What should i upgrade next

[overclocker]

ok guys this is my specs i got a AMD 3200+ OC at 2050mhz 230 fsb and a HIS x1600xt turbo dont need to update my card its fast!!! i got a mis motherboard with 1 pic-e slot and 250W power supply and 768mb of ram (3200) kingston and i got 6 fans cooling this thing :D i play fps like COD2 is the 1 i like the most and fear and more i can max everything out on eny game with aa and af no prob but for the future.

[bretts31344]

Did you say you can max out FEAR and COD2 with a X1600XT? At what resolution?

[JC316]

Well, I would start with getting some more ram. 1GB is the bare minimum for gaming these days. Secondly, I would upgrade that pissy power supply. I am not sure how you are running the X1600 and 6 fans with that dinky thing. My Athlon XP 2200 with a Geforce 5900 has a 300 watt. Thirdly, you video card is ok for now, but not later. I don't know how you are running F.E.A.R maxed with the X1600. If you try newer games like oblivion, it's gonna chug.

[overclocker]

Well, I would start with getting some more ram. 1GB is the bare minimum for gaming these days. Secondly, I would upgrade that pissy power supply. I am not sure how you are running the X1600 and 6 fans with that dinky thing. My Athlon XP 2200 with a Geforce 5900 has a 300 watt. Thirdly, you video card is ok for now, but not later. I don't know how you are running F.E.A.R maxed with the X1600. If you try newer games like oblivion, it's gonna chug.
ITS A X1600XT TURBO its like 4 times as fast as a x1600pro and i run fear and COD2 at 1024X768 and soon 1366X768 on my 32inch lcd tv im buying :D and i get 5800 on 3Dmard05 with overclock my core is 641mhz and mem is 1650mhz i get good fps to

[markkleb]

First- you better get a better PS first, than memory.

second- you better share whatever your on with the rest of us....

[overclocker]

Will the PS help in my game play ?

[bretts31344]

The PS wont help your game play, but I dont know how it even powers your system.

[overclocker]

lol i rewired the fan in my PS so its funning at 100% all the time it keeps it cool befor it was betting hot lol

[bretts31344]

There's a reason it was getting too hot. You are way under powering your system, I don't see how you play games without it shutting down.

[overclocker]

maybe thats y i cant get my core speed hyer then 641mhz on my vid card

[markkleb]

oh yea thats it, LOL

[overclocker]

thanks guy for the help its great. so get a new/better PS and more rem sounds good.

[markkleb]

Honestly the PS is the Backbone of your comp. If its weak the whole comp is junk.

You should start with a good PS than build around it.

Memory makes a big dif also in the way everything works. Try to get 1 gig sticks. IF your mobo has 4 slots its better to use 2 1gig sticks than 4 512 sticks.

[overclocker]

ok and yes i have 4 slopts ty alot.

[bruins004]

Hmmm I think you might of read your PSU wrong bc I dont see how it could even start up. Just go for a good PSU and def. at least 1 Gig of RAM...I gotta say 1 Gig is not even enough anymore, if you can go for 2 x 1Gig sticks. Trust me it will payoff, as you can see my 2 systems (1 with 1 Gig and 1 with 2 Gigs).

Also, you will have to upgrade your X1600XT soon. It isnt a bad card, but trust me it aint the best. I cant even run everything on max in F.E.A.R. with my 7800GT.

Good luck

[overclocker]

Hmmm I think you might of read your PSU wrong bc I dont see how it could even start up. Just go for a good PSU and def. at least 1 Gig of RAM...I gotta say 1 Gig is not even enough anymore, if you can go for 2 x 1Gig sticks. Trust me it will payoff, as you can see my 2 systems (1 with 1 Gig and 1 with 2 Gigs).

Also, you will have to upgrade your X1600XT soon. It isnt a bad card, but trust me it aint the best. I cant even run everything on max in F.E.A.R. with my 7800GT.

