Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ

I have had a Rage Fury Video card with 32mb memory since 1998, but I have
not noted any significant graphics problems, it is just when I am watching
videos online or i am downloading large files while attempting to watch a
video online the cpu maxes out. I also one can upgrade the cpu/motherboard
for less than 200 dollars. Some top of the line video cards cost more than
this.
Thus I am thinking that to upgrade cpu/motherboard is either cheaper or the
same cost as doubling the RAM or getting a vido card with 128 mb.

Please Respond
"Happy Hippo" <Happy_Hippo.TakeThisOut@planet-earth.all> wrote in message
news:5p2smvs6sbub5lvbsdo2a855m1rntqnr35@4ax.com...
 > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:44:32 GMT, "Keith Perry" <kop2008.TakeThisOut@cox.net>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >I have a P-4 1.7GHZ system with 512 RDRAM, and I am interested in
upgrading
  > >to P-4 2.4 GHZ system with 800 fsb. My question is, will I get
significant
  > >perfromance boost or would I have to go all the way up to a P-4 3.1GHZ
  > >system with 1 GB Ram?
 >
  > >Also should I dump my Rambus memory and switch to DDR? since DDR is much
  > >cheaper but the same performance as Rambus?
  > >
  > >And what is the best motherboard out there now?
  > >
  > >Finally, how can I overclock the processor? And what is the down side of
  > >overclocking?
  > >
  > >Please Respond
  > >
 >
 > Well to me your system should still be able to handle any game on the
 > market. And if it's not games you want, then a performance increase of
 > even 30% won't help so much.
 >
 > IMHO you can save yourself the money for now, since most games are not
 > designed to make full use of the very latest hardware (too few already
 > have it) ad it was not around when the programmers began their
 > project.
 >
 > Don't get me wrong, if you have enough money, spend it, that's good
 > for the economy
 >
 > Two things:
 > Find the bottleneck in your system. Eg. run the newest 3dmark and a
 > few other benchmarks. Then ask back here.
 >
 > If you have a bad/weak Graphics card, replace that first.
 >
 > If you think your system has become slower than it was when you first
 > installed it, try a clean install. Sometimes even defraging the HD is
 > enough to speed up windows significantly.
 >
 > Just my $0.2
 >
 > HH
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

In article <hjpbb.2258$KJ4.432@news1.central.cox.net>,
Keith Perry <kop2008.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:

 > I have had a Rage Fury Video card with 32mb memory since 1998, but I have
 > not noted any significant graphics problems, it is just when I am watching
 > videos online or i am downloading large files while attempting to watch a
 > video online the cpu maxes out. I also one can upgrade the cpu/motherboard
 > for less than 200 dollars. Some top of the line video cards cost more than
 > this.
 > Thus I am thinking that to upgrade cpu/motherboard is either cheaper or the
 > same cost as doubling the RAM or getting a vido card with 128 mb.

If you mean to use the system for gaming, your graphic card is
definitely a _real_ bottleneck in your system. Getting a new
motherboard & cpu won't help at all.


--
Kjell S.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

"Keith Perry" <kop2008.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote
 > I have had a Rage Fury Video card with 32mb memory since 1998, but I have
 > not noted any significant graphics problems, it is just when I am watching
 > videos online or i am downloading large files while attempting to watch a
 > video online the cpu maxes out. I also one can upgrade the cpu/motherboard
 > for less than 200 dollars. Some top of the line video cards cost more
than
 > this.
 > Thus I am thinking that to upgrade cpu/motherboard is either cheaper or
the
 > same cost as doubling the RAM or getting a vido card with 128 mb.

If you've been happy with a Rage Fury that long then you can't be into
gaming much thus the motherboard & CPU upgrade would be more advantageous.
Only other thought on that score is that I don't know how much video
rendition a Rage Fury will offload from the CPU - it may well be that a
slightly more modern low-end VidCard will do more in that department & they
don't cost big bucks.

Personally I'd buy an Asus P4C800 with 2x512MB for 1GB of good quality
PC3200 & a 2.4GHz P4C - then overclock the socks off it.

Ciao...

[UK]_Nick...
--
Nick M V Salmon Master Mariner MN(Retd.)
Mailto: My four initials.TakeThisOut@btinternet.com
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.nmvs.btinternet.co.uk/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nmvs.btinternet.co.uk/index.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:08:13 GMT, "Keith Perry" <kop2008 RemoveThis @cox.net>
wrote:

 >I have had a Rage Fury Video card with 32mb memory since 1998, but I have
 >not noted any significant graphics problems, it is just when I am watching
 >videos online or i am downloading large files while attempting to watch a
 >video online the cpu maxes out. I also one can upgrade the cpu/motherboard
 >for less than 200 dollars. Some top of the line video cards cost more than
 >this.
 >Thus I am thinking that to upgrade cpu/motherboard is either cheaper or the
 >same cost as doubling the RAM or getting a vido card with 128 mb.

