 Mhz) wins on the ATI card, but it's hard to find at a competitive price.

The € 93 edition of the X1600 PRO has 600 MHz DDR2 memory instead of the normal 800 MHz modules. I don't think it would be much of a problem... I believe it will still run faster than the X1300 PRO and price is € 13 higher.

GeForce 6800 is hard to find in Italy. GeForce 6800XT for AGP is € 149... Definitely out of my price range.

I just want to play Guild Wars at 1024x768 with decent FPS (25/40 would be great...). Possibly with medium or even high details. I'm not even sure I can achieve it by just upgrading the video card, but it's all I can afford. What would you choice among the three, if you were me? Consider the different price among the cards (€ 23 difference from the first to the third is not much... but it still matters) and the low specs of the system.

Mushroom · Sep 02, 2006, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Even more important: What kind of graphics card slot do you have?

By looking at the specs you posted, the best you probably have is AGP. That automatically eliminates all of the ATI X series cards. Those are PCI Express only.

I would probably stear you to the ATI 9550 256 Meg. For AGP cards, it is probably the best "bang for the buck", normally selling in the US for under $65. It used the same GPU as the 9800, just clocked down slightly.

Do not even bother looking at anything like the X1300, since you could not put it in your machine even if you got one. And even if you were able to get a card like that in AGP, the improvement in graphics would add even more load to your CPU, dragging performance down greatly.

Richard Rahl · Sep 02, 2006, 07:26 PM // 19:26

ATI 9550 costs almost as much as the GeForce 6200 (€ 40/€ 50), which I suppose is much better.

Mushroom, all the cards I'm talking about are AGP 8x/4x. So you think buying a GeForce 6600, ATI X1300 or ATI X1600 would decrease performance instead of increasing it?

GeForce 6200A, 256 MB DDR 400 MHz 64 bit, AGP 4x/8x from Inno3D is € 50 (€ 40 with 128 MB). I have seen benchmarks and it is not that impressive with Guild Wars, even with a modern CPU. It makes 37 FPS at high quality settings, 1024x768. I think I'd get lower a frame rate on a dual Pentium III machine. That's why I was looking at a bit more expensive card.

Going up, GeForce 6600, 128 MB DDR 400 MHz 128 bit, AGP 4x/8x from Inno3D is € 70. Maybe with this card I can play better, for just a € 20 difference.

Other € 20 and I get to the X1600 PRO, 256 MB DDR2 600 Mhz 128 bit, AGP 4x/8x from Sapphire.

Mushroom · Sep 04, 2006, 05:07 AM // 05:07

It is true that the ATI X series is available in AGP, but they are rather rare finds, and normally not worth the extra cost.

And advantage found in higher GPU performance will be quickly lost because of the low speed of the 866 MHz CPU. Even though most of the work is done by the GPU, a lot of data is still passed back and forth between CPU, Memory, and other areas of the system.

If you turn up the graphics to what the card can handle, you will find that the system will slow to a crawl, due to overloading of the other components. I have a 64 bit Athlon 3500, and I still tend to turn down my graphics a bit, because of the system lags that come into play. On a system as old as yours, this would be even more noticeable.

When matching "best" graphics card to a system, you also have to consider what the system itself is capable of supporting. This is similar to the idea of putting a GB of RAM on a 250 MHz system running Win98. You can put it in, but you will see zero performance increase. And you can put Win XP on a system as low as a 266 MHz with 128 Meg RAM, but you would not like the performance you get from it.

I recommend a card along the lines of the 9550, because it is the highest your CPU could resonably support. If you put in a higher ended card, you still could not use AA, or much else because the rest of your system could not reasonably handle the increase in information throughput.

Richard Rahl · Sep 04, 2006, 01:41 PM // 13:41

Thank you Mushroom, I think you're right. Moreover, Sapphire techinical support told me that I might need a new PSU to give power to the ATI X1 cards... I don't think it a good idea to spend even more money on this PC.

Today I got the game... Wow!