Good luck
ty but u sure u cant max everything b/c i was just playing fear demo on maxed settings did u overclock ur 7800gt im running OC by the way

[bruins004]

Nope I def. didnt OC my 7800GT since I am new and just started OC my X800.
The reason I say you can't max FEAR out is due to the following reasons:

1. F.E.A.R. uses about 1.5 Gigs of RAM
2. A card with 24 pipelines (which is more than your card) has a problem running F.E.A.R. on max settings.
3. The X1600XT only has a 128mb bus opposed to the 7800GT with a 256mb one. (limits the card even more).

But you are running only the demo so it might be possible, since it could be less demanding.
What resolution are you on and what are all of the settings (AA, etc.)?

[overclocker]

its runs realy well but wen u go around a corner its lags then it runs fine again and yes its the ram i need more and im running 1024x768

[Azn Tr14dZ]

Nope I def. didnt OC my 7800GT since I am new and just started OC my X800.
The reason I say you can't max FEAR out is due to the following reasons:

1. F.E.A.R. uses about 1.5 Gigs of RAM
2. A card with 24 pipelines (which is more than your card) has a problem running F.E.A.R. on max settings.
3. The X1600XT only has a 128mb bus opposed to the 7800GT with a 256mb one. (limits the card even more).

But you are running only the demo so it might be possible, since it could be less demanding.
What resolution are you on and what are all of the settings (AA, etc.)?

You don't necessarily need a 24-pixel pipeline card to run F.E.A.R. well. What about the X1900 Series, they don't have 24-pipelines...

[JC316]

I can run F.E.A.R on max with my 12 pipe X1800GTO. 0% under 25FPS AVE 60 max 157. I get 7000 on 3dmark05.

[overclocker]

i get 5824 on 3Dmark05 with a x1600xt OC:D

[bruins004]

I see what you are saying max is.
What I mean by max settings is max settings w/ 8AA and 16AF.
I saw a review for the 7950gx2 w/ 16AF and 4AA and it only got 11fps.
So i doubt a x1600xt could run well with that, but with no AA and AF and max settings it will run fine.

[overclocker]

no i have 4x aa and 16x af so and i get 25fps+ and 1024x768 res and all maxed with sadows maxed and every thing so...

[bruins004]

Just out of curiousity turn that up to 8x aa and see what you get....
Also wut are your clocks at?

[overclocker]

641core 1650 mem and there only up to 6x aa

[trog100]

"second- you better share whatever your on with the rest of us...."


http://www.cavecom.com/smilies/cwm41.gif


trog

[overclocker]

the only thing i got is candy :Dhahahaha

[Azn Tr14dZ]

"second- you better share whatever your on with the rest of us...."


http://www.cavecom.com/smilies/cwm41.gif


trog

These are the kind of things that creep me out about you. The pics and the "he he...". Aggh!!

[overclocker]

lmao its not he he its haha big dif man!!!!!!

[trog100]

i recon there is more to it than that AZN.. u just aint wise enough to know what it is..


http://www.cavecom.com/smilies/cwm42.gif

trog

[overclocker]

thank so much for all your input ill take your advice and get a new PS and more ram.

[overclocker]

hey guys what do you think of this PS i just bot it http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1273337&CatId=1079 please tell me what you think.

[JC316]

It looks pretty sweet to me. It should perform quite nicely with the rest of your system.

[BigD6997]

good ps i have a antec and i dont think ill go anyother way, besides a ocz modstream

and i suggest this as ram

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231020

good timings and is great if u want to overclock u can put the fsb to 250 and keep a 1:1

there is actually a review on them from tpu

[overclocker]

how do i get to my bios for my cpu i wanna overclock it?

[overclocker]

eny one there how do you get to the bios for the cpu to overclock it?
please i need help.

[warup89]

dont forget that the pPS should have a good "A" rail, because the PS may be 600w but has a "12v @ 14A" which is not good, try to get A18 or +.

reguading about OCing the cpu look for "frequencies" or anything that has to do for your CPu inside the BIOS.