I don't think that doubling the ram will do the job. And a motherboard
for 50$ won't be a good overclocker I guess (P4 2.4GHz will be about
150$, 200$ as a whole is 50$ for the Motherboard). You have to avoid
the motherboards with the intel 845 chipset, since they don't offer
true FSB800, t the chip was not made for 200MHz FSB (FSB800 in
marketing language). If a manufacturer offers a motherboard with a
i845 chipset and FSB800 then the board will be overclocked by factory
default, and you probably can't overclock it further. (in case you're
going to do it anyway)
And then you can't profit from FSB800 without memory that is capable
to handle it. That's what it's all about, more FSB means higher
datarate from memory to CPU.

I guess you should read up about all this on
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.tomshardware.com/," target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/,</a> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.overclockers.com/" target="_blank">http://www.overclockers.com/</a> (just to
name two) and other sites.

But the problem you describe, downloading files and viewing movies,
can be largely affected by the harddisk too. How old is it?

Make sure DMA is activated for your HD and DVD.
Sometimes HD manufacturers sell their HD's in slower silent mode per
default. There are some tools to change this, but your HD will make
more noise afterwards.

And DO defragment your HD from time to time. Also Windows is probably
running to many memory resident programs and services.

here's some info, you might find more
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=guide&dId=120&dPage=1" target="_blank">http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=guide&dId=120&dPage=1</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.billssite.com/xptweak.htm" target="_blank">http://www.billssite.com/xptweak.htm</a>

Warning: some of the tips given require a bit of knowledge. It is
recommended that before you fiddle around with your registry, learn
how to create a backup of it. Or even better create a backup of your
whole system. Norton Ghost and Driveimage (Powerquest) are two tools
that can save many headaches. They allow you to make an image of your
windows partition.

Some of the tweaks can also be done with dedicated software.

HH<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

"Happy Hippo" <Happy_Hippo.DeleteThis@planet-earth.all> wrote in message
news:81qtmv4b9usgnacn498dpvs2a8eo8gnru8@4ax.com...

 > And then you can't profit from FSB800 without memory that is capable
 > to handle it. That's what it's all about, more FSB means higher
 > datarate from memory to CPU.

This is wrong. It would be true if all requests from the CPU went to memory
and were maxed out all the time, but the CPU also talks through other paths,
and is not always maxed out. Granted, increasing both the FSB and memory
bus speed gives the greatest advantage by far, but just bumping up the FSB
can also lead to speed increases simply by lowering the average latency.
An analogy to what happens is real life collective communting, where you
send everyone in a building running to and from the bus stop instead of
walking. Most likely, people will have to wait, and the running did no
good, but a few people will always catch an earlier bus. And everybody will
get to the building just a tad earlier by running from the bus stop.

With the RAM bus, it's a tad different, and you want synchronisity -- the
same speed for the RAM and the FSB, if at all possible. Think of it as
merging onto a highway, which goes smoother if entering cars accellerate to
the same speed as the cars on the highway. If the cars on the highway do
65mph, it's counter-productive to speed up to 75mph -- what happens is that
you'll have to brake to enter the lane, causing clogging behind you, and an
overall slower rate of merging. If you increase the speed more, though, you
suddenly can gain an advantage again, by being able to merge in two cars
between each car on the highway, even if there's some clogging effect.
This is the same as what you see with asynchronous FSB/RAM speeds --
increase the FSB a little over the RAM speed, and you slow down the system.
Increase it more, and you catch up. A 133:133 synchronous bus/ram speed
will almost always be faster for RAM access/transfer speed than a 150:133
asynchronous bus/ram speed (of course, the CPU will run faster at 150), but
if you increase to 166:133, you suddenly are on par with the 133:133
synchronous RAM speed again, with the benefit of less latency towards the
PCI bus and southbridge, and the CPU running faster. Of course, if
secondary bus or RAM speed is the bottleneck, you might be better off with a
small synchronous increase, like to 140:140 with the PCI bus at 35MHz.

Regards,
--
*Art<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:38:38 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
<art RemoveThis @broomstick.com> wrote:

