I just bought the BFG 640mb 8800 GTS for my system. ( Upgrading from GeForce 6600 BFG 512 mb )

I also ordered it a Dedicated Graphics power Supply 300 Watts just to the card.

-System Specs-

3.5 gigs Of ram
680 Watt PSU + 300 Graphics Dedicated
Athlon 64 - 3800+ ( 939 pin )
BFG nForce 4 Ultra Motherboard

I have a nice cooling system on my cpu keep it around 27c Idle and up to 32c during games.

Should I be fine?

Or what upgrade will I have to make?

fine? I dont see what the problem is. Everyting looks good.

If your wondering what to upgrade next I would say the CPU but everything is pretty good if you ask me

I was asking if my system will be able to run this card up to par.

I think the dedicated 300 watts will do it well but do you think the processor should do fine?

You can pick up a dual core X-2 pretty reasonably priced these days, the new DX-10 games coming out in the near future would probably welcome the addition.

Newegg.com - Buy Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, Digital Cameras and more!

Currently Quake 4 has a patch that takes advantage of the second core, and results in a nice boost in framerates, wich means you could run higher resolution with more eye candy on than your current CPU.

Here is a test using a 8800GTX wich specifically looks at CPU scaling..I know your card is a bump down from it, but the results should be similar

Legion Hardware

8800GTS CPU Scaling:
My 8800 GTS & 7900 GTX CPU Scaling Tests - Topic Powered by eve community

XFX 8800GTS - A gaming analysis of FEAR and CPU scaling - Overclockers Forums


A new game just came out not long ago (Supreme Commander) that won't even run on a single core, dual cores run ok, and a quad core kicks major ass!

[H] Enthusiast - SupCom & Intel Core 2 Quad Gameplay Advantages

My advice is to either grab that X-2, or wait a few more months if games you play right now do fine...and get yourself a Intel Quad Core QX6400, the price is supposed to be 266$ when launched..the QX6600 is about 500$ curently.

You would need a new motherboard (120-200$) and 2GB of DDR-2 800 ram (120-200$) but you could partially offset that by selling what you have now.

And BTW, I think that 300 Watt dedicated power supply for your vid card is a bit overkill, unless you plan on adding a second one down the road...assuming that 680 watt PSU is a single rail, major name brand, and has at least 40-50 AMPS on the 12v rail, and not some multi rail POS you got on sale for 60$

You could try OC'ing your current CPU a bit while you save up for an upgrade, AMD-64's single usually run at around 2.6GHZ without alot of fuss.

Quote: Originally Posted by $SOLID$ Necro You can pick up a dual core X-2 pretty reasonably priced these days, the new DX-10 games coming out in the near future would probably welcome the addition.

+1

sorry I misunderstood your question, but yea im not 100% sure but I think that card would be bottle necked by that CPU.

Of course if money was not in the picture I would go for a Core 2 Duo, but it would be a better value to just upgrade to a X2 so you don't have to buy a new mb

I obviously cant put a core 2 duo into my system.

And basically what that page told me was that a Athlon 4000+ would run it fine.


And what you said about dual core and quad core. Thats just crap. Nothing uses quad core yet. Dual core is just a single core until the second is needed.

Reguardless wont this give better performance than my current card? ( GeForce 6600 BFG )

I work at a computer store I know what stuff does, ( dual core quad core, etc ) Im just not aware of the High end graphics cards that require extra power.

I payed $215.00 for my 6600 like 8 months ago im sure I could sell it for like $100.00 and just get a 4400 + and run it fine.

Thanks for the informational post though.


Not to mention I actually could OC my CPU considering I have a big bitch cooling system on it.

Newegg.com - APEVIA ATX-AS680W-BL ATX12V / EPS12V 680W Power Supply 115/230 V CB IEC 950/ TUV EN 60950/ UL 1950/ CSA 950 - Retail

Thats my power Supply

And selling would be out of the question unless I got $1,300ish

Quote: Originally Posted by ECS Matvey I obviously cant put a core 2 duo into my system. And basically what that page told me was that a Athlon 4000+ would run it fine. And what you said about dual core and quad core. Thats just crap. Nothing uses quad core yet. Dual core is just a single core until the second is needed. Reguardless wont this give better performance than my current card? ( GeForce 6600 BFG ) I work at a computer store I know what stuff does, ( dual core quad core, etc ) Im just not aware of the High end graphics cards that require extra power.