This should help you looking trough your BIOS:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/04/bios_from_a_to_z/

[Atomic77]

Not all cards need more then 250w. You will need more power only if you plan or have a really big video card and alot of stuff in your computer.

[Alec§taar]

1GB is the bare minimum for gaming these days.

and

def. at least 1 Gig of RAM...I gotta say 1 Gig is not even enough anymore, if you can go for 2 x 1Gig sticks.

Believe it or not, you 2 guys?

With gaming I do well w/ 512mb DDR-400 Ram "only" here... especially the newer system in my sig below/profile here.

That is also the case even on my other/2nd rig ("only" P4 3.2ghz, GeForce 6800 GT OC 256mb RAM onboard its vidcard, & 512mb PC-3200 DDR-400 RAM onboard its mobo also)!

Not meaning to be a dork to you both, it's just a fact... not one I'd "b.s." about either!

:)

* E.G. -> I play games like Doom III, Quake 4, Serious Sam II (latest/last release) just fine on that amount in fact, with FULL quality settings (details for each rig below)... heck, they FLY, even on my older rig!

Even OpenGL modded patchports for older games such as Quake I like "Tenebrae" sail here especially on my newer rig in my sig below, & it is HEAVY, and, that also does OK on my older 2nd rig too.

Thing is also - I'd wager those games' requirements are as stiff as any game out there in fact memory-wise & otherwise as well (such as graphics cards needed & memory on them too, & memory on mobo + CPU types etc.).

(Those games' requirements for performance are satisfied well enough by this rig in my sig, running 1600x1200 resolutions & "maxed-out" quality in game & AA + AntiIsotropic settings in the NVidia control panel, NOT doing game controlled quality)

Plus, even my older 2nd box around 800x600 high quality on my 2nd older rig too (much less of a gaming machine compared to the new one in my sig below, but still quick)!

(Both my systems have 512mb mainboard system RAM memory "only")

APK

P.S.=> Could be the fact I have a SSD to page off data to perhaps?

And, 128mb ECC Ram Caching Controller on my RAID 0 array of WD "Raptor X's" w/ 16mb buffers on them @ 10k rpm speeds here too, but doubt it on this latter part but you never know!

I also the tune "living hell" out of the OS I use (Windows Server 2003 SP #1 fully hotfix patched)

You know:

Process & services trimmings + registry hack/tweaks of course, ALL to get more memory &/or CPU cycles back for things I actually do & use (cutting out ones I do NOT need of course, and much more), which probably helps a great deal!

Windows NT-based OS, especially 2000/XP/Server 2003 imo, run a lot of things they do NOT need to be running, ALL THE TIME,for all scenarios, especially in the way of services, & even networking protocols by default typically after setup!

(Yes, "SCW" - server configuration wizard & Win2003 Server in its default workstation mode install help as well, keeping services & server programs to a minimum, adding only as you need them as well in regards to memory use too).

What I suspect strongly why I can "get away with only 512mb of RAM & fast performance" out of games here, may very well be the fact that I use a pagefile.sys/virtual memory location on a solid-state disk!

(Which is a hell of a lot faster than std. disks & far faster seek/access times to data on them, & that has 2x1gb partitions/2gb total)

Setup as noted in my signature below & for what... apk

[Azn Tr14dZ]

i recon there is more to it than that AZN.. u just aint wise enough to know what it is..


http://www.cavecom.com/smilies/cwm42.gif

trog
OMG!!! Every single message:
blah blah blah....he he...
...he he...

pic

(ending of post)
trog

It just creeps the f#%k outta me. *deep breath*, I'm good now. You can keep ding that, I'm fine. It's ok...I'm ok...its all good...he he...

[wazzledoozle]

Any game newer than Source you will want 1 gb of ram minimum to prevent stuttering. Stuttering=death in Counter Strike.

[Alec§taar]

Any game newer than Source you will want 1 gb of ram minimum to prevent stuttering. Stuttering=death in Counter Strike.

