Hey Everyone...Just had a couple of questions to ask. Last time my post got locked..So Lets Hope This One Is Better

ANYWAYS.........

I have a Gateway E-2000 or 300s..Becuse on my comp it says e-2000 and on gateway support I put my code in and it said 300s.

MY QUESTION IS........

Should I get a PCI Graphics Card or would it be a waist since lfs is more internet/processor game (So I Have Heard) Right now I have a Intel 82845G Integrated Gfx and it sux bizalls. On lowest possible res and gfx I get 15 Norm - 30 High - 5 lowest and not to mention it looks crappy. But Im more about playable vs gfx. Ive seen other PCI threads saying there was no increase in fps just more options..most
of them had 9250 something something which I heard sucked. I was going to get the Visiontek x1300. Two guys on youtube played half life 2 with max settings with 2x aa 16af and lowest 1024x768 and the lowest fps they got was 40-55

LINKS.......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k-u_SfHTfpQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzQkPbMzpLw

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ ... aspx?Item=N82E16814129062

ALSO........

I had a pentium 4 1.8 and switch it with a Celeron 2.3. I was wonder which is better..I heard p4 is better for gaming but the celeron seems faster..idk. And I have 128mb of ddr 2100 ram and wanna get 512mb...Will that make any diff besides that i can use more progs

P.S.......

I hope this isnt to much..Just not sure if I should buy the new card and ram instead of spending $500-$1000 on a new comp when im just gunna play LFS. I am gunna get a new comp but I wanna know if this is good for now

Well obviously a 2.8GHz CPU is going to be faster than a 1.8GHz one, that's what you'd expect. The reason people say one is faster than the other is due to the architecture of the chip, but that's against CPUs of the same speed.

If you don't include stuff like anti-aliasing, LFS frame rate depends mostly on your CPU. But if you're only running 128Mb RAM that would be my first stop. I'm surprised your computer even starts up with that little!
Your CPU is around the same clock speed as mine, but I'm running 2Gb RAM and I sit in the mid-100s, so obviously it makes a big difference.

Integrated graphics are always slower (although if you're stuck with PCI your onboard might run at AGP speed) but since LFS doesn't tax cards that much it shouldn't matter that much (as long as it's hardware T&L enabled).

I'm no Jakg (), but if you ask me the order I'd upgrade that is
RAM > graphics card > CPU.

But to be perfectly honest, chances are you'll probably need a new mobo before any of that.

^ Dajmin said it.
512 would be sufficient for LFS even though the game doesn't use all of it, Windows will in the background. 128 will spazzasticly unplayable hate to say.
As for PCI, if you haven't got AGP, a 6200LE or x1300 are your only retreats - and will still walk over on-board video.

I'd grab a processer if you can find it for bread and watter; otherwise scrap that idea and focus on the ram.

I honestly didn't know XP would RUN on 128 Mb... much less let you play games. Wow. Yea - RAM = most important upgrade for you.

Stang70Fastback - XP runs on a 7 MHz CPU iirc...

To be fair any cash you spend on a PCI card seems frankly pointless as everything on that PC is so old that updating it will cost as much as a new PC would.

I know - I wasn't being serious (kind of)

I run a P3 900mhz 128MB of RAM laptop with XP and it runs fine for web browsing.

PCI is useless for gaming, the bus speed is so slow that almost all graphics cards surpass it. You would be much better off with a new computer.

Sure there is no AGP port on your motherboard? Better check once more.

1 or better 2 sticks of 512mb ram and a Pentium CPU will help your overall system performance. Even a 1.8Ghz P4a will outperform your 2.X Celeron due to its difference in the L2 cache ( 128kb-512kb).

Add. the P4a is an easy overclocker...

Same question here btw:
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133498

All in all, I wouldn´t spent a lot of money on this system but you´re able to find some cheap upgrades, go for it.

Quote from Dajmin :

Well obviously a 2.8GHz CPU is going to be faster than a 1.8GHz one, that's what you'd expect. The reason people say one is faster than the other is due to the architecture of the chip, but that's against CPUs of the same speed.

If you don't include stuff like anti-aliasing, LFS frame rate depends mostly on your CPU. But if you're only running 128Mb RAM that would be my first stop. I'm surprised your computer even starts up with that little!
Your CPU is around the same clock speed as mine, but I'm running 2Gb RAM and I sit in the mid-100s, so obviously it makes a big difference.

Integrated graphics are always slower (although if you're stuck with PCI your onboard might run at AGP speed) but since LFS doesn't tax cards that much it shouldn't matter that much (as long as it's hardware T&L enabled).

I'm no Jakg (), but if you ask me the order I'd upgrade that is
RAM > graphics card > CPU.

But to be perfectly honest, chances are you'll probably need a new mobo before any of that.

CPU would be a first upgrade for me, since its not all clock speed that makes a CPU faster.

My E2140 Dual Core runs at 1.6Ghz stock, beating my mates 3Ghz dual core by far, because its a new architecture. I'm running my E2140 at 2.9Ghz now, nearly a 100% Overclock, its totally faster than his 3.0Ghz. About 3 times as fast.

Quote from mcintyrej :

CPU would be a first upgrade for me, since its not all clock speed that makes a CPU faster.

My E2140 Dual Core runs at 1.6Ghz stock, beating my mates 3Ghz dual core by far, because its a new architecture. I'm running my E2140 at 2.9Ghz now, nearly a 100% Overclock, its totally faster than his 3.0Ghz. About 3 times as fast.

True, but I think he is comparing within the same architecture. And C2D's automatically win these arguments. I would put my E6600 against any AMD processor.