That's one of life recurring questions: cpu or gpu upgrade? And one I'm at right now as I don't know what might benefit me most?
Athlon XP2400+ & GF4 Ti (4200)
512Mb ram (2100 - old board)
Toying with should I upgrade to a 6600GT (AGP) or ditch the lot, save up & buy new board, memory (faster & probably a gig) and a 6600GT (though now a pcie version) - that would be six months off
Memory does play a big part in games with 'top of the line' graphics engines, but I don't think it would matter that much in LFS considering the graphics seem to be straightforward 'put a texture or two on a polygon and call it a day.'
As stated by others, the memory amount likely has nothing to do with that. However, what probably affected it is the bits of the memory interface - your previous card was probably running 64bit mem, alot of manufacturers of budget priced vga cards do that. And also the clocking of the GPU and memory differs from maker to maker (and the max overclocking frequency attainable as well).
Take your card up to ~300/600 (300 core, 600 memory), I had that card and that is what I got, so it's something to aim for, should be easy as most go way past that.
Take bench marks, see what you get. Then do the same at stock speeds.
Now OC your chip, take benchmarks, see what you get, then OC both chip and card and see what you get. Depending which has the biggest boost (ignoring the final one, that was just for the cat killers), should sugest which would make the better improvment.
LFS is a proc eating game, so the biggest bottle neck currently is that. As I can play with full AF and AA (16x AF, 8x AA), and only lose about 2-5fps. So as you do, I play with that. But the AI have a big hit on CPU, which is why so many of you get such a big hit when you race with the AI on. Online your PC isn't driving 11 other cars, so your FPS will be better as it hits the proc less
But then, me the hater of sound have unhooked every fan I can in my PC. Bring sound down lower then the sound one of my monitors makes (yes, it makes noise, I think it's due to die soon), and my proc runs a little toasty, but in LFS with 12 AI, on a 10 lap race, I only see 2-3c increase in a closed case, if I open the side up to let the air flow. It's a tad less. But then, my cooler might have something to do with that
The only benefit is that PCI-E cards are cheaper then AGP versions of the same card. But it'd be best to wait until next year to change, as some new toys are coming out soon, which will change prices and standards. The funny thing is, the only reason why they are changing is for OC'ers. Most "normal" people will never use all of the power of their hardware, same with gamers. But OC'ers and people trying to get that faster score on SuperPi always want more power, and hardware companies know this, so they make it for them, and then the sheep of the world will buy it because it's new.
When I was in college for one of the subjects we had to build computers (I got kicked from the class for being too fast as I made one in 30 minutes and started on another, they expected it to take us half of the day to make one, when I started my thrid I was told to go do something else D: ), and they was all top of the line hardware. But it was only being used for word and such. Why word need a P4 @ 3.6ghz with 1gb of DDR2 and a PCI-E 6800GT I will never know. But that is the way people are.
no they don't, the day that happens I'll jump through a window OC'ers are only a very small part of PC users (1-2%) and have no impact on the decisions of large companies like Intel, who set the standards.
They push for upgrades because they like to make a living, so they'll keep pushing the Ghz up and introduce new motherboards / power supplies and cases as they need it to keep on selling new/faster/more feature rich products
BTX is a standard introduced by Intel because their current line up of CPU off give too much heat for ATX cases to handle
All the major players love to send their products to OC'ers to put them through their paces. My current CPU was a hand picked by AMD for OC'ers chip. Chosen to scale well and run cool, so more people will be willing to buy it. A friend of mine (who used to be first on the OC tables in my sig for UK OC'ers, got the 2600+ to 3ghz) used to get so much stuff sent to him for evaluation, and genearlly push it to the limits. But that stopped when he stopped pushing for high scores.
OC'ers only have a small stand point in respect to the whole of PC users. But most PC users would think that a 3ghz Celeron was fast. If you cut out the morons and people who shouldn't be allowed to touch computers, and people who cannot build computers, you can probably get rid of 90% of the market. Which brings things into prespective. Most computer uers are idiots (as proven by the morons on this comp sci course who don't even know if their PC uses Windows or not), and they have no infulance on the markets. What does is people who want the high scores on things like the orb, or get the fastest clock speeds to win the WR, which if I remember has gone to finland, pissing off a lot of Americans even more, as they was pissy when Japan took it from them.
Most of the well know OC'ers have strong bonds with big compianies, and they do influance what is or isn't added. The last time I ever looked over an OC'ers forum, someone was sent a sample Venice core (yes, that long ago), and he had to scale it as far as he could on Air so AMD could see what it can throw down, and thus decied the price range for the chip.
After that he chucked on a vapo and took it higher.
Intel just genearlly suck though, that's why they need such bizzar ways of getting rid of heat. They can't beat AMD with the P4, and it is costing them greatly. And how the tables have turned. Once upon a time people used to scream "ZOMG INTEL ARE LYK WELL COOL RUNNING LYK LOLZ" now people scream "ZOMG INTEL ARE LYK WELL HOT RUNNING LYK LOLZ".
The biggest market base is gamers, Intel have lost that to AMD, and they are trying hard (too hard some might say) to win it back. Intel went down hill after the PIII, the Centreno is probably their best chip since then (as it is the PIII revisited). More so the Yona (I'm sure that's wrong), that core is amazing, and clock for clock kicks everything elses ass on the market. Just the only mobo's that support it seem to be on VIA, which sucks =/ Not sure if that has changed sence I last looked.
