Future Proofing My Gaming Rig

[Deth]

I currently own an EVGA GeForce 8800 GTX ACS3 KO video card and I use Windows Vista Business 32-bit. I bought Company of Heroes because I heard it was a great game and I got to try out the DirectX 10 patch that recently came out. I didn't see too much of a difference, but I did notice one thing. When I try to host an Internet game, CoH and Vista uses my entire 2GB of Memory. I see this as a Red Flag and I am currently considering a memory upgrade. I have two choices.

I went on the Microsoft website and got myself Windows Vista Business 64-bit for $10 in case I ever wanted to go 64-bit in the future. I don't see any real advantage of having an 64-bit OS cept for the fact it would make use of more memory if I decided to buy a lot. There seems to be many disadvantages including poor driver support and the fact that current games (that are made for 64-bit) have been shown to be slower (in fps) when compared to their 32-bit counterparts. That sure makes me not want to install Vista 64-bit!

So my choice is either to buy either 2 x 512MB of RAM or another 2 x 1GB of RAM. Which would give me either 3GB or 4GB respectively. If I went 3GB, there would really be no reason to ever go Vista 64-bit. I have a feeling in a few years from now, games will be designed for 64-bit and will take advantage of the 64-bit instruction sets. But how many years will that be? I'm still waiting for DirectX 10 games to come out!

I also own an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 processor. I managed to overclock it to 3.6GHz. I am interested in seeing more games taking advantage of Core 2 Duo. Are there any games currently taking advantage of Core 2 Quad? You might say Supreme Commander, but my current processor and video card seem to run that game extremely well so upgrading to a Quad Core seems to be out of the question at the moment.

As far as going SLI, I hear that's the worse money sink of them all. It would cost me another $650 for an identical video card that would yield very little performance increase. I still don't understand why SLI can not increase video performance near 50%. Rather than the ~10% I commonly hear. I notice the 8800 Ultra isn't much better than the card I have now. $800 buys me a card that has a slower clock than my current card?

Software and Games seems to be lagging behind all the advances in hardware technology. I bought all the neat bells and whistles, but no game to take advantage of this system. I'm just afraid when the next generation games do come out, prices drop drastically on what I currently have and the GeForce 8900 gets released.

So what's your most anticipated game coming out? SPORE's release date got pushed back and it looks like Crysis won't be the first DirectX 10 game anymore. Although I'm looking forward to Crysis. Does anyone else have 3GB or 4GB of memory?

 

[b1lk1]

Vista has no decent SLI drivers, and SLI GTX's is not gonna increase your in game performance. As for the ram, get 2X1GB anyways, accept the fact that it will only recognize 1.5GB or so of it for now and you'll be fine when you upgrade to 64-bit.

 

[NicePants42]

Future-proofing at this point is futile, you've got Quad cores for under $300 coming in July, DDR3 out already, X38 next month, and Nvidia's GPU update before Christmas. Who needs to be future proof when you can just sell your old hardware on forums?

But as for a recommendation, I'd heartily agree that 2x1gb is the only way to go at this point, especially considering that you can get 2x1gb for $70-80 these days if you know where to look.

I've been using 64bit XP Pro for over a year, and haven't had any driver problems. Can't speak for Vista though.

 

[Merlin]

Take a run at Lost Planet...... A Demo with two levels

http://www.lostplanet-thegame.com/

It uses the DX10 and I'm only using the 8600 card and it looks great

Merlin

 

[Deth]

I checked out that Lost Planet demo. I had high expectations and from all the reviews I read, it seemed like it was going to be a jaw-dropping experience. Unfortunately, I found the demo to be OK. I'm looking forward to Crysis to show me what DirectX 10 is all about. I want to have a cinematic gaming experience.

I will probably go with the 2 x 1GB since it seems to be the most logical. Hopefully I will see a performance increase when going from 2GB to ~3GB. Anything is better than nothing, or god forbid, a performance decrease when adding an additional 2 sticks.

My Command Rate is already 2T so hopefully there won't be any negative effects from adding more RAM.

 

[Merlin]

There are two versions of Lost Planet, DX 9c and DX 10.
I played both and the DX10 was faster and more complex in details.
I saw smoke coming from the gun barrel after shooting and the inside shots were more crisp and clear.
I think we will see some awesome graphics and faster speeds with the DX 10 games.
I also am waiting for the Crysis game to come out.