Well, I'm not b.s.'ing you guys in my last post/last page!

I do really well on 512mb of systemboard mounted MAIN memory RAM, "only" here, on both rigs I own, but can REALLY "push the envelope, right to the edge" on my rig in my signature!

E.G.=> 1600x1200 resolutions, full AA & AntiIsotropic set to max...

That's on games like the ones I mentioned (Doom III, Quake 4 smp, & Serious Sam II for instance)... they are not "light" games imo, requirements-wise!

Does this 1gb stuff you guys speak of mostly hold true for online gaming moreso than for local pc play only?

See, I rarely game online anymore is why, & usually only play the last year or two here in local mode (not online), cable modem user or not... time is the key thing.

APK

P.S.=> I do strongly suspect it's a great deal of some of the "esoteric parts" I use!

Possibly even the caching SATA 1/2 capable PCI-e x4 slot controller (with IO controller cpu onboard to offload the system CPU from disk oriented control tasks running two raid'd disks with 16mb of buffers on each) but, doubt this, or less likely than the SSD use I do here & how it is used...

The SSD I have is my pagefile.sys location, mostly imo this is what is letting me "get away" w/ less than 1gb of system board mounted main memory RAM... apk

[Azn Tr14dZ]

^Yeah. I have 1GB, which plays all games fine, but when there's lots of action in certain times in Counter-Strike: Source, Day of Defeat: Source, or Call of Duty 2, you're basically dead, over. Unless of course, the other guy stutters too...then it's a happy day...:toast:

[wazzledoozle]

Well, I'm not b.s.'ing you guys in my last post/last page!

I do really well on 512mb of systemboard mounted MAIN memory RAM, "only" here, on both rigs I own, but can REALLY "push the envelope, right to the edge" on my rig in my signature!

E.G.=> 1600x1200 resolutions, full AA & AntiIsotropic set to max...

That's on games like the ones I mentioned (Doom III, Quake 4 smp, & Serious Sam II for instance)... they are not "light" games imo, requirements-wise!

Does this 1gb stuff you guys speak of mostly hold true for online gaming moreso than for local pc play only?

See, I rarely game online anymore is why, & usually only play the last year or two here in local mode (not online), cable modem user or not... time is the key thing.

APK

P.S.=> I do strongly suspect it's a great deal of some of the "esoteric parts" I use!

Possibly even the caching SATA 1/2 capable PCI-e x4 slot controller (with IO controller cpu onboard to offload the system CPU from disk oriented control tasks running two raid'd disks with 16mb of buffers on each) but, doubt this, or less likely than the SSD use I do here & how it is used...

The SSD I have is my pagefile.sys location, mostly imo this is what is letting me "get away" w/ less than 1gb of system board mounted main memory RAM... apk
Actually those are rather lightweight games. The Doom 3 engine is based on the Quake 3 engine, and therefore not very demanding. Serious Sam 2 is Unreal Engine 2, nuff said.

You can do all the tweaks you want to your pagefile, but its not going to compensate for the massive bandwidth available on ddr ram, DDR400= 3.200 GBytes/s
Two 7200rpm drives in raid0 might be able to sustain ~130 MBytes/s? Not nearly enough.

[Alec§taar]

SEE BELOW, double post!

APK

[Alec§taar]

Well, not intending to be "confrontational" here, but, do read on please (some points to discuss):

Actually those are rather lightweight games.

Quake 4 & Doom III are?

(As opposed to what game?? This I find VERY difficult to believe on your part in that statement, no offense intended, especially if you show me current games that are MUCH/LOADS heavier & more demanding of a system)

The Doom 3 engine is based on the Quake 3 engine,

Other way around, right?

(First, I am assuming you meant Quake 4 above, because it is based off Doom III)

If you did not do a misspell?

WELL, Quake III may be the ancestor/forebear/progenitor of Doom III &/or Quake 4, but it is NOT the same engine. NOT BY A LONG SHOT.