But if the mobo support gets better for that chip. AMD will be so screwed in the ass. I so want one of them chips :o
Well no, not the main reason, but they help. Plus thanks to idiots who watch what OC'ers do and try it at home, they wreck their hardware and have to buy more :P
And that is impressive, for a home build, top marks for the setup. But then the rad looks like he just pulled it out of a truck. This guy was using pre-fab, which is never as good as home build
From what I found, the CPU is the biggest factor in LFS. If you want higher framerates, up the CPU. LFS doesn't really care so much about what video card you use. I started off with an ATI 7200 graphics card and an AMD 1.2Ghz processor when I first found LFS. Running AI, the thing got bad. I quickly upped both to an AMD 2400 and ATI 9500. I had the processor first, and that actually made the biggest difference by far. The new video card didn't add much. I play lots of other games, so what makes LFS run fast isn't my only concern. I have since upgraded to an ATI 9800 Pro as they have gotten quite cheap.
I never buy the $400 ones. It always seems stupid. I always aim for the best bang for the buck. When that top of the line $400 graphics card drops down to $100-$150 in the future, then I'll consider it.
A good place to check out is www.tomshardware.com They have good reviews on graphics cards and processors and directly compare brands and models to one another on a variety of benchmarks. The place is a good tool for finding out which brand and models are better. Then you can check out pricing on www.froogle.com or www.pricewatch.com or www.ebay.com to find out which of the models turns out to be the best bang for the buck. Spend some time comparing and searching, and you'll find yourself a setup that's both fast AND cheap.
Oh by the way, $2000 for a computer system?! Not if you know what to look for. I can build you a low end top of the line system for under $1000 or a budget gaming system for under $500. It's all about picking and choosing the right parts and the needed parts when focusing on gaming performance. There's places you should spend a little extra and places you can certainly skimp. With a bit of online time researching components and doing some price searching, anyone can build or upgrade their current systems to decent specs for little money. I think the most I ever spent on a full system was $1300, but that was 6 years ago and PCs were a little more costly back then. I guess I spent $1600 on my laptop, but they're different. You pay for the smaller size and portability. As well, laptops are generally less upgradeable, so you kind of have to go to the top end level to not get outdated too quickly. PCI-Express fixes this some as laptops can now upgrade their graphics cards, so it's not as big of a problem. Now-a-days, I can't see spending over $1000 on any decktop system. If you are, you're either paying for a brand name, or are paying too much for components or on stuff that doesn't really make a difference.
don't mind Flying Squirrel he's confused, that sentence should read "A good place to avoid is TomsHW"
the videocards and CPU reviews on there are biased, and because of that offer little useful info; too many times in the past their reviews have been of base with what other review sites got from testing. If you want reliable reviews www.anandtech.comwww.techreport.comwww.hardocp.com
if you want to enjoy great sound on your PC (which adds another dimension to the whole experience I assure you) you need a quality soundcard $200 and quality 5.1 Speakers $300.
So that $1000 "top of the line" PC you're talking about, is really not quite top of the line at all
I wouldn't agree with 5.1, my 2.1 Megaworks which cost me £100(~$200) sound amazing as it is, only downside is I still need a sound card, so I get a lot of white noise from them >.<
I've just got my speakers setup for 2points with fake 5.1 that comes with the drivers. But I've never used 5.1, so I can't really compare it
Maybe one day when I have some more green, I'll jump over to what ever is nice and big (probably 7.1)
But I have played err, three of those games, and watched DVD's. But then my onboard wouldn't work with 5.1 anyway. It took me all day to get 2.1 working (and even now anything direct centre front doesn't play, only sides, so no Third Person view in LFS for me)
I quite agree with Psychoman, the megaworks 2.1 sounds great. I have it and i had a (albeit lower quality) 5.1 system before that which just annoyed me. For me 2.1 is fine, mainly as i wanted to listen to music, but also as i have nowhere near enough room for 5.1. (And yes I have played most of those games).
For under £100 the megaworks is intense, and does greatly improve gaming on a smaller budget than 5.1.
edit: Yes also a good sound card is usefull but not neccessary, I have an Audigy 2 ZS but I dont really notice a difference in games (direct digital output to Megaworks at 24bit/96khz), I bought it for its ASIO2 capabilities, but thats another matter
Yeah, it is 2 with 1 sub, but when sound is direct in the centre both speakers don't seem to play it, and all the sound is sent to by sub, which sucks as all I get is a vibrating ass >.<
I have some megaworks 2.1, and I'm pretty disappointed with them. They are loud, but mids are flat, bass is pretty muddy and doesn't go down to that sub-sonic-shake-stuff-off-the-desk sort of range.
High frequency response is ok, but nothing ground breaking.
Sound stage is ok, but all but the best produced tracks lack presence.
I have a £30 set of Altec ACS-33s (2.1) that I bought nearly 5 years ago, and they beat the Megaworks 2.1 hands down for quality, but you can't crank them up too much.
OC'ers are only a very small part of PC users (1-2%) and have no impact on the decisions of large companies like Intel, who set the standards. 