Printable View
Okay you guys, after I boasted about my new 2.8 Celeron system and you all jeered at me for not buying AMD, I went back to the store and exchanged it for an Athlon 64 3000+ system running Windows XP.
Power, power, POWERRRRRR.
Now if only I could get the darned thing to run in AGPx8... :book:
And...Erm..Well ?
somebody is happy~:grouphug:
My last computer was a Celeron. Probably shouldn't do that again...I didn't know they still made them.
Hmm..ok..Let's grow this snowball of hi-tech love then..Ding! ~:cheers:
AGP speed adjustments are primarily in BIOS and secondarily in the Display Options in your OS.
:embarassed:Well it runs okay in AGPx4 I guess... :/Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Thanks lefteye. I've actually been through two weeks of hell trying to get the thing to run right. Nasty reboots whenever I try to run in AGPx8.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Anyhow, I think I've finally tracked down the problem now....sorta. It's basically "a problem" that "some hardware configurations" have with Windows XP. In other words there's nothing I can do about it, except maybe try some different ram sticks.
Anyhow, AGPx4 isn't that bad...it's still a heck of a lot faster than my previous system.
To tell the truth, I can't really tell the difference between this system and the 2.8 Celeron I had before. They are both so much faster than my previous system it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
I can now run RTW with all the graphics tweaked to their highest setting with no noticeable slowdown in play. So I guess there isn't much to complain about...
One advantage of the Celeron though is that it was quieter. The AMD CPU fan is smaller, but quite noisy by comparison.
I recently got more RAM and a graphics card worth my effort (256mb Radeon 9600), so I should probably do that too. I know the feeling you have, though, and it's great.
The problem isnt, as far as I know, related to RAM. However, it is probably related to your motherboard. Check the manual and look if it supports agp x8. If that's the problem you'll have to live with x4 or change the motherboard.
Maybe if a mod put this in apothecary you'd get better responses?
Anyway, you should really get pci xpress as the next thing, so I'd just keep the system as it is, if you only want to play rtw, doesnt really demand much compared to other games on the market (or The Elder Scrolls 4 when it arrives).
Good luck !
Some overclockers in Japan made a processor go up to 7.3GHz. Yes 7.3.
They had a use liquid nitrogen to keep it cool.
I've been using an AMD64-3000 for a while now and it runs very well. I can use 8x AGP through the Catalyst Control Center that runs my 9800 Pro and all is very stable. I have 512 RAM but I really need another 512 to make IL2-Pacific Fighters run smoother.
Not sure what my next step is, maybe an XL850 video card in AGP. I know PCI-Express is "the future", but I don't have the cash to replace the MB and the card. Maybe in spring.
Glad you're enjoying your new system Screwtype. ~:cheers:
I always found it worthwhile to just keep using the system untill it's really old, and then replace the whole thing. And when you upgrade, it should at least be double of what you already got. So if you got 1ghz dont go for 1.5ghz, get a 2ghz etc.
Uh, it doesn't matter. Video cards don't saturate an AGP4x bus, the performance difference between AGP4x and AGP8x is <1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Really? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
Hmm, now I know how you all felt reading the cricket threads...
I supose its hopelessly jejune never to "upgrade" your PC until the old one blows up?
Seriously though, I am due an explosion any time now, what sort of system is a good mid priced specification these days? Mostly for games, in terms of things that make a demand on the PC. Any hints for an old luddite?
The potential of AGPx8 is vast as it operates on a 32 bit channel octuple pumped(66 MHz) churning a total of 533 MHz which can potentially deliver a data rate of 2133 MB/s.
AGPx4 operates on a quadruple pumped channel with a total of 266 MHz and can deliver a rate of 1066 MB/s.
But as is already mentioned in this thread, games seldom need more than 2x AGP which churns out data at a rate of 533 MB/s… that is megabyte!!
There is seldom anything gained by increasing your bus deliverance on your graphics card. This is not the typical bottleneck.
Yeah, I have read that there isn't nearly as much difference as you might think. But <1% sounds a bit exaggerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
Anyhow, as I said, it seems to run okay in AGPx4. I'd prefer it if it ran it x8, but if it won't, I can probably live with it.
I should probably have done that, but I thought I was going to do just a cheap little upgrade. I started out with a $300 budget for the Celeron system. Then I got greedy for more power and took it back to the store and exchanged it for the Athlon system. The price went up to $415.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Then the new mobo blew up my 300 watt PS. So I bought a 550 watt for $60. Then I found the new system wouldn't run reliably in Windows98SE, so I had to upgrade to XP. Another $135. And now that I've got XP, I really should get another 512 Mb RAM, because the 512 Mb I've already got isn't much for an OS that just by itself takes up more than 200 Mb. Another $80. And I'll probably have to get better quality RAM this time. Another $20.
And finally, it's really time I got rid of these cheap old speakers and got a nice set of Logitech 5.1's. Another $100.