Guild Wars with the GeForce 4 MX440 (64 MB) runs fairly at 1024x768 with low details or middle-low details. 30 / 20 FPS depending on the complexity on the scene. In the city, with many people, it is a bit too slow. Average CPU usage is something like 30/35% on one CPU and 85/95% on the other. Overall, I get a not-so-bad gameplay, but spending € 50 on a new video card is not an issue.

Radeon 9550 with 256 MB of memory seems a good choice. I can get a Sapphire (standard 250 MHz clock) or GeCube (325 MHz instead of 250 Mhz)... What do you suggest? I do not feel very comfortable about GeCube since Sapphire is very popular in Italy and I think it would eventually offer better support.

GeForce 6200 with 256 MB costs as much as the Radeon 6200, XFX branded. I still feel more comfortable going with Sapphire. GeForce 6200 is a little faster and has the PureVideo staff and Pixel Shader 3.0... But like I said in the original post, I'm quite disappointed with the VGA output quality of the GeForce 440, Sparkle branded, I have.

Still suggesting Radeon 9550? Anyone tried it on this game?

Thank you for helping me making the right choice.

Mushroom · Sep 04, 2006, 04:38 PM // 16:38

I have a Sapphire 9550 with 256 Meg myself, and it works pretty good. The only time I see any kind of slowdown is when I turn on Anti-Aliasing.

I run at 1280x1024, with everything set to high (except for AA, which is turned off). Quality and performance are both excellent, and I view on a 21" monitor. There is a second 21" connected to the card, but since the game does not support dual monitors, this holds my clock, and anything else I may want to see (shortcut maps, notes, etc).

I would recommend Sapphire, MSI, or one of the other top name manufacturers though. I did a little checking on the GeCube card, and they simply overclock it. That would make no improvements over a stock 9550, and may actually degrade durability and stability. Another reason I like the Sapphire is that they put a pretty good cooling fan on the card. Most of your "budget line" cards simply put on a heatsink.

I would consider the X series, but wait until after you upgrade your CPU. Then you will be able to access more features, like AA and make it even better.

And to give an idea how well GW and ATI work together, when you buy a 9550 from Sapphire, you should get a cupon, good for a free 14 day account for Guild Wars: Prophacies.

Richard Rahl · Sep 04, 2006, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Sounds great!

I've a faster notebook I use for development and at the university, but it has integrated graphics, so it was not option for Guild Wars. I plan to replace the desktop in late 2007 or more probably in 2008. It will be hard be to find a good motherboard with AGP by that time. So even if I buy now a faster card, like the X1600 Pro, I won't be able to move it on the new machine. Moreover, there will be better cards at that time!

This evening I'll order the Radeon 9550 from Sapphire with 256 MB. I think it suites my needs. I'll let you know how well it does on my computer!

Thanks!

Mushroom · Sep 05, 2006, 05:07 AM // 05:07

If anybody is thinking of upgrading to any high-ended video card, I encourage them to wait.

Nothing out at the moment supports Direct X 10. However, they will start to come out by late November. I think it is nuts to see people spending $400+ now, when the next generation is just around the corner.

And there are a lot of good boards that support both AGP and PCI Express. Both MSI and ASrock make several, both LGA-775 and AM2. This lets you use your current card now, then move to PCIe when you are ready.

Numa Pompilius · Sep 05, 2006, 08:37 AM // 08:37

That's a AGP-slot machine. The cards you list either don't fit your machine, or they'll be severe overkill given your (no offence) fairly weak CPU.

My suggestion is that you get an ATI 9800 pro. It's two generations old, and therefore very cheap, and it'll run GW at good resolution with all bells and whistles - and it's fast enough that you'll still be CPU limited, so getting a faster graphics card than that wont give any benefit.
To press cost even more, you could even get a used 9800 pro. Just check that the heatsink isn't totally clogged with dust, and that the fan on the heatsink works and isn't too noisy.

That'll easily hold you until the day you decide to upgrade completely.

EDIT: oh, and the 9800 pro is more than twice as fast as the 440MX you have now, and with better image quality.