Salvaging A Dell

Nukem

Your getting this mixed up look here now compare the Ultra in your link to the calc. Take into account that just because they took it a one point or over a few mins doesnt mean its small on the PSU demand. Wattage ramps on demand fomr the computer hence the factor of safety of 150% min (rule of thumb in designing a component) for more info you would be best looking at the manual for the Gfx and looking at the min max wattage req.

High Wattage = , Average wattage = , Low wattage = :mad:

padraigf

I'm aware that you should always have available overhead when it comes to power, I just thought that it was interesting from the point of view of relative power consumption.

RicardoSmith

Anything less than a 5900xt req should be fine.

dixsey

RicardoSmith wrote:

Did you benchmark the machine before you added the x800xt pe afterwards and then again when you added more RAM?

Not all Dells need the ATX connector rewired but most of them do. Other than the connector they are standard ATX PSU.

yes adding the psu and ram made no difference in 3d mark03 and 05 but i was having problems playing doom3 at max settings and i knew the card should cope no problem, i added a 400 watt psu and it made no difference the extra ram sorted it out

dixsey

Gilgamesh wrote:

the thing is, Dell as a lot of other companies used to use their own standards for components, this changed when ATX came out.
all PCs used a standard now, being it ATX, ITX or whatnot.

regarding the 'Stronger PSU, more power' Idea, this is total nonsense.
A Graphicscard will either work in 3D or not, depending if it has enough power, but that it would throttle itself would be a joke,
a Radeon 9800Pro for example requires 85 Watts of power.
IF it isn't fed this power from the PSU, then it won't work, end of story.
As Zim said, the only ones to manipulate any power issue themselves are the new Radeon cards and mobile processors, but the first change the core voltage to overclock themselves, and the mobiles do this to save battery performance, when not nedded. they do not change the wattage.
just imagine saying that if you drive slowly anyway, you could replace the Car battery in your car, with a Duracell AA battery.
the best tip to give you would really be, get a new Graphics card.
if the PSU can't handle it (250 Watts should, unless you have tons of other components that are power hungry), then also get a new PSU.
high quality PSUs, just ensure that the power is transferred constantly without any 'glitches' so all components get their power in a constant flow, as required by any PC.


Ragarding the 'not notiving any difference' comment from dixsey, I can only ask the following,

1. didn't you notice any difference in 2D or 3D mode.
2D mode you won't notice much difference, unless you really max the Res of you display properties, also the picture ay be much sharper, depending from which graphicscard you are coming from

2. what benchmarks did you run to make the comment that there isn't much difference? if you run 3Dmark03 or 05, then you would probably notice that with the new card, some benchmarks will run that weren't there while running with the old card.

3. make sure that the benchmark settings are the same.
it is a fact that a X800Pro, or higher, will outrun a 9800Pro by way over 100% in Dx9 Games. now this is noticable, plus it normally automatically activates other graphics enhancing features like Smartshader, in a newer version to even partially improve quality in older games. Freelancer is a very good example for this.

what i said was i replaced the dell 250 watt psu with a jeantech 400 watt psu to sort a problem i was having with the radeon x800xt and the new psu made no difference to the card in benchmarks or games the problem was i had,nt enough ram

dixsey

4Xcut wrote:

Thanx for the advice. however on reflection i just can't put more money into a money pit, i think its safe to say that the dell cannot be improved by the degree i would like without severe wallet injury, which i wouldn't mind if the outcome was as certain as the preformence i would get on a new rig. what about a new rig in a couple of months. what should i look to buy spending aroung around a grand to 1200 on it, keeping in mind i will keep the moniter, dvd drive and modem. could the cpu be kept and overclocked in a new rig? i appreciate that i probably should by a new grfx card but something like a 6600 doesn't deserve to be condemed to a dell. by the way how much of a difference is there in preformance between a ide hard drive and a serial ata one,
would it greatly effect the preformence of modern games

i put a radeon x800xt pe into my dell and a gig of ram and i,m amazed with the difference in games like far cry.doom3 and half life 2 your just wasting money buying another rig

Gurgle

padraigf wrote:

btw, Gurgle, were you agreeing or mocking ?
Just to clarify I meant that the Wattage rated on a power supply is often exaggerated by the manufacturer or measured in ridiculous unlikely conditions, leading to a useless rating.

