Help me: What's my video limit?

[Alex]

I have some cash to burn but not a lot so I've decided to upgrade my
video card.

My current specs: 1 GHz AMD Thunderbird, 768 MB RAM, and 32 MB GeForce
2 GTS. Running XP Pro.

Question: What's my top AGP video card choice where my CPU can keep up
and doesn't bottleneck my system?

(I.e., assume that when I upgrade to a new computer it will be all-new
and I won't keep the video card.)

 

[Dan]

Probably a Geforce 3. However, it's really not worth it. I did the same
upgrade, but about 5yrs ago. The tech is very old in both cards. Its the
equivalent going from a 1985 to a 1989 built car...

 

[dmaster]

I have some cash to burn but not a lot so I've decided to upgrade my
video card.

My current specs: 1 GHz AMD Thunderbird, 768 MB RAM, and 32 MB GeForce
2 GTS. Running XP Pro.

Question: What's my top AGP video card choice where my CPU can keep up
and doesn't bottleneck my system?

(I.e., assume that when I upgrade to a new computer it will be all-new
and I won't keep the video card.)

Alex:

The answer doesn't appear to be perfectly simple. Its not like at a
certain video
card you won't see any more improvements. Rather, the gains your might
see
in your old system might not be as big as the gains someone with a
modern
system might see.

From my own experience with a Duron 1.2GHz and an Athlon XP 2600+:

With a Radeon 9200, the 2600+ benchmarked at about double the power
of the Duron. Changing from the ATI 9200 to an Nvidia 6600 roughly
doubled the benchmarks in the 2600+. Surprizingly, the Duron system
with the same video card benchmarked at %80 fo the 2600+ system!
Clearly, in this case, the slower CPU was a bigger bottleneck with the
*less* powerful video card.

Where will you hit the point of diminishing returns? I can't really
say. But
if your intent is to play games, your video card is still the single
most important
factor in your graphics performance. My recommendations for your
system
would be to go with something like an Nvidia 6600GT, or 6800. On the
ATI
side, maybe an x1600Pro or x800GTO. Any of these would give you a
*huge* improvement on you current system, without costing a fortune,
and
still be useful for a while if you upgrade your system to something
more
current, like an Athlon 64 3200+ or a P4 840.

Good luck,

Dan (Woj...)

 

[meow2222]

I have some cash to burn but not a lot so I've decided to upgrade my
video card.

My current specs: 1 GHz AMD Thunderbird, 768 MB RAM, and 32 MB GeForce
2 GTS. Running XP Pro.

Question: What's my top AGP video card choice where my CPU can keep up
and doesn't bottleneck my system?

(I.e., assume that when I upgrade to a new computer it will be all-new
and I won't keep the video card.)

save the money and put it towards the next computer.

NT

 

[kony]

I have some cash to burn but not a lot so I've decided to upgrade my
video card.

My current specs: 1 GHz AMD Thunderbird, 768 MB RAM, and 32 MB GeForce
2 GTS. Running XP Pro.

Question: What's my top AGP video card choice where my CPU can keep up
and doesn't bottleneck my system?

(I.e., assume that when I upgrade to a new computer it will be all-new
and I won't keep the video card.)

The real question is whether the video card upgrade will
result in the level of performance you need.

For 2D uses or watching video/DVD/etc, or video editing,
there's going to be little to no benefit. For 3D games, a
video card upgrade would allow playing a little bit newer
games but not modern ones very well.

In other words, going to the next generation newer cards
than yours (GF2), cards began having hardware T&L, which
offloads a significant bit of work from the CPU. Your
system might be 2X as fast a framerate at newer games, but
if it currently had 10FPS and went up to 20FPS, that isn't
really playable, so the money might've been better put
towards a newer system.

So I recommend the system upgrade first, instead. To answer
your question anyway, something like the cheapest Radeon
9600 Pro or XT, FX5700 (not "LE" version), Geforce 6600 or
Radeon 9800SE, version you can find might be reasonable.
These cards aren't all the same performance level but with
any, the CPU should be the bottleneck instead of the card.

Note that your system might ultimately be about as fast at
gaming if you kept the GF2GTS and upgraded the CPU, instead
of keeping CPU and upgrading video.... except that your card
has only 32MB memory which prevents newer games from running
well if at all but even so, keeping either (the CPU or
video) will in itself mean newer games aren't so playable.

