Human_Being

Harder question because of the SLI, but if it did function in Ultra Mode I would expect it to do so at the lower end of performance.

An 8600 GTS will underperform a 9800 GT.

It's 939. I found a link from the HP/Compaq website for the motherboard and posted it on the first page of the thread.

It depends on which model of 8800 it is. It could look "somewhat better" or it could look "lots better" with the 250. If nothing else, you should be able to turn on Full Screen Anti Aliassing (FSAA) with the GTS 250 and get rid of those jagged edge lines.

That assumes the card isn't too bottle necked by the processor.

Here's a screenshot from the aforementioned Pentium D + GTS 250-alike taken during a Beta earlier this year (photobucket has reduced the resolution somewhat).


On a separate note, I'd been mulling the possibility of you running with just one stick of 2 GB RAM in slower single-channel mode, costing the same as two 1 GB sticks but leaving the second RAM slot open to add a second one to 4 GB total at a later date when you had more money. Then I realized I had accidentally linked to exactly that above: a single 2 GB stick instead of a 2x 1 GB kit =P. So yeah, this is actually the two x 1 GB stick kit (at $56).

That's exactly what I'm saying. You currently have an obsolete budget computer. All five of the changes I suggested would transform it into a modern budget computer.

In current games, CPUs matter, but not as much as the Graphics card. Each extra dollar spent on a graphics card will see more in-game performance than each dollar spent on CPU. Also, most current games don't use more than two CPU cores (CoX will use two if available), so going to a quad-core or something doesn't earn you much (and may cost you in clock speed at the same price). The processor I suggested should do what you ask of it at a decent level of performance without asking a premium in price for it.

Lots more money spent on a graphics card could get you lots more game-performance...on paper. But at the maximum resolution of the monitor that came with your Presario or lower, you're not going to actually witness much added benefit. On that monitor and with the suggested processor, a GTS 250 should push CoX at around 30-50 frames consistently (with inevitable drops in specific locations like the Cap market at high activity; everyone has to deal with those). A Radeon 5770 would get you better visible performance than that, but costs significantly more for your stated budget and will have graphical errors like no water effects or difficulties with anti-aliasing until Going Rogue comes out next year. The GTS 250 will give you everything it's got *right now*. Since you're upgrading for better game performance, I expected that would be important.

(As I said, I've run CoX on an analogous system: Pentium D 820 + the same graphics card. The difference between that and what that machine did with an older Geforce 6600 was startling. Not just increased framerate, but details that hadn't been drawn on the system before showed up: delicate scrollwork on Nemesis automatons, decorative writing on magic staffs at the Black Market, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if CoX looked like a whole new game to you.)

Your existing hard drive is probably fairly slow. However, upgrading to a faster model wouldn't get you very much improved performance in a game. You would have shorter load times, but that's about it.

If you don't have a DVD drive, that will limit you for new software installs from physical media. Some games also want a DVD drive; I believe upcoming Mass Effect 2 will insist on the install disk being in the drive to run. However, it's not strictly necessary and if you run into a situation you have to have one for, you can pick up a DVD ROM for $20 or a DVD Burner for $30.

A new computer case also isn't going to greatly change your performance. With the suggested setup, you shouldn't have any severe-heat situations to deal with. (Though if you don't have *any* fans, you should get at least an exhaust one).

Four gig of RAM rather than two would see some improvement in performance as the game/Win XP would be accessing the slower hard drive less often. Increasing to four from two would double the RAM price though. (Keep in mind that if you get two now and want to upgrade to four later, you would have to buy whole new sticks of ram because there are only two memory slots on the board.)


So I don't think you *need* anything else to bring the computer up to where it will function as a modern machine, and any extra money spent (with the stated caveats about the Radeon 5770) is going to get you increasingly marginal improvements per dollar spent.

That depends on what else is in the rest of your build. I have an SS/Inv Brute that had near-perma Hasten and didn't see a downward trend in Endurance unless there was some sort of external drain involved. I've since left that build for one with high Defense, but still. It's possible to fuel a high-recharge build like that, but you have to enjoy the engineering design and tweaking of a power build for its own sake to get there.

Neat trick.

On the builds: I don't think the OP needs a new case, or a full ATX board, nor a DVD rom drive if he's not installing a new OS and simply downloading new games.

For the processor and with price/performance as the foremost consideration, I wouldn't spend any more than the $59 for the Athlon II 240. The 0.2 GHz difference in speed isn't going to be readily apparent in most situations, isn't going to strongly impact most games, and if the OP really *really* needs a processor running at a minimum of 3.0 GHz at some future point, a 7% overclock should be manageable even if working with a poorly made chip.

