Upgrading graphics card.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Like many I am get myself CMSF ready …. as such I think I may need to upgrade my graphics card.

My current card is a NVIDIA 6800 with PCI Express x16 bus.

As long as I get another card that uses a PCI Express x16 bus type is it likely to be compatible with my machine? What do I need to lookout for?

As the only PC games I play are CM it is some years since I last did any “upgrading” and so have forgotten the basics . I have Dell Dimension 9150 with Windows XP service pack 2.

Hoping someone will take mercy on my…. .

All the best,

Kip.

[Redwolf]

Power supply?

Some junk Dells have half-height PCIe slots, make sure it's normal size.

[kipanderson]

Redwolf, hi,

Thanks for your help..

Four or five years ago I trusted myself way more on this sort of stuff. But other than CM I use my PC only for internet/Word and such so am out of practice.

Thanks again,

All the best,

Kip.

[Schrullenhaft]

Looking up the info on Dell's website, I get some mixed info from some of their forums. Some people say that the Dimension 9150 (same as the XPS 400, supposedly) has a 305W power supply, while others say that the power supply has two +12V rails at 18A and 17A each, which would be enough for most PCI Express videocards.

You'll need to open your computer and look for an information label on the power supply and see what it tells you regarding its amperage rating for its +12V line(s). Since you're already running a GeForce 6800 series videocard, you may have power for something a little higher end.

From what I can tell via the website, you probably already have a full-height case when it comes to expansion PCIe cards. I'm not aware of a GeForce 6800 series being available in a low profile form factor (though it is possible, but somewhat unlikely).

As far as performance, I believe that a good GeForce 6800 should probably work quite well with CMSF, but a faster videocard can help with some of the eye-candy effects and the hit they have on framerate.

If you want to stick to Nvidia (since they've had a longer history of doing OpenGL a bit better), then you may want to consider a GeForce 7950GT. And again, depending on what sort of amperage your power supply has, you may want to consider a power supply upgrade if necessary which may cost you about £50.00 + VAT (or more) for a decent one.

[kipanderson]

Schrullenhaft, hi,

Thanks for all the great info…I am very grateful… all I needed to know and more .

I will carefully checkout all you advise. If I remember correctly you advised me some years ago on which laptop to get and gave great advice with very happy results .

BTW while I have your attention there is one other thing that puzzles me.

In the last two years there has been a deluge of new Intel processor types. My question is how do the new processors compare on a classic, single core GHz scale?

I am of the generation that thinks of processors for desktops in GHz such as 2.8, 3.4 and so on. With notebook processors being 2.0GHz or 2.4GHz and so on. But with notebook processors having a “useable” core speed about 50% high than the stated figure when compared to desktop processors. So a notebook processor of book speed 2.4GHz has a useable speed equal to a 3.6GHz desktop processor.

But how do the dual core desktop processors compare with the old single core desktop processors speed wise? For example how does a dual core desktop processor of say 2.4GHz compare to an old style single core processor of say 3.6GHz?

My only interest is in how they handle CMSF…CM being the only PC game I play. The rest is just internet browsing and Office use.

Thanks for all your help,

Apologies for all the questions .

All the best,

Kip.

[Schrullenhaft]

I still tend to see performance in terms of "megahertz" and "gigahertz" and have them somewhat directly comparable. Though that really hasn't been a fully accurate way to gauge the performance of different CPUs, it is a hard habit to break.

The comparison of the mobile Pentium 4's (Pentium M, Centrino) to the desktop 'Netburst' Pentium 4's is actually very apt here. Because the current Intel Conroe family of CPUs traces its architecture lineage to those mobile Pentiums (with a few improvements here and there).

Now to compare performance, it gets a bit tricky. Each benchmark is going to show a different difference in the performance since each architecture is going to have its strengths and weaknesses. Here's one CPU Chart (Tom's Hardware), though it doesn't show some of the older Intel CPUs people may still have and the older chipsets that some of them will still be using.

When it comes to word processing, internet browsing, there probably won't be too much of a discernible difference (though there should be some). For CM, things will be a bit faster with the new Conroes. Regarding dual-core CPUs, there's not a whole lot of difference unless you're running with a number of applications open. Then the second core can be a bit handy in spreading the work load around; though the machine won't necessarily be 'twice as fast' with a dual-core CPU.

With CMSF things will be a little faster due to the Conroe's performance, but the dual-cores will not be a factor as far as I'm aware (no multi-threading to my knowledge).

[kipanderson]

Schrullenhaft, hi,

Once again thanks for your input.

You certainly do know your stuff and it helps lot. It greatly reduces the risk when buying a new system or upgrading. The “risk” being that any new system/upgrade does not work with CM.

All the best,

Kip.