Well, I don't have time to address everythig at the moment..but the "Quad Core" question I will touch on...since you think I am full of "BS"

Did you read that article completely?

[H] Enthusiast - SupCom & Intel Core 2 Quad Gameplay Advantages==

Quote: These results are as clear cut as they can be; the Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700 with all four cores enabled provides the best gameplay experience. We found Supreme Commander playable at 1600x1200 with 16X AF and all in-game settings at their highest levels with quad-core. Anisotropic filtering overall makes little visual quality difference in this game. When we disabled two of the cores and were left with a dual-core CPU we found performance to suffer greatly. We had to lower the resolution to 1280x1204 and lower most quality settings The single-core performance was simply dismal and unplayable, period. We have the game set at the absolute lowest settings possible, 1027x768 with everything as low as it will go in the graphics menu of the game, yet, it is still unplayable.

What I am trying to say..is that there are games out NOW that are VERY dependant on CPU performance, regaurdless of the video card.

A dual core will provide "Adequate" performance, but a Quad will provide the "Best" possible performance in this particular game.


The days of "Multithreaded" coded games (Beyond 2 threads) are upon us, CPU power will once again be very important in the next 2 years.

Do you NEED it right now? No, absolutley not.

But if you are contemplating a CPU upgrade, for 266$ that new quad from Intel looks like a real bargain...sinking money into your current AMD rig is up to you, but it certainly won't be very futureproof, and not something I would do myself.

You could recover some of the cost of an upgrade by selling the current motherboard, ram and CPU was part of my point...but obviuosly it's too late at this time since you ordered that 4400+

ASUS P5N SLI deluxe is like 120$
4GB of DDR-2 would set you back a bit, but 2GB kits start at a little over 100$

So...

266$ Quad IntelCPU
120$ 2GB DDR-2 Ram
120$ Asus SLI Mobo
506$

You just dropped 145$ on a new CPU.
Your old hardware would have brought another 200-250$

So roughly for another 150$ you could have had a Intel quad core rig that would last you MUCH longer than a dual core AMD, and had roughly 4-6 times the overall CPU power

My AMD 64 Opty 146 at 3+GHZ ran a 26.4 seconds 1 MB "Super Pi" time, my E6600 Intel Core 2 Duo ran the same test at 4GHZ in a mere 12.4 seconds...about 3x as fast!

Now...do you see my point?

Edit:

Oh, and I still say you probably wasted your money on that add on graphics PSU, any PSU over 500 watts that is a good name brand would have been PLENTY for a single card..only if you are thinking of adding another would it even remotely be justified! (And it sounds like the PSU you have qualifies)

For Dual 8800GTS's NVIDA only calls for a 650 watt PSU.

Build an SLI PC - Certified SLI-Ready Power Supplies

Your rig will game just fine..I am not picking on it by any means, just presenting alternatives that would have had a longer upgrade path (939 is dead) and be ready for whatever comes out in the next coupla years.

Probably wasted his money? Id say he definately wasted his money on that dedicated unit. Just buying an all round better PSU would have been a better idea.

Im just gonna put it simply. An 8800GTS and 3.5 gigs of RAM are wasted on anything other than a Core 2 Duo platform at the moment.

Gotta agree with Necro, you just wasted quite a lot of money that would have been better spent after actually listening to a few more replies and advice from knowledgeable people.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dex Probably wasted his money? Id say he definately wasted his money on that dedicated unit. Just buying an all round better PSU would have been a better idea. Im just gonna put it simply. An 8800GTS and 3.5 gigs of RAM are wasted on anything other than a Core 2 Duo platform at the moment. Gotta agree with Necro, you just wasted quite a lot of money that would have been better spent after actually listening to a few more replies and advice from knowledgeable people.

Jedi Master Dex speaks the truth. At the end of the day though, you can lead a horse to water; you just can't make it drink.

I know for a fact that the Thermal Take 250w VGA PSU (if thats the one he's got) is enough for any Video card, its sweet. Does SLI 7900GS's fine, and there cheap as chips £20 in the UK.