Mocking.

A 400W PSU has to be able to supply 400W at the rated voltages. Otherwise its false advertising and the manufacturer would be sinking in a sea of litigation from every company it ever supplied.

You have to read the specs not just the box. The specs tell you the max current ratings which can be supplied by the 12V or 5V rails, which are (obviously) supplied by independant(-ish) circuits. If you have a 400W PSU, it could have a rating of 20A on the 12V rail (240W) and 32A on the 5V rail (160W). If you try to draw 22A on the 12V rail, the voltage is going to suffer, even if you're only using 2A on the 5V rail. The total power you want is only 274W but the usage is unbalanced.

padraigf

Yes it has to be able to supply the rated voltage, but they dont say for how long, or at what temperature. Are you honestly saying that a QTec 450 w makes more power than my Antec 380w? You're just kidding yourself thinking that you're thrifty and know better than people who buy quality components.
By your logic it makes more sense to buy by the Amp rating rather than wattage anyway, *smacks head*. You basically agreed with me.
By the by, whats on the box are the specs..... Where else are they going to be? written on the inside of the power supply case in invisible ink on a micro-dot ? Stop ebarassing yourself, please.

RicardoSmith

What matters if if the line is steady. Cheap PSU's rarely are, regardless of their wattage.

Gurgle

padraigf wrote:

Yes it has to be able to supply the rated voltage, but they dont say for how long, or at what temperature. Are you honestly saying that a QTec 450 w makes more power than my Antec 380w?

Probably not, better quality components are often under-specified. Your Antec could probably pump at least 450W but not continuously. The QTec should too, but at its max rating it isn't going to have a clean voltage level and its not going to last terribly long. It will most likely survive its guarantee.

padraigf wrote:

You're just kidding yourself thinking that you're thrifty and know better than people who buy quality components.

What makes you think I'm using a cheap PSU ?

padraigf wrote:

By your logic it makes more sense to buy by the Amp rating rather than wattage anyway, *smacks head*. You basically agreed with me.

Power = Voltage X Current *smacks head*

padraigf wrote:

By the by, whats on the box are the specs..... Where else are they going to be? written on the inside of the power supply case in invisible ink on a micro-dot ?

Em no, theres a label on every PSU I've ever seen, giving the voltage levels on each of the wires and the maximum current that can be supplied on that line. Actually, I have a 350W Q-Tec is a PC here (work, cheapskates), which specifies 35A on the 5V rail and 17A at 12V.

As for power usage, a Quantum Fireball HDD uses 600mA @ 5V and 900mA @ 12V, while a CD-RW drive needs 1.2A at 5V and 800mA at 12V. What you *need* depends on your hardware but, as I said, your're always better off with a good quality PSU, rated at well above what you need.

padraigf

Ok, lets just end the flame war here, we were both basically saying the exact same thing and it came off wrong. Sorry bout the flames

RicardoSmith

I still believe that a 6600GT req less power than a 5900XT. I can't find any links to prove. Some links, one mentions people running these cards ok on Dells.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati/msg/350b2d73aa943a72

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-vs-nv-power_9.html

http://hardware.mcse.ms/showthread.php?threadid=122000&perpage=10&pagenumber=1

Dr Bolouswki

going on the premise that 4600's were sold with 9800's in them ( a dx9 compliant card) therefore meaning your PSU can handle one, would the simplest solution be to buy a 9600XT or 9800 and 512MB of ram? €250 bucks and then you can upgrade for real in 6-12 months and still play games in the meantime? Unless you have more than 3 IDE devices or some crazy power sucking PCI card, I'd imagine the PSU will handle it just fine, given that your current card seems to like the gas.......

RicardoSmith

I made that point back on post 27. A 6600GT should use about the same power aswell. Which is why I suggested it. Most people agree that if you are buying a new gfx card that a 6600GT makes more sense than a 9800pro. A 9600XT would a good deal slower. But I agree that a 9800pro or even a 9700pro (OcUK do both) would the gfx a boost for the least money. But a 6600GT would be better IMO as it cost very little more than a 9800pro.