Doom III and Quake 4 (opposed to Quake III) are FAR "heavier" than Q3 man!

Just in that they are WAY more "bump mapped textured" & such, as well as casting objects own light & shadows, not just hacks to images in the game & much more.

I'd wager anyone that plays these 2 games will second that.

and therefore not very demanding.

Show me games with stiffer requirements memory-wise, vidcard-wise, & CPU-wise.

Seriously!

Yes, they may be out there, but I find it hard to believe you call Quake 4 smp & Doom III "lightweight requirements" games.

Serious Sam 2 is Unreal Engine 2, nuff said.

?

Last I knew of? Serious Sam 2 is its OWN engine... show me otherwise, if this is the case, cannot hurt me to know this trivia I suppose, but afaik?

The guys from the overseas country (CroTeam, probably from Croatia I would guess?) who built it are NOT licensing their engine to Unreal 2, or other way around... it's their OWN engine!

You can do all the tweaks you want to your pagefile, but its not going to compensate for the massive bandwidth available on ddr ram, DDR400= 3.200 GBytes/s

That's funny, because I push WELL over 100fps & often up to 350fps++ because of it (partially also due to removing the framerate caps on Doom III &/or Quake 4 smp too via config file hacks to the game itself & other tweaks for that file)

Believe you me, I wouldn't state this otherwise:

I don't hit what you guys say is needed for games (1gb of RAM).

The games I am playing aren't light, I honestly refuse to believe that statement of yours...

Again, why?

Well, mainly because Quake 4 smp or not & Doom III are often used in benchmarks tests, BECAUSE they "push" a system hard!

Two 7200rpm drives in raid0 might be able to sustain ~130 MBytes/s? Not nearly enough.

Well, they ARE SATA disks, fastest ones I know of... but, they are run off of PCI-e x4 slots, the bandwidth here is WAY above SATA 1.

================================================== =============

Common Buses & their Max Bandwidth

PCI 132 MB/s (type current CENATEK SSD I have uses)
AGP 8X 2,100 MB/s
PCI Express 1x 250 [500]* MB/s (type this DDRdrive x1 SSD will use)
PCI Express 2x 500 [1000]* MB/s
PCI Express 4x 1000 [2000]* MB/s bandwidth my Caching Promise SuperTrak can get
PCI Express 8x 2000 [4000]* MB/s
PCI Express 16x 4000 [8000]* MB/s
PCI Express 32x 8000 [16000]* MB/s
IDE (ATA100) 100 MB/s
IDE (ATA133) 133 MB/s
SATA 1 150 MB/s (type the GC-Ramdisk by Gigabyte uses)
SATA 2 300 MB/s
Gigabit Ethernet 125 MB/s
IEEE1394B [firewire] 100 MB/s

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, like I said above - I don't think its my Caching RAID 0 controller, or even the disk buffers @ 16mb each on 2 WD "Raptor X" SATA disks, other than possibly for FASTER load times from disk!

However, I feel MOSTLY the fact I can "get away" with "only 512mb of RAM" & yet get very high framerates here is because of 1 fact:

ALL memory in your system?

It's ALL considered "Virtual", even your mobo RAM, by the OS itself & its kernel module for memory mgt. including pagefile.sys data.

(That said, my pagefile.sys isn't on a std. HDD, but, is itself in RAM, on a solid-state ramdisk - part of the ENTIRE "Virtual Memory Pool" here in effect, & ALL IN RAM!)

APK

P.S.=> Guys, I dunno... I do push the framerates I see (partially due to OS tunings saving RAM & CPU cycles no doubt as well, as well as tweaking/tuning my game config.cfg & autoexec.cfg files for performance)

Still, I also suspect it is how I setup this rig (since all memory is "Virtual", my pagefile.sys being in RAM (literally, on a solid-state drive) becomes part of the 512mb of actual RAM I have on my mobo... another 2gb worth, albeit accessed via a PCI 2.2 bus @ 133mb/sec.

