Upgrade Video Card for 300W System?

[RRSignal]

First my system is a Gateway with a AMD phenom x4, 64x, with 4gig of ram, with a ATI Radeon 3200 video which I believe is built on the mother board. I believe I have a empty PCLe 16 slot, and would like to up grade to a better video card, thinking of a GeForce 9500 GT, 9800 GT, or Geforce 430 GT which I have seen on sell. I can not afford to high a price, what would you suggest? Do I have to use a ATI Radeon card with this computer?

I would say 9800GT > 430GT > 9500GT. The latter is pretty low-end. I've used the 430 in a few builds and I wouldn't call it stellar - I think it's a case of getting what you pay for and maybe a hair on the high side in price. The 9800GT is considerably more than either of the others; if you are considering it, look for a GTS250 on sale instead.

If you're going to be playing Blu-Ray then you are supposed to have HDMI (or, technically, an HDCP-compliant interface) on your card as well as your monitor.

 

[Signalman65]

I would say 9800GT > 430GT > 9500GT. The latter is pretty low-end. I've used the 430 in a few builds and I wouldn't call it stellar - I think it's a case of getting what you pay for and maybe a hair on the high side in price. The 9800GT is considerably more than either of the others; if you are considering it, look for a GTS250 on sale instead.

If you're going to be playing Blu-Ray then you are supposed to have HDMI (or, technically, an HDCP-compliant interface) on your card as well as your monitor.

Thanks am planing to go to a 28" Monitor with DVI, HDMI, and AGP, HD1080p. Right now I have a 19" monitor running AGP, has other inputs, not sure what right now. I want to increase Ram from 4GB to 8GB, and Quad processor from 1.8 to 2.5.

 

[RRSignal]

Thanks am planing to go to a 28" Monitor with DVI, HDMI, and AGP, HD1080p. Right now I have a 19" monitor running AGP, has other inputs, not sure what right now. I want to increase Ram from 4GB to 8GB, and Quad processor from 1.8 to 2.5.

Good move. If you can afford it, you might be better off going with a faster CPU (I think there's a 2.8GHz, maybe faster, but you also should double-check if whatever CPU you get will work with your mobo) since Trainz and many other things are very CPU-oriented. In fact, if money's tight, I'd pick a faster CPU over more memory and even over a better video card, unless your other games have some specific needs. However, I believe there's a pretty big price difference between the 2.5 and the faster CPUs, at least when I was looking at AMD not too long ago.

 

[djt]

Hey RRSignal good idea, maybe you could share with us your extensive experience with gaming hardware?

 

[Signalman65]

Good move. If you can afford it, you might be better off going with a faster CPU (I think there's a 2.8GHz, maybe faster, but you also should double-check if whatever CPU you get will work with your mobo) since Trainz and many other things are very CPU-oriented. In fact, if money's tight, I'd pick a faster CPU over more memory and even over a better video card, unless your other games have some specific needs. However, I believe there's a pretty big price difference between the 2.5 and the faster CPUs, at least when I was looking at AMD not too long ago.

Not going to do all at once, monitor first, then video card. I can get a 2.5 Quad for $60, and a 3.2 for $120 that fit my socket. Ram may wait if slots are both full, have not had a chance to check, hope it is using only one stick.

 

[johnwhelan]

Thanks am planing to go to a 28" Monitor with DVI, HDMI, and AGP, HD1080p. Right now I have a 19" monitor running AGP, has other inputs, not sure what right now. I want to increase Ram from 4GB to 8GB, and Quad processor from 1.8 to 2.5.

Bigger screens at 1080 means more pixels, more pixels means you need more hardware to get the same frame rates.

Cheerio John

 

[djt]

Bigger screens at 1080 means more pixels, more pixels means you need more hardware to get the same frame rates.

Yikes, watch what you say about MORE hardware and better frame rates (better performance in general), someone here might get jealous, lol.

 

[Signalman65]

Bigger screens at 1080 means more pixels, more pixels means you need more hardware to get the same frame rates.

Cheerio John

More What Hardware?

 

[johnwhelan]

More What Hardware?

Trainz needs to keep track of what needs to be displayed. So a 1024 x 768 screen gives you 786,432 pixels to drive.

1920 x 1080 gives you 2,073,600 pixels to drive or roughly three times as many. Given the same hardware you'll get better frame rates on the smaller display.

You can use big displays such as 1920 x 1080 but to get an acceptable frame rate will require more processing power than a smaller display. You're probably looking at a djt recommended system with its associated costs rather than the sort of cheaper alternatives that I'd normally suggest as being more than sufficient.

Cheerio John

 

[lewisner]

I just got round to plugging my new PC into my 32 inch LG LCD TV and played Far Cry 2 on it with all settings at Ultra High and it looks outstanding.My existing 19 inch monitor looks so inferior I have just bought a 5 metre HDMI cable so I can use the TV if I want to run games. Hopefully if I ever get Trainz running again it will look just as good.

 

[RRSignal]

More What Hardware?

You also have to remember that some people have to make up with overpriced hardware, ah, something else they're lacking! John is correct and you pay for what you get, though you can get a good machine that does 1920x1080 without spending absurd and pointless amounts of money that some people do for bragging rights. For me, I run Trainz at 1280x1024 (I still can't wrap my brain around the widescreen format!) and get good performance with an E6700. I have a new i7 (Lynnfield) that will dual-boot XP 64 and Win7 64 and while preliminary results show Trainz looking good at 1920x1080, it really doesn't look much different than on the older machine that cost 1/3rd the price and which even runs FSX pretty well.