The ATI 4770 graphics card at $115 is an interesting idea. For $20 you are giving up PhysX support and a couple graphical effects in current-implementation CoX. If it were me, I'd stick with the GTS 250 because of the extra flexibility and getting all of CoX's graphic options *now* instead of having to wait several more months for them to go away with GR. If he were opting for the brand new, slightly more future-proof 5750 I'd think harder about it, but the 5750 is $10 more expensive than the GTS 250. The 5770 would get him "one step up" better performance than the other three roughly-equivalent boards, but at a price point of $165, which puts him over the $200 spending limit when the necessary power supply is included.

After mulling this over for a bit, my recommendation is to get the Corsair 400 Watt power supply and the EVGA GTS 250. That card will get you the best and most flexible performance *right now* and would function in all the tasks that have been suggested for it. Total price tag: $185 (plus shipping for the power supply but minus $10 if the rebate goes through).

If, after you've done the graphics card upgrade, you want the capability to play additional games like the three that were listed, want still better performance in CoX, and have some more money, I'd recommend:

The AMD Athlon II X2 240 chip with MSI GF615M-P33 AM3 motherboard and 2GB Crucial DDR3 1066 RAM. That would get you a dual-core processor with ram just as good as high-speed DDR2, decent integrated sound, parts that are certified to work together, component standards that will still be available in the market for a few years, and that will all fit with the original Presario case. Total price tag: $160 (plus shipping for the motherboard and ram).

That's my recommendation and I'm sticking to it =P.



As a side note on the OCZ ram in both Gamma's derived and Father Xmas' originial builds, look at the Newegg reviews. It's not just those models of OCZ either; a lot of the new OCZ sticks have bad reviews. I've also seen similar complaints in Newegg motherboard reviews where people claimed problems with the motherboard recognizing their OCZ RAM. Finally, Independent Review sites are getting the same results. I like OCZ and I don't know why it it's happened, but their quality control just seems to have gone to hell lately.

Thus speaks the satisfied customer ^_^.

Er, I said he wouldn't be able to play the three new games he listed and he *might* be hampered in CoX, but he should check himself after getting the power supply and graphics card as to whether he was satisfied with it or not.


If you want people to see these, you need to make them public rather than private lists.

Bah! That's what I get for sleeping. I was going to suggest the Corsair too .

On the assumption you only had about $135 to spend, I was also going to point out this card as a $15-cheaper half-step down from the one you had selected, while keeping the EVGA quality. It has about the same power requirements, but would run a little hot; that shouldn't be a problem if you have decent airflow in the case (no snarled cabling, obstructed air paths, or herds of dust-bunnies). The GTS 250 you linked is definitely the better card though, and will vent its exhaust out the back of your case instead of internally.

The GTS 250 is the highest model in Nvidia's current mid-range of cards, so at the maximum resolution of the monitor you have there (1280 x 1024) you should be in decent stead for CoX and quite a few other games. The Nvidia 9800 GT has also been cited as the "entry point" for Going Rogue's graphical Ultra Mode. The GTS 250 is one step up from the 9800 GT (9800 GT < 9800 GTX+/GTS 250). So you *should* also be able use the new enhanced graphics to some degree or another.

However, I would still wonder if your machine would end up processor limited. That's a single-core 1.8 GHz processor. I believe that's under the system requirements of all three of the new games you listed, and may end up being the the stronger limiting factor on performance in CoX as well.

If that be the case, you said you didn't have the money to get a new computer, but you still might be able to do an upgrade. I've run CoX at 1280 x 1024 on a 9800 GTX+ (same as the card you listed with an older name) with a Pentium D 820 (dual core, 2.8 GHz) at high settings and 30-50 fps. This chip ($59) should play in the same ballpark, but is much newer. It would fit in this motherboard ($50 + shipping), which has a latest-model AM3 socket and allows something of an upgrade path if you wanted a quad-core or such for whatever reason later (dual core is just fine for gaming). This ram ($50) gets excellent reviews on newegg and should fill the needs of the board as well. If you wanted to spend an additional $10, you could get a similar board from MSI that would support DDR3 1333 ram (additional five of the aforementioned extra $10) and let you have ram that would have a better chance of carrying forward to a later upgrade also. (I'd link those last two, but all of a sudden I can't get to Newegg.)