(This will change to faster once I get the DDRdrive x1 PCI-e x1 socket capable SSD I am going to replace the cenatek rocketdrive here in this system now (see specs in sig below) with - MUCH faster RAM (DDR1 2.1gb/sec capable) & 500mb/sec PCI-3 x1 socket using one!)

Again, & I do still honestly refuse to believe that Quake 4 smp & Doom III are now considered "lightweight" games!

That is, unless you guys can show me otherwise!

It's possible there are now more recent heavier games, but I cannot see them being FAR more "stringent & demanding" on a system than Doom III & Quake 4 are.

Why else are they still used on benchmarks then? apk

[wazzledoozle]

You can put an infinite amount of bandwidth between a hard disk and the chipset, but you are still restricted to the 7,200 rpm of the platters. Under ideal conditions a single 7200 rpm hard disk may get ~65 MBps sustained.

About Doom 3 and Quake 4, they run on the same exact engine. That engine is loosely based on the Quake 3 engine, just heavily modified over years and years until its current state. Its a high resolution, Quake 3 engine with natively implemented OpenGL 2.0 effects. A good example of how adaptable the Quake 3 engine is, is Call Of Duty 2. It runs the heavily modified Quake 3 engine from CoD1, with DX9 effects tacked on.

Serious Sam 2 uses the Unreal 2.5 engine (same as UT2K4)

Heavyweight games would be those that are resource heavy and designed from the ground up for DX9 or opengl 2.0. Games such as FEAR, BF2 and Half Life 2.

But really, a 512mb stick of PC3200 only costs about $25 now... if you want a smooth gaming experience its a small price.

[Alec§taar]

You can put an infinite amount of bandwidth between a hard disk and the chipset, but you are still restricted to the 7,200 rpm of the platters. Under ideal conditions a single 7200 rpm hard disk may get ~65 MBps sustained.

That'd depend on the disks used, & would vary a bit: I use the newest/latest-greatest WD "Raptor X's", they probably do more!

(Especially in combination w/ the bus type they are on, faster rpm rates (10k) & their own buffers (32mb total) ontop of my caching controllers 128mb of ECC Ram onboard it)....

Especially in "bursting" phases.

However, sustained transfers, which you bring up?

They probably won't do ALL that much more than that.

Think it could be "situational" here?

Above all though, I have to quote myself from my last post above on THIS account:

Oh, like I said above - I don't think its my Caching RAID 0 controller, or even the disk buffers @ 16mb each on 2 WD "Raptor X" SATA disks, other than possibly for FASTER load times from disk!

Had to make that clear, that I don't think my disk subsystem has all THAT much to do with it, & about "BURST" transfers too!

I think that on disks? This COULD be situational, especially if the disks burst data from THEIR onboard 32mb of combined buffers, AND then my controller bursts out of its 128mb of ECC memory cache onboard it.

About Doom 3 and Quake 4, they run on the same exact engine. That engine is loosely based on the Quake 3 engine, just heavily modified over years and years until its current state. Its a high resolution, Quake 3 engine with natively implemented OpenGL 2.0 effects. A good example of how adaptable the Quake 3 engine is, is Call Of Duty 2. It runs the heavily modified Quake 3 engine from CoD1, with DX9 effects tacked on.

It may be built on that foundation, but I know they are not EVEN in the same league, "weight-wise"... serious on that. Again, anyone that plays them, can tell you this. Mods like Quake I "Tenebrae" uses many of the same things (dynamic lighting cast by the object itself for instance & bump mapped textures) & it is WAY way heavier than GL Quake I for instance.

These things (Quake 4 & Doom III use, as well as a GLQuake I mod I cite in "tenebrae") do make a diff. in how much "juice" you need to run these games...

I just can't see them being called "lightweight games", & not only on that account, but also the fact they are both used still quite heavily in benchmarks.

Serious Sam 2 uses the Unreal 2.5 engine (same as UT2K4)

Are you SURE about that? See, again, the last I knew of - Croteam did their OWN engines for their "Serious Sam" series of games (SS II is really the 3rd release).