 

[djt]

I have a new i7 (Lynnfield) that will dual-boot XP 64 and Win7 64 and while preliminary results show Trainz looking good at 1920x1080, it really doesn't look much different than on the older machine that cost 1/3rd the price and which even runs FSX pretty well.

Wow, now that was pretty informative, lol?

 

[RRSignal]

Wow, now that was pretty informative, lol?

Yep, and I didn't pay several times what certain others do in order to get the same results. Many s here!

 

[djt]

Yep, and I didn't pay several times what certain others do in order to get the same results.

Really, the SAME results? Same result's as what?


Let's see some screen shots so that you can prove this. Make sure to show the results from both systems.

 

[RRSignal]

Really, the SAME results? Same result's as what?


Let's see some screen shots so that you can prove this. Make sure to show the results from both systems.

Again, since I don't have an i7 980 (far too overpriced for what I need) I can't compare it to that. Nor is it necessary. But since you do, you can post some proof that they are different (and please don't Photoshop the pics again, I caught you the first time in the summer) and also please explain how a frame rate past 30 or 60 or 90 or 120 is "better."

Personally, I don't need excess capacity I can't see. Nor do I need to pay for excess capacity I don't use.

 

[djt]

I just got round to plugging my new PC into my 32 inch LG LCD TV and played Far Cry 2 on it with all settings at Ultra High and it looks outstanding.My existing 19 inch monitor looks so inferior I have just bought a 5 metre HDMI cable so I can use the TV if I want to run games. Hopefully if I ever get Trainz running again it will look just as good.

As far as image quality goes of course with the 24” which has better pixel density the over all image quality is better but after running sims/games on a large screen you don't want to go back. After using the 32” HDTV it makes the 24” look puny.

I've worked in the railroad industry most of my life and a lot of that time was spent in the cab and at the throttle so I always try to run Trainz and RailWorks (despite them being just games) as a simulator. The 32” HDTV provides an immersion level that the smaller screens I've used can't match.

 

[djt]

Again, since I don't have an i7 980 (far too overpriced for what I need) I can't compare it to that. Nor is it necessary.

No one asked for a comparison to the i7 980. Compare the two machines you mentioned above with Trainz and FSX.

But since you do, you can post some proof that they are different (and please don't Photoshop the pics again, I caught you the first time in the summer)

I did? When, can you give us a link to the Photoshop-ed pics?

also please explain how a frame rate past 30 or 60 or 90 or 120 is "better."

I already explained why 60 fps with a monitor that has a 60 Hz refresh rate is the ideal, do a google search.


How would you expect me to prove that the sky was blue to a blind man?

 

[RRSignal]

No one asked for a comparison to the i7 980. Compare the two machines you mentioned above with Trainz and FSX.

Visually, no difference. I just got off the i7. It loads faster, but, then again, it's a clean install (both Windows and Trainz) with no Trainz add-ons, and it's on a Raptor.

I did? When, can you give us a link to the Photoshop-ed pics?

Here's one of the ones you reposted after I discovered you Photoshopped your pics in the summer or spring in this forum: http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1204/fs92010021711442191.jpg

Here it is with the EXIF metadata displayed, which I downloaded before you made the alterations:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5261306991_540eaf8dc5_b.jpg

I already explained why 60 fps with a monitor that has a 60 Hz refresh rate is the ideal, do a google search.

Aside from the fact that 60 fps is pretty generous (even 40 fps is pretty smooth!) then why do you need the ability to go above and beyond 60 fps? That's the issue here.

How would you expect me to prove that the sky was blue to a blind man?

Because you have claimed time and again 'the results are better, just ask anyone' and I've just done a side-by-side comparison: There is no noticeable difference. Again, it's like owning a car that can do 200 mph; it's nice, but kinda pointless when the speed limit is 65.

 

[djt]

Visually, no difference. I just got off the i7. It loads faster, but, then again, it's a clean install (both Windows and Trainz) with no Trainz add-ons, and it's on a Raptor.

Prove it, let's see some screens.

Here's one of the ones you reposted after I discovered you Photoshopped your pics in the summer or spring in this forum: http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/120...1711442191.jpg

Here it is with the EXIF metadata displayed, which I downloaded before you made the alterations:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/...0eaf8dc5_b.jpg

So tell me what did I Photoshop? Was it resized? What alterations did I make?


How about you put up a link to the rest of that thread where that screen shot came from so others here can see the rest of the story?

Aside from the fact that 60 fps is pretty generous (even 40 fps is pretty smooth!) then why do you need the ability to go above and beyond 60 fps? That's the issue here.

40 fps doesn't match the refresh rate of the monitor and I personally don't need to go above the refresh rate of the monitor.

Because you have claimed time and again 'the results are better, just ask anyone' and I've just done a side-by-side comparison: There is no noticeable difference. Again, it's like owning a car that can do 200 mph; it's nice, but kinda pointless when the speed limit is 65.

Again prove there is no difference, post some screen shots.


Here is a thread in a another forum which involves another CPU dependent game, FSX, did he find a difference with his comparison?


http://forum.avsim.net/topic/320755-480-gtx-vs-580-gtx/

 

[ZecMurphy]

Guys
Time to give this one a break...

To both RRSignal and DJT, you have been warned to keep your comments/replies constructive.

The effect of hardware (FPS, smoothness, textures, etc) is a subjective thing. As such, each person will see the effects differently. I know a number of gamers who do often notice the difference when they update their hardware, however small. On the other hand, there are also many others who won't notice this (or simply aren't bothered by it).

However, this doesn't give either side the right to attack each other over who's method is better. It is subjective and if you cannot discuss this in a constructive way, then we would ask that you do not discuss it.

Again, to both RRSignal and DJT, you have been warned to refrain from making personal attacks/comments.