Merlin

 

[Deth]

On the Fence

Right now, I'm on the line whether or not I should upgrade my video card through eVGA's Step Up program. I have about 2 weeks to decide before it's too late. If I do decide to take advantage of the Step Up program, it would cost me $150 + any shipping fees. So I'm guessing around $200 all together.


Here are the specs between the two video cards:

My current video card, e-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB KO ACS3:

Performance
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
626 MHz GPU
128 Pixel Pipelines
400 MHz RAMDAC

Memory
768 MB, 384 bit DDR3
2000 MHz (effective)
96.0 GB/s Memory Bandwidth


My upgrade option, e-GeForce 8800Ultra Superclocked 768MB:

Performance
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra
655 MHz GPU
128 Pixel Pipelines
400 MHz RAMDAC

Memory
768 MB, 384 bit DDR3
2250 MHz (effective)
108 GB/s Memory Bandwidth


So for $150+, the CPU gains an additional 29 MHz and the memory gains an additional 250 MHz (effective) as well as an additional 12 GB/s Memory Bandwidth.

Is this worth the money? Will I notice a difference in the games I play currently and the ones in the future? Time is running out, and once my Step Up program expires for my current video card, I can never make this choice again.


I'm going to guess most people would say it's not worth it and the performance increase is too minute that it's not worth $150 and the money could be better put to use elsewhere. But if you think otherwise, I'd love to hear from you!

 

[Greg King]

I am one of those people who will tell you that it's not worth it. However, with your GTX, if you were to sell it, you wouldn't see near what you have invested in it. With this in mind, $150 bucks one time isn't that bad at all for the top of the line GPU so if your one of those enthusiasts who has to have everything thats new, I would say go for it, if only for bragging rights.

I don't know exactly what monitor you have, but I am guessing that your GTX now is more than enough. You might be smart to wait a little bit for NVIDIA to drop their prices a bit and pick up another GTX and run them in SLI. Thats another idea.

 

[Deth]

I recently purchased a SCEPTRE X22WG-1080p Black 22" 2ms(GTG) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor.

The specs are:

Screen Size: 22"
Widescreen: Yes
Display Type: WSXGA+
Recommended Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Viewing Angle: 170°(H) / 160°(V)
Display Colors: 16.7 Million
Brightness: 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 2000:1
Response Time: 2ms(GTG)

Haven't had any problems with it so far and no dead pixels. I agree it's probably not worth it to upgrade. My current video card should be able to handle the upcoming PC titles. In 2-3 years from now, I should think about getting an entirely new video card anyways.

I hear going SLI is only worth it if you have a monstrous monitor. I bought mine for the 2ms Response Time, 2000:1 Contrast Ratio, and Eggcellent price. Only cost me $265 at the time, and it looks like they dropped in price even more now!

Thanks for your help!

 

[NicePants42]

Honestly, if you read some of the reviews available for the 8800 Ultra, they all seem to indicate that an overclocked 8800GTX will perform 99% as well 99% of the time - thus there is a general consensus that the Ultra is not worth it's current price.

However, it's also been noted that the Ultra can overclock fairly well. You can check reviews at [H] and Anandtech and see what I'm talking about.

I think that the best bang for your buck will be getting a second 8800GTX, especially if you can grab a used one on a forum or something. If you don't want to spend that kind of money, but still want an upgrade, then stepping up isn't a bad way to go - it's the only way you're going to get full purchase value for the 8800GTX card now.

 

[b1lk1]

Nothing to gain by getting the Ultra from the GTX. Complete waste of $$$.

 

[Deth]

Conclusion

I just found out and confirmed that the eVGA Step Up program only allows me to upgrade my current video card to the standard e-GeForce 8800Ultra 768MB. The video card I initially wanted to get was not one of the possible upgrade options available to eVGA customers. Which makes deciding on whether to upgrade or not very easy.


My current video card, e-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB KO ACS3:

Performance
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
626 MHz GPU
128 Pixel Pipelines
400 MHz RAMDAC

Memory
768 MB, 384 bit DDR3
2000 MHz (effective)
96.0 GB/s Memory Bandwidth


The only upgrade option actually available to me, e-GeForce 8800Ultra 768MB.