(In other words, can you produce documentation of your statement? Thanks!)

Heavyweight games would be those that are resource heavy and designed from the ground up for DX9 or opengl 2.0. Games such as FEAR, BF2 and Half Life 2.

Doom III & Quake 4 still qualify imo & apparently others online, as games that are heavyweights & push your system around though - again, why else are they still used as benchmarking highlights then on tests of graphics cards, cpu's, etc. online?

But really, a 512mb stick of PC3200 only costs about $25 now... if you want a smooth gaming experience its a small price.

The cost part IS there, & a good point on your end (as far as advising others what they can update/upgrade their current rigs to, & I won't contest THAT part)...

However, I am just letting you guys know, that with Quake 4 smp, Doom III, & SeriousSam II (games I consider "heavy" & apparently, so do others, because the first 2 are usually still listed in tests online) I do FINE on "only 512mb of RAM" on my mobo as main system memory.

APK

P.S.=> Now, just so you know? I read the "minimum requirements" off of the boxes of ALL 3 games I noted! I had to check, & here they are, memory-wise:

512mb for Serious Sam II, & Quake 4
384mb for Doom III

Might as well NEARLY double that, because of the performance @ those levels, right? We all know the deal pretty much on "minimum requirements"... & in fact, using SS II as an example?? It recommends (in its manual) to get a "higher-end" gaming experience - you need 1gb, & heck - Quake 4, to run it WAY high? Requires as much iirc, & also a 512mb memory vidcard (that's NOT "lightweight" is it?).

Also, a funny part is, as I note above? I hit the higher resolutions on these games with very fast framerates performance, & set my vidcard to control the quality (not the game via "Application Controlled" in Nvidia's vidcard settings), which IS @ 1600x1200 in my games, & full AntiAliasing + full AntiIsotropic.

However, I do also tweak my games' configs, and of course as I mention above as well? My OS (via services, reghacks, etc.) to get back more CPU cycles & RAM.

That too must help on both accounts, heck - I know it does, especially tweaks of a game's configuration itself mostly, as far as coaxing performance from them.

Anyhow - What are the "minimum requirements" for the games you cited? I am curious on that, & IF Croteam is either using the Unreal 2 engine, OR licensing out their engine to the folks who make Unreal 2...

Tia! apk

[{JNT}Raptor]

Alec........you State that your system runs these games with No Issues with 512mb memory........but....not everyone Is using a Cenetek ramdrive to store thier pagefile on......slide your pagefile to one of your hard drives and I think you'll see how much an advantage It Is to run your pagefile from a ramdrive(But I know you already know)....Ram as you know Is about 100 to 200% faster than a Hard drive.....and even with the Limits of the Interface(PCI-PCI-E)....your still going to have a Huge advantage over a Hard Drive for pagefile storage.

Bottom line Is....Not everyone wants to have to be a Rocket Scientist to get thier systems to run thier games on 512mb memory......yes...."You" may be able to run at that level with 512mb........but I also think you'd agree....not many peeps are running the side hardware you are....but your making It sound as If Anyone can....and thats Just not true.

Do a google for the "Most demanding game out there" and I think you'll see F.E.A.R./BF2 ranking 1-2.

[FLY3R]

ITS A X1600XT TURBO its like 4 times as fast as a x1600pro. I get 5800 on 3Dmard05 with overclock my core is 641mhz and mem is 1650mhz i get good fps to

Can i please see a screen shot of both 3DMark05 and a screen shot of your Grafics cards Clock Speeds. :rolleyes:

[Tatty_One]

Yeah me too on the screen shots, its the HIS 1600xt Turbo, I know it well and it aint like 4 x faster than a pro but then again....4 times faster than a snail is a tortoise!......just kidding :laugh:

The HIS x1600xt turbo cannot even compete with the 7600GT so its gonna be around 6200ish I would think in 3D Mark 2005 but he is runnin his games at 1024 x 768 so that would compensate a bit in "real world gaming".