Plain and simple my 3.5 gigs of ram and my Dual Core Athlon 4400+ Will run it perfect.

Why would buying a new lga 775 motherboard and a $200+ cpu and new ram be cheaper???

And for my dedicated power supply..... It was like $85.00 shipped and I used the company credit card here at the comp shop....

How would spending someone elses $80.00 be cheaper than going out and buying a kw psu for $250 ?

Quote: Originally Posted by ECS Matvey Plain and simple my 3.5 gigs of ram and my Dual Core Athlon 4400+ Will run it perfect. Why would buying a new lga 775 motherboard and a $200+ cpu and new ram be cheaper??? And for my dedicated power supply..... It was like $85.00 shipped and I used the company credit card here at the comp shop.... How would spending someone elses $80.00 be cheaper than going out and buying a kw psu for $250 ?

Because buying a 775 intel board and a 200+$ cpu will have better performance the AMD ATM. Also its better for a upgrade later (like for Quad). And you don't need a KW PSU either, I have a 520W (38A 12v) PSU running a O/Ced X6800ES and a 8800GTX. It was only 140Bucks.

hmm i do not think that there is any convincing data that says that a 8800 is bottlenecked by any CPU other than a C2D


my 8800gts does fine with my opteron 165 @ 3.0 or 2.7ghz

I have an A64 system andwith my 8800gts on a 22" WS i can run fully 16x AA and 8x AF in battlefield 2 no problem.... my FPS are always above 40


i really dislike when people are like... dont waist you $$ on anything other than an intel...

AMDs run fine. I have built 2 C2D systems and 4 AMD systems and honestly other than superpi and video encoding i do not see a huge difference...

an a64 CPU with 2gb of RAM and a 8800gts do just fine...

[H] Enthusiast - Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI

this article shows that even with 2 8800gtx in SLI the FX-62 keeps up with the x6800 in battlefield 2

I know other games need more CPU..... but that is on a dell 30" with over $1000 in video cards...

here is another article on how the 6000+ keeps up with the C2D generally..
t-break - 8800GTX: AMD vs Intel

i know that at high AF and AA on large resolution the c2d wins but that is not what the average person is using... 17-21" i would guess is the norm.





to the OP

I would get either 4 1gb sticks matching pairs or 2x1gb with low latency... the drop to 2T i like a 20% decrease in performance and generally games do not use more than 2gb of RAM...

some do and a higher res it can be benifitial... but 2 sticks matching are always better than mismatched RAM

Quote: Originally Posted by adidas4275 i really dislike when people are like... dont waist you $$ on anything other than an intel...

For a comparable price, you get better performance. Sure, AMD CPUs are fine, but there's really very little point in buying an AMD CPU over an Intel one when Intels perform better.

You'll notice the difference playing strategy games. Medieval Total War 2 runs very poorly on AMD cpus for example, yet fine on a basic 1.86ghz Core 2....and Supreme Commander is a real CPU hog, you need quad-core for that in some scenarios.

Quote: Originally Posted by adidas4275 hmm i do not think that there is any convincing data that says that a 8800 is bottlenecked by any CPU other than a C2D my 8800gts does fine with my opteron 165 @ 3.0 or 2.7ghz I have an A64 system andwith my 8800gts on a 22" WS i can run fully 16x AA and 8x AF in battlefield 2 no problem.... my FPS are always above 40 i really dislike when people are like... dont waist you $$ on anything other than an intel... AMDs run fine. I have built 2 C2D systems and 4 AMD systems and honestly other than superpi and video encoding i do not see a huge difference... an a64 CPU with 2gb of RAM and a 8800gts do just fine... [H] Enthusiast - Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI this article shows that even with 2 8800gtx in SLI the FX-62 keeps up with the x6800 in battlefield 2 I know other games need more CPU..... but that is on a dell 30" with over $1000 in video cards... here is another article on how the 6000+ keeps up with the C2D generally.. t-break - 8800GTX: AMD vs Intel i know that at high AF and AA on large resolution the c2d wins but that is not what the average person is using... 17-21" i would guess is the norm.

Well, I guess that means you hate me then.


Yes..you can use AMD 64, but your going to be loosing out on performance.

Just like when the AMD 64 was the fastest CPU around, I never would recommend anyone use the old P-4...yes it works, but you leave plenty of performance on the table then.