All five components would put you about $135 over your stated $200 limit, but if you should find yourself still dissatisfied with performance after you get the power supply and card, you still have an upgrade path that's cheaper than buying a whole new machine.

Again, Welcome Back ^_^.

How's the subjective noise level for you?

Did you get any software from XFX for overclocking/monitoring? It would probably be easier to find a temperature measurement in that.

(Oh and good choice on the card. That's supposed to be the quieter version, but trades off with dumping the air into your case rather than venting it out the back. I presume you have decent exhaust fans nearby.)

That's exactly what it is.

The GTX 260 and GTS 240 are no relation to each other. The GTX 260 uses the G200b chip and is the beginning offering for Nvidia's current upper-range products. The GT 240 uses the GT215 chip, a severely cut-down derivation of a G200b, and is a piece of junk. The GT 240 is supposed to replace the 9600 GT in the market, and nominally will perform at that level. However, it's made at the same 40 nm manufacturing resolution that is giving the ATI 58xxs and Nvidia G300 such fits. Defects in process are supposed to be high and result in a sizable population of shipped chips that run hot in order to be pushed to their rated speed.

XD

Also note: the GTS 220 and 240, which are the other two options for graphics card on that order form, operate below the level of a 9800 GT (Positron's Ultra Mode "entry point"). The GTS 240 is closer to an older 9600 GSO, and depending on manufacturer modifications might reach 9800 GT performance; but I wouldn't bet on such overclocking from Dell.

You could ask in the Technical Issues and Bugs section of the Forum. You could also go to any Father Xmas post and click the links in the sig for builds that bracket what you are looking for ($600 and $1200). Also in his sig is a thread with suggestions for how to judge components and explanations for why he picked the components he did in the current versions of the two builds.

Oh, ouch. Black eye for XFX.

I can't find an exact amp requirement for the 5770 (irritating since I'm used to getting precise values from EVGA), but the generalized values on several manufacturer's websites for the 5770 are "minimum 450 Watt power supply", so you *should* be okay there. The EVGA GTX 260 requires two 6-pin power supply connectors and wants a minumum of 36 amps (combined 432 Watts) on the +12V rails (you can read the +12V specification off the side of your power supply). If you *can* run the 260, you can run the 5770.

The GTX 285 is a single processor board. The only double-chip cards currently on the market are the GTX 295, Radeon HD 4870 X2, and Radeon HD 5970.

While the GTX 285 will be quieter than the 295, you're still going to be quite aware that it's there in operation. Again, if you've got the money to go to a water cooler, then the noise will be less of an issue with the GTX 295 and it's the most powerful Nvidia offering you can find right now. If water cooling isn't an option, you might look at a GTX 285 and something like this. There is a GTX 285 compatible version of it. (Do read the review of the other version though.)

Before buying one of those, be aware of several things. Firstly, it's going to make a large graphics card even larger. Break out a ruler and measure if it will (A) fit in your case and (B) you're willing to give up that much space. Secondly, it's not going to vent the heated air out the back of your case, it's going to spread it ambiently in your system. While not ideal, you can deal with that if you've got decent exhaust fan ventilation to begin with. If not, you really should and need to be looking at some fan modifications anyway*. Thirdly, you may have to hunt around for one of these things and it's going to cost you around $70 on top of the card. That's still less than a stock GTX 295 is going to cost though. Finally, you have to feel confident in your ability to operate a screwdriver and cleaning cloth. However, the MX-2 that comes pre-applied on the cooler for you is quite spiffy thermal interface material and you won't have to worry about spreading it correctly (just seat it right the first time you put it on the board).

Thermalright also sells a video card cooler, but from reviews it performs less efficiently than the Accelero, is more sprawling in your case, and is even more "do it yourself" in installation.

(*If you're looking for good, quite fans, the various Noiseblocker Multiframe models are awesome in operation. They'll cost you about $25 apiece, but you literally can't get better ones, you would still be under the cost of a single GTX 295, and the manufacturer gives a Mean Time Between Failures for the bearing of about 20 years =P (no, really).)

That's exactly what the The Way It's Meant To Be Played program is. Nvidia offers support and assistance with drivers and development; optimizing the game to work on Nvidia architecture. The badge indicates to customers that Nvidia is most-compatible with the game.

EDIT: Link.

Exerpt:

Look at the bottom of the City of Heroes homepage. There used to be a green Nvidia The Way It's Meant To Be Played badge there. Now Paragon is wearing ATI red. I don't think that would be there to show CoX was "agnostic" between the two rivals.

I've cheered for the green team for years, but if ATI is who is giving the support to Paragon now...