[overclocker]

Can i please see a screen shot of both 3DMark05 and a screen shot of your Grafics cards Clock Speeds. :rolleyes:
umm how do i post a pic on this site i tryed attaching it but it wont work and my core is 640 and mem 1650 and my 3Dmark05 scores was 5806 and im still running off my stupid 218w PS b/c my 500W hasnt come in the mail yet :banghead:

[Alec§taar]

Alec........you State that your system runs these games with No Issues with 512mb memory........

Right, but the MAIN thing is that I can do it @ incredibly HIGH resolutions, with full AntiAliasing & AntiIsotropic settings.

Might have more to do with the vidcard I use, more than anything else here though, imo @ least, in combination with the fact I page to RAM (albeit not system RAM, but a solid-state ramdisk drive).

I can't think of anything else as to "why" I can "defy" the given "rule-of-thumb" here, & I don't doubt anyone saying "1gb is the amount to have", it may very well be, for std. rig setups & high-quality gaming.

but....not everyone Is using a Cenetek ramdrive to store thier pagefile on......slide your pagefile to one of your hard drives and I think you'll see how much an advantage It Is to run your pagefile from a ramdrive(But I know you already know)....Ram as you know Is about 100 to 200% faster than a Hard drive.....

It makes a diff. for a few things, & it's 1000x of times faster (many orders of magnitude really, no moving parts & speed of RAM (electricity) vs. something that physically has to swing a diskdrive read/write head around, even as fast as they are/can be, today).

and even with the Limits of the Interface(PCI-PCI-E)....your still going to have a Huge advantage over a Hard Drive for pagefile storage.

Yes, quite a lot - & hopefully, even faster (once the PCI-e x1 slot capable DDRdrive releases, which is what I REALLY want for this machine - I will put the CENATEK back into my older SQLServer 2005/IIS 6.x lab rig here & pretty much use it like I do on this one now... it is, after all, where this part came from originally).

Bottom line Is....Not everyone wants to have to be a Rocket Scientist to get thier systems to run thier games on 512mb memory......yes...."You" may be able to run at that level with 512mb........but I also think you'd agree....not many peeps are running the side hardware you are....

Oh, I am really just wondering if IT is making that diff. & I think it's more the vidcard I use (512mb RAM on it is my suspicion as to why I can pull that off w/ "only" 512mb of system mainboard memory) &, in combination w/ the fact I literally page to RAM.

but your making It sound as If Anyone can....and thats Just not true.

Well, it's pretty easy/simple to setup: Install the drivers, partition it, & bang - you're up & running/off-to-the-races w/ it, using it as you see fit.

I think it's more a matter of costs - this one wasn't cheap & I got a break on it when I did my review of them.

The newest/latest ones from Gigabyte (IRAM Gc-Ramdisk) are FAR more affordable, I've seen them as LOW as $60 per board, & then addon the costs of RAM you wish to use with them.

Do a google for the "Most demanding game out there" and I think you'll see F.E.A.R./BF2 ranking 1-2.

Probably, I wouldn't doubt it, but then I cannot see them being FAR heavier than is, say, Quake 4...

(Heck, SeriousSam II lists 1gb as its "high quality" level, for system memory onboard, & Yet I can run it in that manner here, with "only" 512mb of RAM onboard my mobo - & it's not as "heavy" as Quake 4 is, not by a longshot imo, yet both play @ very high res, & with fast framerates (albeit, I tweak the heck out of IDSoftware's games in their config files, and it DOES help quite a lot for speed/performance, as well as tuning/tweaking my OS configuration to save memory & cpu cycles + more as well)).

APK

P.S.=> I'm just curious as to why is all... I don't think it's my disk subsystems setup via controllers & cache on it (128mb), or diskdrive buffers (32mb in total), but more possibly the fact I page off to RAM (literally, albeit not system memory) & the vidcard I have (512mb memory onboard)... apk