You might look around in popular website for-sale forums to
see if you can find something GF3 or Radeon 8500 era or
newer (but not Geforce4MX, it's actually GF2 era technology)
in a used card for cheap (like $20). I'd sooner put $30 or
more towards a newer system, even if it's a low-end new
system, it's bound to have a far faster CPU and that's a
start... just make sure it has PCI Express or AGP video slot
for a card upgrade (preferribly the former, of course).

 

[CK]

In other words, going to the next generation newer cards
than yours (GF2), cards began having hardware T&L, which
offloads a significant bit of work from the CPU.

Slight nitpick: The GF2 has hardware T&L. It was the first card to
market with it, so it probably isn't very good compared to everything
else that came after it, but it is there. Other than that, I'd probably
concur with everything else that you said.

 

[kony]

Slight nitpick: The GF2 has hardware T&L. It was the first card to
market with it, so it probably isn't very good compared to everything
else that came after it, but it is there. Other than that, I'd probably
concur with everything else that you said.

Hmm, maybe. What was it then that was first implemented in
GF3? Dynamic hardware T&L instead of static T&L? Whatever
it was, it did substantially offload from the CPU.

 

[meow2222]

I have some cash to burn but not a lot so I've decided to upgrade my
video card.

My current specs: 1 GHz AMD Thunderbird, 768 MB RAM, and 32 MB GeForce
2 GTS. Running XP Pro.

Question: What's my top AGP video card choice where my CPU can keep up
and doesn't bottleneck my system?

(I.e., assume that when I upgrade to a new computer it will be all-new
and I won't keep the video card.)

Might be worth a remark on how much difference a vid card can make.

Both in the same system running real time 3d animation:

PCI 32M video card running on basic 'standrd vga' drivers: 4 fps.
128M 4xAGP card on proper drivers: 90 fps.


NT

 

[Alex]

Might be worth a remark on how much difference a vid card can make.

That's why I was asking, since it'd be a long time before I could get
a new system. It would be helping me in everyday things too since all
cards now are also 2D accelerators. And, as a bonus, I'd be able to
play my older games just a bit better.

 

[meow2222]

On 26 Aug 2006 06:29:48 -0700, (e-mail address removed) wrote:

That's why I was asking, since it'd be a long time before I could get
a new system. It would be helping me in everyday things too since all
cards now are also 2D accelerators. And, as a bonus, I'd be able to
play my older games just a bit better.

Its harder though to quanity what difference one step up in vid cards
makes. 486 to 2G was a pretty big leap, and thats what the vid cards
mentioned represent. (The 32M card was of course not 486 vintage but
was being run in 386/486 era mode)


NT

 

[Alex]

I have some cash to burn but not a lot so I've decided to upgrade my
video card.

My current specs: 1 GHz AMD Thunderbird, 768 MB RAM, and 32 MB GeForce
2 GTS. Running XP Pro.

Well, I think I may have found an acceptable replacement for my
GeForce2 card: ATI AIW 9600PRO AGP 128MB.

But now I'm paranoid that my motherboard (A7V or A7V133) won't accept
it... I didn't realize there are multiple AGP configs. The ATI seems
to be 4x/8x only (it won't fit 2x boards) or something like that.

What would I need to check (I can't find the proper documentation on
my board on ASUS' web site) on my board to make sure the ATI card
would work?

 

[meow2222]

Well, I think I may have found an acceptable replacement for my
GeForce2 card: ATI AIW 9600PRO AGP 128MB.

But now I'm paranoid that my motherboard (A7V or A7V133) won't accept
it... I didn't realize there are multiple AGP configs. The ATI seems
to be 4x/8x only (it won't fit 2x boards) or something like that.

What would I need to check (I can't find the proper documentation on
my board on ASUS' web site) on my board to make sure the ATI card
would work?

whether it has an AGP speed the card also has, ie 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x. Dont
just plug and try, as destruction will occur with some wrong
combinations.


NT

 

[kony]

That's why I was asking, since it'd be a long time before I could get
a new system. It would be helping me in everyday things too since all
cards now are also 2D accelerators. And, as a bonus, I'd be able to
play my older games just a bit better.