It's just a mismatched combo is all..yes it can work, but is not optimal.

And I don't have a 30 inch monitor, nor was I even talking about that kind of performance here either.

1600x1200 is plenty of res for any game...it just depends on how much AA, AF and other detail levels you can run there.

And the next gen of games are going to be more dependant on the CPU then previous generations of games, the AI and physics are working it harder then ever, one only has to look at Supreme Commander to see the future.

Can you get away with AMD64? yes.

Is it the best idea? no.

If thats what you have to work with..fine, but if you have the opportunity to upgrade by selling the old stuff and adding a few bucks, then why not?

He just ran out and dropped a decent amount of money on the X-2, he would have been further ahead in the long run to have sold off his hardware and upgraded to a low end Core 2 Duo, it wouldn't have been that big of a stretch is my point, and would run circles around it when overclocking is involved.

EDIT: Reflux made basicly the same point with fewer words, I hadn't gotten that far when I saw your reply, lol

Quote: Originally Posted by $SOLID$ Necro Well, I guess that means you hate me then. Yes..you can use AMD 64, but your going to be loosing out on performance. Just like when the AMD 64 was the fastest CPU around, I never would recommend anyone use the old P-4...yes it works, but you leave plenty of performance on the table then. It's just a mismatched combo is all..yes it can work, but is not optimal. And I don't have a 30 inch monitor, nor was I even talking about that kind of performance here either. 1600x1200 is plenty of res for any game...it just depends on how much AA, AF and other detail levels you can run there. And the next gen of games are going to be more dependant on the CPU then previous generations of games, the AI and physics are working it harder then ever, one only has to look at Supreme Commander to see the future. Can you get away with AMD64? yes. Is it the best idea? no. If thats what you have to work with..fine, but if you have the opportunity to upgrade by selling the old stuff and adding a few bucks, then why not? He just ran out and dropped a decent amount of money on the X-2, he would have been further ahead in the long run to have sold off his hardware and upgraded to a low end Core 2 Duo, it wouldn't have been that big of a stretch is my point, and would run circles around it when overclocking is involved. EDIT: Reflux made basicly the same point with fewer words, I hadn't gotten that far when I saw your reply, lol

Very well said necro Time to start catching back up! Is my core 2 out of date yet? Lol


Matt

Quote: Originally Posted by MaTtsPc Very well said necro Time to start catching back up! Is my core 2 out of date yet? Lol Matt

As a matter of fact, your Core 2 is at least 2 generations behind in technology! Can you say Paperweight?

First..the Quad Cores have been around since long before Paris Hilton went to jail, and the 1333FSB for those "Low End" Core 2's are making the rounds at review sites now.


AnandTech: Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Preview: The Desktop Gets a 1333MHz FSB

That famous saying applies here "There are two types of computer technology...Prototype, and Obsolete"

You can never be at the forefront of technology unless you are the one testing and developing it!

Core 2 Duo is a major advance in proccessing power over anything AMD has on the market, as you know it is now in the position the old "NutBurst" tech in the P-4 was when the AMD 64 reigned supreme...and then some.

The next gen "Phenom" is looking as much as a leap forward for AMD as the "Prescott" was for Intel..it's not going to help much at all, it is not ramping up clock speeds very well right now, the current stepping they are sampling isn't much over 2ghz!

Shipping parts in Novemeber are expected to have a peak of 2.4GHZ, and 2.8GHZ speeds not showing up until sometime well into 08.

AMD numbers the Phenoms of the ordinary beast

Especially since Intel has the native quad core 45NM Penryn launching at "Well above" 3GHZ with a few upgrades, not long after Phenom will start to show up in any kind of volume.

AMD is up against the ropes here, Phenom is nothing more than slightly tweeked 4 core version of the same basic tech found in the K-8, "Native" quad cores...playing with the Cache architecture, and HTT simply isn't going to cut it.


Put it this way..your Core 2 Duo is about to become a "Value" part number

Does it mean it's "Outdated"? not realy..no more so than a FX-57 was when the Dual Core FX-60 started making it's rounds...there are so few real world apps for quads now, and in the next six months, as to be negligable...but this time next year, the software market will just start catching up to the hardware out now.