Computer upgrade while awaiting Shock force, how will it run?

[Abbott]

Well I decided to upgrade my two-year-old computer rather then purchase a new one. As far as I know Shock Force specifications are still unknown but for a few of the more knowledgable fellows around here (Steve, Martin, Matt, Rune?) or some of our resident Forum Pros. May know something or at least enough for a educated guess..

I recently upgraded the ram and video card.

AMD 3400 at 2.41 Ghz.

2.5 gigs of 400mhz RAM

GeForce 7800 GT OC (factory over-clocked by BFG)

Has anyone heard how such a system may run Shock Force?

(edit: to change mbs of RAM to Gigs. of RAM)

[ March 23, 2007, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[rudel.dietrich]

That should run it pretty well

The extra half gig of ram may give Windows XP a problem.

XP has trouble with anyone over 2 gigs from what I hear.

The extra 512mb is pretty redundant anyways

The CPU is a little on the weak side but nothing to worry about

The 7800 should kick some serious ass

If you have the slot and are the type who can save some money

See if you can toss another 7800 into the system in SLi mode

Those two cards working together can chew up massive amount of polygons

[Abbott]

I'm still running an AGP slot and doubt if I have the Power Supply to run another card. If I was going to go with two-video cards I most likely would have purchased a new system.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I'm still running an AGP slot and doubt if I have the Power Supply to run another card. If I was going to go with two-video cards I most likely would have purchased a new system.

If its an AGP slot then nevermind then

If you do not mind my asking, how much are you paying for the upgrades?

Might be worth weighing that with the cost of a new system capable of going to dual core in the future and having PCIe slots

[Abbott]

I spent about $400.00 to upgrade. The GeForce card was $219.00 including shipping and I actually got it over-night! I also sent in the documentation for the offered $50.00 rebate...it remains to be seen if I get a check or not.

The two 1 Gig sticks of RAM cost me about $175.00. The half gig that went into the third slot I had laying about.

I have been told that XP will use the extra RAM above 2 Gigs for a few functions but it really is not necessary. Vista is supposed to support up to 4 gigs but as of yet the new operating system is not ready for prime time according to many Gaming Websites.

[rudel.dietrich]

A pretty good haul for $400

From what I have read 32 bit windows does not like anything above 2 gigs of RAM

If you do some testing, let me know how it goes!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

From what I have read 32 bit windows does not like anything above 2 gigs of RAM

Nonsense.

It has difficulty making use of memory between 3 and 4 GB if you have that much, but even then it just ignores it.

Whether the board runs entirely stable with 4 sticks is a different matter, but works fine for me also.

[Bertram]

From what I understand the 512 MB stcik might slow down the setup. Not because of windows, but because of how your MB handles the memory. Depending on the setup some MB like it better if 2 or 4 slots are filled. This is especially true of some AMD setups. It also depends on the speed and the quality (latency among others) of the memory. Your MB will switch to the lowest common stable speed for the memory. As the 512 MB is older it might be slower.... Only way to be sure is to test the system under real world loads in both setups (ie. with and without the 512 MB).

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Bertram:

From what I understand the 512 MB stcik might slow down the setup. Not because of windows, but because of how your MB handles the memory. Depending on the setup some MB like it better if 2 or 4 slots are filled. This is especially true of some AMD setups. It also depends on the speed and the quality (latency among others) of the memory. Your MB will switch to the lowest common stable speed for the memory. As the 512 MB is older it might be slower.... Only way to be sure is to test the system under real world loads in both setups (ie. with and without the 512 MB).

On most mainboards with dual-channel DDR RAM you have to switch to switch the "command rate" to 2T when running 4 sticks. That costs in the order of 1-3% performance, usually around the 1%. The benefit of more memory is clearly the better tradeoff.

Some boards default to clock DDR400 memory at DDR333 when you have 4 sticks, but with some careful testing (SuperPi mainly) you can most often override this back to 400 MHz (the Asus A8N-* boards are often an exception and don't even run stock speed, but that's a different matter). Even if you have to go back to DDR333 you lose another 2-3%, which still makes the more memory the more attractive option for almost all desktop/game uses.

Of course you cannot overlock 4 sticks as much as two sticks, but I don't think we were discussing high overclocking of the RAM here.