 >
 >"Happy Hippo" <Happy_Hippo RemoveThis @planet-earth.all> wrote in message
 >news:81qtmv4b9usgnacn498dpvs2a8eo8gnru8@4ax.com...
 >
  >> And then you can't profit from FSB800 without memory that is capable
  >> to handle it. That's what it's all about, more FSB means higher
  >> datarate from memory to CPU.
 >
 >This is wrong. It would be true if all requests from the CPU went to memory
 >and were maxed out all the time, but the CPU also talks through other paths,
 >and is not always maxed out. Granted, increasing both the FSB and memory
 >bus speed gives the greatest advantage by far, but just bumping up the FSB
 >can also lead to speed increases simply by lowering the average latency.
 >An analogy to what happens is real life collective communting, where you
 >send everyone in a building running to and from the bus stop instead of
 >walking. Most likely, people will have to wait, and the running did no
 >good, but a few people will always catch an earlier bus. And everybody will
 >get to the building just a tad earlier by running from the bus stop.
 >
 >With the RAM bus, it's a tad different, and you want synchronisity -- the
 >same speed for the RAM and the FSB, if at all possible. Think of it as
 >merging onto a highway, which goes smoother if entering cars accellerate to
 >the same speed as the cars on the highway. If the cars on the highway do
 >65mph, it's counter-productive to speed up to 75mph -- what happens is that
 >you'll have to brake to enter the lane, causing clogging behind you, and an
 >overall slower rate of merging. If you increase the speed more, though, you
 >suddenly can gain an advantage again, by being able to merge in two cars
 >between each car on the highway, even if there's some clogging effect.
 >This is the same as what you see with asynchronous FSB/RAM speeds --
 >increase the FSB a little over the RAM speed, and you slow down the system.
 >Increase it more, and you catch up. A 133:133 synchronous bus/ram speed
 >will almost always be faster for RAM access/transfer speed than a 150:133
 >asynchronous bus/ram speed (of course, the CPU will run faster at 150), but
 >if you increase to 166:133, you suddenly are on par with the 133:133
 >synchronous RAM speed again, with the benefit of less latency towards the
 >PCI bus and southbridge, and the CPU running faster. Of course, if
 >secondary bus or RAM speed is the bottleneck, you might be better off with a
 >small synchronous increase, like to 140:140 with the PCI bus at 35MHz.
 >
 >Regards,

Very comprehensive. I tried to be a little shorter and save myself
some typing...

Anyway, I've seen not one mainboards with Rambus Memory for the
hyperthreading FSB800 P4's (see original message), so there's a good
chance the person who started the thread will have to exchange the
memory ...

HH<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

"Happy Hippo" <Happy_Hippo.DeleteThis@planet-earth.all> wrote in message
news:t3humv4tt16fmkna51rdp8pog394fb9e30@4ax.com...
 > Anyway, I've seen not one mainboards with Rambus Memory for the
 > hyperthreading FSB800 P4's (see original message), so there's a good
 > chance the person who started the thread will have to exchange the
 > memory ...

As far as I know, there's a SiS chipset in the works that will do 200MHz
(800MHz) FSB and RDRAM. Motherboards are sure to follow. I'm mildly
interested to see how that goes, cause RDRAM did have a noticeable advantage
over DDR for 133MHz (533MHz) boards.
And frankly, I'd hate to see RDRAM disappear, simply because without
competition between RDRAM and DDR, there will be little incentive to push
barriers and provide new innovations. Something like VCDDR could be a Good
Thing, but why would motherboard, chipset and memory manufacturers agree to
push a new enhanced DDR if there isn't any threat to existing DDR formats?
Already DDR2 is being delayed much because DDR is doing so well.

Regards,
--
*Art<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:08:13 GMT, "Keith Perry" <kop2008.DeleteThis@cox.net>
wrote:

 >Thus I am thinking that to upgrade cpu/motherboard is either cheaper or the
 >same cost as doubling the RAM or getting a vido card with 128 mb.
 >

I dont know why, but it is popular to think, that telling how much RAM
does videocrad have can tell you about its value ( speed,features
,enythibg else ) ,

The amount of RAM on videocard can tell you how many big one frame can
be , for ex Geforce3 chip with 16MB of RAM wold be still 10x faster
that TNT1 even with 512MB memory

anyway , if you are not planning gaming in 2048x1536 with AAx6 enabled
then 128MB will be 100% waste of money<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ 

I primarily do videos, digital video editing, and downloarding movies, music
etc. Plus just simple routine office task. And, again my system does from
time to time hicupp.
I am tending towards keeping the video card, as I watched tonight ESPN
Monday Night Football preview and it as if I was watching it on a HD
TV(could not have been better) thus no problem with video card. Thus could
someone recommend specifically a cpu upgrade(i.e., 2.4 GHZ vs 2.6 GHZ etc)
and would I have to upgrade the mother board, and if so, what specific
brand. I get the impression that Intel boards are not the fastest. I
presently have Intel board(D850MD or D850MV).

Please Respond
"Maniacus" <maniacus.TakeThisOut@gd.home.pl> wrote in message
news:b0oumv0sbvuli3oja1q4hoa1ttqn3k5kl8@4ax.com...
 > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:08:13 GMT, "Keith Perry" <kop2008.TakeThisOut@cox.net>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >Thus I am thinking that to upgrade cpu/motherboard is either cheaper or
the
  > >same cost as doubling the RAM or getting a vido card with 128 mb.
  > >
 >
 > I dont know why, but it is popular to think, that telling how much RAM
 > does videocrad have can tell you about its value ( speed,features
 > ,enythibg else ) ,
 >
 > The amount of RAM on videocard can tell you how many big one frame can
 > be , for ex Geforce3 chip with 16MB of RAM wold be still 10x faster
 > that TNT1 even with 512MB memory
 >
 > anyway , if you are not planning gaming in 2048x1536 with AAx6 enabled
 > then 128MB will be 100% waste of money
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Upgrading from P-4 1.7GHZ