Help a n00b out...

Steffano2002

Hi there,

I'm thinking of upgrading my PC's "internal organs" soon enough (within the next 3-4 months).

Would I be right in going for something like this:

- Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz Socket LGA775
- Some kind of Socket 775 MoBo (Which? Please advise!?)
- 2 x 1024 DDR2 RAM (Which? Please advise!?)
- 8800GTX

This should handle Vista easily enough and give me great FPS for my beloved Call of Duty 2! What do you think?

How much do you think all this will set me back? Can you advise good websites that might even do upgrade bundles like komplett.ie?

Thank you in advance for your help/advice!

8T8

Well what's your displays max resolution ? as the 8800GTS 640MB version which is cheaper is probably a better buy if CoD 2 is the title you play the most is run at a certain res. Because performance stays the same up to a certain resolution with the GTX but then the GTX pulls away.

CoD2 is terribly inefficient with video card RAM usage side effect of Xbox 360 development so it actually benefits from 512MB of RAM on average it uses 350-400MB of RAM with max details which is why the 8800GTS 320MB may not be such a good idea as it is cutting it close.


For motherboard get an Intel P965 like this Asus board you don't need anything fancy or special.

For RAM get 2GB DDR-2 533/667/800 the cheapest you can find will do I'd recommend this Corsair 2GB DDR-2 667Mhz kit.

Steffano2002

Thank you for your reply 8T8 (I can always count on you for help - thanks!)!

The problem with getting the cheaper GTS is that in autumn, CoD4 will be released and this game is developed in (is it "in" or "with"?) DirectX 10 so it would be a false economy IMO... Furthermore, the more the fps acheieved, the easier the game gets so if I can get 333fps (blocked) in CoD2 I'll be a happy camper (not that I'm a c4mper in the game)!

I actually found this ad on Adverts.ie very interesting. Made an offer for what I need. We'll see if I'm successful...

8T8

The GTX is a fine card no doubt about it but for example if your display was limited to 1280x1024 then there would be no point getting the GTX as the GTS is identical up to the point.

Unless of course you planned to upgrade your monitor at some point if you do run at a high resolution like 1680x1050 then do go for the GTX as well excess power is better than a situation of having to turn things down a notch :cool:

I think infinity ward are doing CoD 4 so hopefully they have learned not to put out shoddy ports since CoD2 as it was their first Direct3D engine, the original CoD was OpenGL based.

Also ATI DX10 parts are coming the end of March if that interests you as Xbox 360 ports tend to run faster on ATI hardware the same as the previous gen with the original Xbox and NVIDIA.

TerrorFirmer

People say COD2 is a terribly optimised game but I've never found it overly demanding. I have an E6400 at stock, 2gb ram and a 256mb X1950Pro - much slower then the 8800GTS, and I was playing this morning (cod2, that is) at 1280x1024, Dx9 mode, everything at full/Extra, with 4x AF. Smooth as butter.

I would only think a GTX would be necessary if you wanted full AA and AF, combined with a large monitor like 22", even at that the GTS 320mb would probably be relatively ok.

Steffano2002

HavoK wrote:

People say COD2 is a terribly optimised game but I've never found it overly demanding. I have an E6400 at stock, 2gb ram and a 256mb X1950Pro - much slower then the 8800GTS, and I was playing this morning (cod2, that is) at 1280x1024, Dx9 mode, everything at full/Extra, with 4x AF. Smooth as butter.

There's a difference between playing the game when it's running fine and looks alright (and this, my machine can do right now so I'm happy enough) and playing the game with a high-spec PC which can give you a constant 333fps in DX7.

My team mates have high spec PCs (overclocked E6600, 2GB of DDR2 RAM, 512MB graphics cards, etc) and their fps rates are so high that it actually gives them an advantage in the game. It's nearly as important as the ping!

Now I'm not actually trying to become a Pro Gamer with Alien Skill (I do have a life away from the interweb) but with the release of Vista and CoD4 just around the corner, I thought I'd start thinking of investing in proper components...

Steffano2002

8T8 wrote:

The GTX is a fine card no doubt about it but for example if your display was limited to 1280x1024 then there would be no point getting the GTX as the GTS is identical up to the point.

Unless of course you planned to upgrade your monitor at some point if you do run at a high resolution like 1680x1050 then do go for the GTX as well excess power is better than a situation of having to turn things down a notch :cool:

Well, I actually invested in the 20" LCD WideScreen LG monitor (from Komplett) this Christmas so I could potentially be playing up to 1680*1050. However, I am currently playing CoD2 in 1024*768 (16:10 ratio) as my fps drops below 125 @ 1680*1050. I really need 125fps constant minimum!

8T8 wrote:

Also ATI DX10 parts are coming the end of March if that interests you as Xbox 360 ports tend to run faster on ATI hardware the same as the previous gen with the original Xbox and NVIDIA.

