PDA

View Full Version : Thinking of upgrading



mstlyevil
September 23rd, 2005, 09:57 PM
I was thinking of upgrading my motherboard and cpu to a nforce3 gigabyte board and a AMD 64 3500 cpu. I can get both for less than 300 bucks. I currently run a AMD Athlon XP 2500. I decided to continue to use my agp video card so that is why I am going with the Nforce 3 chipset. Anybody else running simular setup can tell me if upgrading is worth it? Will I see a big performance boost? Also is that price a good deal? What do you guys and gals think?

Ubunted
September 23rd, 2005, 11:23 PM
I run an XP 2500+ myself. When I built a new machine for my buddy's brother we stuck an AMD64 3000+ in there. We loaded up Battlefield 2 and it absolutely SMOKED my little Barton in every possible way. Load speed most noticeably. Mine loaded a map in roughly 35-40 seconds, whereas his did it in about 10, with one-third the amount of RAM.

So yes, I would say you would most definitely see an improvement.

poofyhairguy
September 24th, 2005, 07:57 AM
I personally believe a nice SATA hard disk is the best speed jump. Already have that? Then why not upgrade?!

drizek
September 24th, 2005, 08:28 AM
I run an XP 2500+ myself. When I built a new machine for my buddy's brother we stuck an AMD64 3000+ in there. We loaded up Battlefield 2 and it absolutely SMOKED my little Barton in every possible way. Load speed most noticeably. Mine loaded a map in roughly 35-40 seconds, whereas his did it in about 10, with one-third the amount of RAM.

So yes, I would say you would most definitely see an improvement.

i have a really hard time believing that. unless you have 6gb of ram, there is no way in hell any processor can outperform a 2500 in battlefield 2 on a system with less than 1gb of ram. and even if the map did load faster, the game would hardly be playable. im sure there are other factors invlovled, like your friend having a slow harddrive and a ****** windows install.

mstlyevil
September 24th, 2005, 05:53 PM
i have a really hard time believing that. unless you have 6gb of ram, there is no way in hell any processor can outperform a 2500 in battlefield 2 on a system with less than 1gb of ram. and even if the map did load faster, the game would hardly be playable. im sure there are other factors invlovled, like your friend having a slow harddrive and a ****** windows install.


AMD 64 Athlon chips do have significant increase over the old 32 bit Athlon XP. My question is is it enough to justify the 300 bucks I am going to spend to upgrade. I mean if it is only going to give me a small bump that will not make a difference on any games or apps I run, then why would I bother. I just want to know other peoples experience upgrading, and if they think it is worth it.

Ubunted
September 24th, 2005, 06:18 PM
i have a really hard time believing that. unless you have 6gb of ram, there is no way in hell any processor can outperform a 2500 in battlefield 2 on a system with less than 1gb of ram. and even if the map did load faster, the game would hardly be playable. im sure there are other factors invlovled, like your friend having a slow harddrive and a ****** windows install.
Believe what you want. I had 1.5GB of RAM in my system at the time, with an 80GB WD Caviar ATA100 IDE drive, an X800XL AGP, XP Home and the Barton 2500+ at stock speed.

This freshly-minted AMD64 3000+ with 512MB of DDR400, a PCI-e X600 Pro, Windows 2000 and a 120GB SATA hard drive loaded the demo map in a matter of seconds, whereas mine took the better part of a minute. It did this several times over multiple graphics configurations. And yes, I had the full version and all the maps took a long time to load. I also maintain my system religiously, so you can be sure it was not fragmentation, spyware or anything of the kind.

Granted the SATA drive probably helped, but you just can't ignore the processor power involved in this as well.

In any case, the numbering scheme of the AMD64 line is very much out of whack with the scheme of the 32-bit line. A 3500+ is no small bump from a 2500+, of that you can be sure. Pair it up with a SATA drive, plenty of RAM, a good video card and you will be smoking.

drizek
September 24th, 2005, 06:28 PM
im not calling you a liar or anything, but i just find it hard to believe from my experiences with BF2. were you both using the exact same settings(most importantly, textures) because that will make a huge difference in loading speed.

Also, was he playing online or single player? when you play online, it takes a while for them to verify your files(anti-cheat), which for me takes longer than the actual load itself.

Ubunted
September 24th, 2005, 06:41 PM
im not calling you a liar or anything, but i just find it hard to believe from my experiences with BF2. were you both using the exact same settings(most importantly, textures) because that will make a huge difference in loading speed.

Also, was he playing online or single player? when you play online, it takes a while for them to verify your files(anti-cheat), which for me takes longer than the actual load itself.
Initially we just did single-player - this was just testing a brand new rig, after all - and we noticed the load time was very short. I played a lot of single-player myself - bots make better teammates than most online players I've played with - so I had a pretty solid baseline of comparison.

Since we were doing this at my buddy's house, we loaded up BF2 on his computer - Celeron 2.6, 1GB DDR400 and my old 9500 Pro which, incidentally, is a GREAT card for BF2 - and it performed on a rough parity with mine for load times, though it does take slightly longer. We set up a LAN game, the verifying of files took place, and once again, finished in a fraction of the time. From what I've seen, the verification is a very hard drive and CPU-intensive process, basically running all the relevant files though a hash checker, so the SATA probably helped a lot through that.

Really though, I can see where your confusion comes from. BF2 is just one of those games that likes some systems better than others for whatever reason. I've read time after time about people with systems better than what we built, with 2GB of RAM, SLI, RAID-ed hard drives, the works, and they can't get a decent framerate no matter what they do. On the other hand, when I was running XP I could run EVERYTHING except Textures on High and I would get perfect framerates with a 9500 Pro and a gig of mismatched RAM.

kencoe
May 12th, 2006, 06:04 PM
How much would that Graphics card difference affect the load speed of maps? I would think there is an extra factor of multipliication in the extended bus transfer of PCI-E. Could that contribute to the massive speed difference?