Keep in mind that his results can't be used unless you
ignore how much of a bottleneck your CPU is, and that it
wasn't even a valid test for any system if the PCI card
didn't have correct drivers installed, which it didn't.

If your older games need more than 32MB of video memory, a
newer card (with more memory) will help. Merely upgrading
your CPU will result in many games playing quite a bit
faster with the same video card.

 

[kony]

whether it has an AGP speed the card also has, ie 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x. Dont
just plug and try, as destruction will occur with some wrong
combinations.

Rarely is this true. In general video cards are backwards
compatible, an 8X card will run on a 4X slot (as his 1GHz
based system probably is), and will merely run at 4X instead
of 8X. When there are exceptions, they should be noted on
ATI's website.

The generic version - If ATI doesn't warn against it, if it
fits in his slot it should not be a problem.

 

[meow2222]

Keep in mind that his results can't be used unless you
ignore how much of a bottleneck your CPU is, and that it
wasn't even a valid test for any system if the PCI card
didn't have correct drivers installed, which it didn't.

It was not intended to compare the performance of 32M PCI with a 4x AGP
128M, but rather a late 486 style pci vid card to the agp. Once you use
the basic vga driver it isnt going to make any difference what pci card
comes after it, as its operation is determined and limited by the basic
driver.

With proper drivers ISTR the 32M PCI running at somewhere roughly in
the region of 40fps, whereas the AGP was doing 90. This still doesnt
tell Alex what s/he will gain, since the task may have been different,
and ditto the other PC specs. But it does at least give some kind of
ballpark.


NT

 

[meow2222]

Keep in mind that his results can't be used unless you
ignore how much of a bottleneck your CPU is, and that it
wasn't even a valid test for any system if the PCI card
didn't have correct drivers installed, which it didn't.

It was not intended to compare the performance of 32M PCI with a 4x AGP
128M, but rather a late 486 style pci vid card to the agp. Once you use
the basic vga driver it isnt going to make any difference what pci card
comes after it, as its operation is determined and limited by the basic
driver.

With proper drivers ISTR the 32M PCI running at somewhere roughly in
the region of 40fps, whereas the AGP was doing 90. This still doesnt
tell Alex what s/he will gain, since the task may have been different,
and ditto the other PC specs. But it does at least give some kind of
ballpark.


NT

 

[meow2222]

Rarely is this true. In general video cards are backwards
compatible, an 8X card will run on a 4X slot (as his 1GHz
based system probably is), and will merely run at 4X instead
of 8X. When there are exceptions, they should be noted on
ATI's website.

The generic version - If ATI doesn't warn against it, if it
fits in his slot it should not be a problem.

This explains the problem:

http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/agpcompatibility.html


NT

 

[kony]

It was not intended to compare the performance of 32M PCI with a 4x AGP
128M, but rather a late 486 style pci vid card to the agp.

It doesn't do that either, unless you have an odd
interpretation of what "486 style" is supposed to mean, that
has nothing in particular to do with it being PCI vs AGP.

Once you use
the basic vga driver

Why would you use the basic VGA driver if the task itself
requires OS that has normal driver support?

...it isnt going to make any difference what pci card
comes after it, as its operation is determined and limited by the basic
driver.

Which brings up the question, of what usefullness is such a
comparison? One could run an AGP card without driver, even
without AGP chipset driver if they really wanted to
interfere with performance but was trying to deliberately
cripple performance, the best way to a valid comparion?

With proper drivers ISTR the 32M PCI running at somewhere roughly in
the region of 40fps, whereas the AGP was doing 90. This still doesnt
tell Alex what s/he will gain, since the task may have been different,
and ditto the other PC specs. But it does at least give some kind of
ballpark.

No, it's a wildly inappropriate comparison that applies to
no normal use.

 

[kony]

This explains the problem:

http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/agpcompatibility.html

yes, I'm aware of the issues mentioned.

What must be kept in mind is that an 8X card doesn't
"usually" only support 8X signaling voltage, and that OP's
AGP is most likely a universal slot.

 

[jukka]

Hmm, maybe. What was it then that was first implemented in

GF3? Dynamic hardware T&L instead of static T&L? Whatever
it was, it did substantially offload from the CPU.

The GF3 introduced the programmable vertex and fragment pipes. What are
dynamic and static T&L, never heard of those. I heard of dynamic and
static vertex buffer (objects) did you mean those?