So "hold off until March" would be your advice? I don't mind doing that at all... My PC is fine for now and, although I have Vista Ultimate waiting to be installed, I'm not actually looking forward to it at all.
And the longer I wait, the cheaper all these components are likely to become.

TerrorFirmer

Obviously I won't dictate what you need but it would be a shame to so unnecessarily run your game in Dx7 mode even on your current hardware, let alone an 8800 series card - don't you have a 7800GTX or at least something in the 7800 line? I run COD2 at my mentioned settings online and offline at about 40-80fps dependent on what's going on around me - I've never found it to impede my performance, ever and it genuinely is as smooth as butter. I've even conducted tests with my games in the past, after a massive argument on notebookreview over the necessity of high FPS, and found I actually performed worse at lower settings due to the lack of detail and hence lack of precision in aiming and shooting...

Obviously myself I don't like choppy games and do not let my FPS plummet too low, but I've even played COD2 online on my laptops Go7400 at 30fps and still performed almost the same as I do on my desktop at up to 80fps!

Would just be a shame to reduce your visual quality even on such powerful hardware that doesn't really necessitate it....'333 fps' for example, whatever about the 100fps argument, is ludicrious! (in my opinion, of course, but I am also a fairly big gamer who plays the likes of COD2, BF2 etc on a regular basis with teammates...)

Steffano2002

I am sacrificing visual beauty for performance. That's for sure. But it's because I have to.

AFAIC my 7800GTX simply can't handle DX9 in CoD2 as I get very poor fps rates (70-80fps) which drops to 20-30fps in the smoke. To me, that is unplayable. And I know nobody who plays in DX7 online (I'm talking CB, ESL here - not just a bit of FFA or FunWars).

Furthermore, I can't actually play in DX9. It's like a complitely different game and I become the biggest n00b when I try it. I'd still play in DX7 if I had a 8800 GTX. I know it sounds like a waste of performance but it is true.

Anyway, fair play to you for playing CoD2 a) on a laptop! :eek: b) with 30fps! :eek:

8T8

CoD 2 was a badly optimised title they kicked it to the door early to focus on finishing the Xbox 360 version on time (which ended up using inferior textures/AA/AF vs the max details of the PC version but it ran so fast vs the PC everyone went wow), however over time ATI/NV have optimized their drivers via shader replacement to counteract the lack of optimization done on the title.

The title is till RAM hungry though a side effect of the 512MB from the Xbox 360 version which is why on max details it can use a lot of RAM in the GPU they never bothered optimizing it for 256MB cards compared to titles like FEAR.

CoD 4 is unlikely to have a DX7/8 mode anyway so probably wont be able to fall back on that by the time it comes out even if you wanted to but it is overkill anyway running in that mode on such high end hardware to begin with.

If going up to 1680*1050 with all the bells and whistles enabled then go for the GTX or wait until the end of march and see what ATI bring to the table as we know the ATI DX10 card has a 512-bit bus with a stonking amount of bandwidth at it's disposal so it could be great for maximising IQ at high resolutions.

Steffano2002

8T8 wrote:

CoD 2 was a badly optimised title they kicked it to the door early to focus on finishing the Xbox 360 version on time (which ended up using inferior textures/AA/AF vs the max details of the PC version but it ran so fast vs the PC everyone went wow), however over time ATI/NV have optimized their drivers via shader replacement to counteract the lack of optimization done on the title.

The title is till RAM hungry though a side effect of the 512MB from the Xbox 360 version which is why on max details it can use a lot of RAM in the GPU they never bothered optimizing it for 256MB cards compared to titles like FEAR.

I agree, the release of CoD2 was rushed and as a result it's not as good as it could have been...

8T8 wrote:

CoD 4 is unlikely to have a DX7/8 mode anyway so probably wont be able to fall back on that by the time it comes out even if you wanted to but it is overkill anyway running in that mode on such high end hardware to begin with.

If going up to 1680*1050 with all the bells and whistles enabled then go for the GTX or wait until the end of march and see what ATI bring to the table as we know the ATI DX10 card has a 512-bit bus with a stonking amount of bandwidth at it's disposal so it could be great for maximising IQ at high resolutions.

I'll hold off for a few months then. Perhaps July or August. Hopefully by then I'll have enough saved up to buy components that will last me a year or perhaps a little more. Fed up of buying new PCs every 4 months!

8T8

Just an update but news coming out this morning is that the R600 is delayed by another month from March so at best you will see the ATI X2800XTX in May.

The reason wasn't given but certainly the fact that they where shipping hardware out to review sites suggests the R600 may not be as much faster than the 8800GTX as they had hoped so further time to tweak drivers is needed. Of course this gives NV further time to improve their drivers as well and perhaps counter with a slightly improved 8850GTX perhaps ?

As you are waiting till post May that will allow you to see how things play out & make the best choice.

Steffano2002

This means NVIDIA has the edge until April or so? Fair play to them! Might be a very different story in July though... I like healthy competition anyway!