Performance
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra
612 MHz GPU
128 Pixel Pipelines
400 MHz RAMDAC

Memory
768 MB, 384 bit DDR3
2160 MHz (effective)
103.68 GB/s Memory Bandwidth


So the GPU actually decreases in performance by 14 MHz. However the memory increases by 160 MHz and there's an additional 7.68 GB/s Memory Bandwidth. It would seem only a fool would want to pay ~$200 to upgrade to that.

Now the only thing that's left for me to decide is whether I really need 4GB of RAM. (or the ~3GB that I will really actually ever see in the Vista 32-bit OS)

 

[b1lk1]

More system memory is a GREAT idea over stepping up that video card. As I said, it makes absolutely no sense ata ll to step up to the Ultra when you could most likely overclock near or to Ultra levels. As for the system memory, tecnhically, if you turn off Virtual memory and the page file you'll see all 4GB of ram. Either way, you'll get more use of of 4GB system ram than that minute gain in video performance.

 

[Greg King]

More system memory is a GREAT idea over stepping up that video card. As I said, it makes absolutely no sense ata ll to step up to the Ultra when you could most likely overclock near or to Ultra levels. As for the system memory, tecnhically, if you turn off Virtual memory and the page file you'll see all 4GB of ram. Either way, you'll get more use of of 4GB system ram than that minute gain in video performance.

B1lk1's advice reeks of brilliance. There really isn't any point in getting a faster card. One, the price isn't justifiable and two, your GTX will chew up all the pixels your monitor can throw at it.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

As for the system memory, tecnhically, if you turn off Virtual memory and the page file you'll see all 4GB of ram.

not true, when using a 32bit OS, the top range of the memory address space is allocated to pci devices, which includes the video card. So if you have 4GB of ram and a 512MB video card, the most you can possibly see is 3.5GB, without any other pci devices. No matter what.

Either way, you'll get more use of of 4GB system ram than that minute gain in video performance.

Name me one game that shows benefits to having more than 2GB. Either way, the difference today is trivial. However, since we're talking future-proofing, 4GB is indeed the way to go, but not because he will see gains within a year, if not longer.

However, only go to 4GB if you plan on getting a 64bit OS.

 

[madstork91]

If and when my comp ever gets a jump to vista it will be 64 bit.

"Its the wave of the future" - Howard Hughes, The Aviator (Its when he goes all Rainman)

 

[b1lk1]

I never said games would benefit, especially when XP will only assign a max of roughly 2GB to any 1 program anyways. BUT, if you are running a bunch of crap in the background while running a resource hog game it would help.

As for seeing 4GB, you are wrong. Period. Put 4GB of memory in your system and do what I said. It is well documented that you will see all 4GB that way. XP can address 4GB, but not 1MB more so if you cause the system to only use system memory it will show.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

As for seeing 4GB, you are wrong. Period. Put 4GB of memory in your system and do what I said. It is well documented that you will see all 4GB that way. XP can address 4GB, but not 1MB more so if you cause the system to only use system memory it will show.

I suppose I fail and have never gotten it working right, but the most I've ever been able to so, regardless of the tricks I play with switches in the boot.ini, page file, etc, has always always been 4GB - video memory, which is usually 3.75GB for me, since I have a 256MB card.

If you can prove me otherwise, I'll gladly admit defeat. However, the one thing you ARE right about is the 4GB limit. Just don't forget that the memory in pci devices is part of that 4GB range

 

[b1lk1]

OK, I must admit I am wrong in this. The information I was using was from a single source and I should know better. There is no way to make all 4GB show up, I think you can get up to 3.75GB max and then you'd have system issues from shutting down virtual memory and the page file.

 

[trinirq]

Need Help

Hi All, I have a M2N32-SLI deluxe MB, EVGA 8600 GT video card, Seagate SATA 300 HD, Samsung cd-dvd writer, 4GB Sli DDR2 ram, AMD 6400+ Dual Core CPU.

I'm trying to make a clean install of Vista but my motherboard won't recognize my sata drive during the install. I don't want to use IDE as primary and the Sata cd-dvd drive works fine. Can anyone help?