[Bertram]

Redwolf: Abbot wrote theat the 512 MB that 'went into the 3th slot" was laying around. I took it that he actually filled 3 slots, instead of 2 or 4... I *think* that might slow down memory acces (if it does not stop it altogether in some MB's), but it has been a long time I have actually been working with things like that, and now only follow it in a theoretical sense.

I *do* have seen several instances in which memory acces was slowed or the system became instable because the memory sticks didnt match close enough. That should not happen according to the manual, but it does happen in reality. So I prefer to check real world effects.

[Redwolf]

If he added a single 512 MB stick instead of 2x 256 then he runs single-channel memory now.

That costs another 2-3% performance, so it adds up with the other 2-3%s.

Some fuzzy definition of "slowed down" doesn't cut it, though. You can easily run a benchmark of your choice, rip out the third stick and re-run, then decide whether the slowdown in the benchmark (e.g. a game) is worth the speedup from more RAM in desktop use.

Instability needs testing. Without proper testing procedures nobody should overclock memory or use more than 2 sticks in a board with questionable BIOS (such as any Asus board).

[Battlefront.com]

Abbott,

I'll leave the really technical geek jargon to the technical geeks here. They're doing a good job Your new specs look fine. The Demo is, however, always the best way to test things. People have such individual definitions of how well a game runs. I know people that played CMx1 games in slideshow mode (i.e. 1 or 2 fps) and never complained, while other people were bitching if they weren't getting 30fps all the time

Steve

[Abbott]

Thank you Steve .

As far as my system's RAM goes I purchased two new 1 gig. sticks and tossed in a 512 stick (same speed 400 mghz) that I had left over from upgrading another system. All three slots on my Mainboard are filled.

[civdiv]

I have a two year old XPS Gen 2 w/ a 2.13 Centrino;

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1769524,00.asp

It has 2 gigs of RAM. I am confident it will run CMSF, but I assume it will get choppy with all the doodads turned on.

civdiv

[ March 25, 2007, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[Battlefront.com]

Probable, though it is still hard to say at the moment because of three things:

1. We only use debug builds which are always slower than release builds

2. Charles still has various things he can optimize

3. Many models currently lack LODs (lower res by distance) and that means you might see a vehicle at 200m that is only 20 pixels big, but it's still hitting the framefrate as 10,000 polies. This will all be fixed before shipping.

The basic rule of thumb is if the game works on a system relatively OK then it will likely work a lot better when all is said and done. None of us have cutting edge machines and we're all playing the game fairly well most of the time. And when it doesn't play well it's usually the LOD problem.

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by civdiv:

I have a two year old XPS Gen 2 w/ a 2.13 Centrino;

It has 2 megs of RAM.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Are you sure you don't have a thousand-fold error?

[civdiv]

Sergei,

Guilty. I edited it.

civdiv

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Thank you Steve .

As far as my system's RAM goes I purchased two new 1 gig. sticks and tossed in a 512 stick (same speed 400 mghz) that I had left over from upgrading another system. All three slots on my Mainboard are filled.

In that case you have a socket 754 system, which never runs dual-channel and I think you run 2T with two sticks already, so you don't lose anything here either.

However, you almost certainly do not run at 400 MHz, the BIOS will fall down to 333 or even 266 MHz. It doesn't care whether your RAM is rated 400 MHz with three sticks, three sticks on socket 754 are never allowed by AMD to run DDR400. That is before you overclock, which might or might not bring it back up depending on which knob you turn.

Downloading CPUz and have it give you the numbers is probably the way to go.

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

[ March 26, 2007, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Abbott]

So what you are telling me is I might find a slight increase in performance if I run just the two 1 Gig. sticks?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Abbott:

So what you are telling me is I might find a slight increase in performance if I run just the two 1 Gig. sticks?

Depends on what frequency for the memory your motherboard picks and/or whether you override it. Most 754 mainbooards will run 400 MHz with one stick and 333 MHz with three sticks, but what they opt for with two is a different matter. There's no way to tell without you asking CPUz. You also overclock your CPU and pending more info that mostlly likely means you overclock your memory, too.

Then, there is the problem of memory amount versus memory speed. In general, you cannot really feel the 2-3 speed difference that 400 versus 333 MHz makes for games and desktop work. You can usually feel 512 MB more or less but it's hard to measure.