So my "cheap" $300 upgrade is going to end up costing me around $800 :embarassed:
Did I mention that I could use a bigger hard drive? :tongue:
You lucky, lucky basket ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
When I bought my video card a year ago, I made enquiries about PCI-Express and folks said, "don't bother with it! It will be ages before it's cheap and affordable." So I bought my Radeon AGP card instead. And now here we are just a year down the track and there's hardly a new mobo or vid card that supports AGP. Incredible how fast it became redundant. But having just recently spent $350 on the AGP card, I really couldn't afford to go with PCI-Express this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
But next time, I think I'll go with my own gut feeling instead ~:)
BTW Beirut, mind if I ask you what type of RAM you're using in your system? Because you have essentially the same hardware as me - except my card won't run in AGPx8, and I suspect the RAM is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
So why the need for PCI-Express?
Thanks for that info. Since both you and dgb have said much the same, I think now I will switch my card back to the other configuration. My choice is actually between AGPx8/AGP Write Off, or AGPx4/AGP Write On, and going by what you and dgb say, I'd be better off running the system in the latter config.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
I suggest you start by not reading my post no. 18 above. It might make you think twice about that "cheap" upgrade ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
You may ask... the answer eludes me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
The need for a 16x PCIe bus lane (that is the one that the graphic card will use) is not needed today and not for a long time yet. It churns out an 8GB/s duplex bus lane (today’s graphic cards only need one direction, hence 4BG/s). The potential is great but not needed.
I guess a more in-depth explanation is needed.
AGP or Accelerated Graphics port is a dedicated bus for the graphics card to reach the system RAM.
This technology was developed when RAM was expensive and the cards had much less RAM than today.
When a card has 256 MB dedicated RAM of its own there is no need to access the much slower system RAM and hence the AGP bus is not needed as much as it used to.
Do you see why a modern graphics card is less worried by the AGP bus-speed? That is why the 16x PCIe is quite absurd.
But you see this is an industry, an industry that lives by numbers. The higher the numbers are, the better … right?
As long as the buyers want more and newer technology and want gadgets with high specs, even though they don’t need it, the industry will continue to deliver this new technology.
You will not be noticing that difference for quite a time as well. The frequencies of the two CPUs are really close. However it is obvious that AMD has enormous cache compared to pity Celeron. But when will be the absolute difference ?Quote:
To tell the truth, I can't really tell the difference between this system and the 2.8 Celeron I had before. They are both so much faster than my previous system it doesn't matter.
You will feel that you invested on the right stuff when all computer programs move to 64-bit. It does not matter if you have a 64bit 7.5 GHz CPU when you run 32 bit OS and programs (ok ok,it will be fast actually). The CPU can run this previous level of programs, however it can show out its power when your OS and programs are 64bit. Windows XP has a 64bit version, you may give it a try. However, such system will only look for 64bit drivers as well. A computer geek's job.
Annoying elements of Capitalism.. They made PCI bus video cards obsolete years ago, and since they have to shake the motherboard market, they release that PCI-express thing. Believe me they have already developed the next two or three levels of bus technology. It's all about keeping the market vivid. I do not think a smaller slot and 16x bus is worth changing the whole motherboard. Vampire job..Quote:
So why the need for PCI-Express?
PCI X will be needed for future games, when the potential is there, games will be using the potential. Just like with DX9, people ask why we need it? With HL2 etc it's obvious.
First off it's PCI-E not PCI-X. PCI-X is a server standard, which I would be extremely surprised if anyone here was using in a home computer.
As to performance difference it is less than 1%. The bus is hardly ever saturated because it is used to transfer data to VRAM, and that's about it under optimal circumstances. If the VRAM gets filled, then it's forced to swap out ot the system RAM. Now a two generations old AGP video card has 12.8Gb/s of VRAM bandwidth. AGP 4x supplies ~1GB/s. AGP 8X provides approximately 2GB/s. Both of those are ridiculously slow compared to the VRAM speed, so as soon as a video card is forced to swap to the system RAM it's going to be slow, no matter waht speed it's at.
As for why PCI-E, well there are a couple of reasons. First off AGP is getting dated. It's power specifications are well under par, you can only run one slot and you can only run it for one thing (video cards). Secondly while at AGP speeds, there will never be any possiblity for using the bus for anything other than transfers, ie. it can't be used dynamically. Not at 4x, or at 8x. It's just too slow. Now with PCI-E, some cards are beginning to take use of the bandwidth and swap out to the system memory. For the most they are slow cards (see the Geforce 6200TC), but designers are beginning to use the available resources in ways which they never could under AGP.
I've got an Athlon 64 3500+ running at 2.2ghz. Great processor, and now that the cold weather has arrived I can overclock it 200mhz again to match an Athlon 4000+ (or FX-53)!!!~:cool: