Will upgrading my video card boost the performance of this emulator?

[AVFC2004]

I have bought a radeon 9800 pro 128 mb and I was wondering if this will provide me with a better all round performance on the 1964 emulator and other popular emulators such as project 64.

My current specs for my pc are:-

2.7ghz Intel Celeron
1 Gb DRR PC 2700 RAM
Radeon 9200 SE 128mb

I know the video card I'm getting is superior to the one I have currently but I thought that this may not be apparent when I am using an emulator. Finally I must add that I am not going to upgrade my processor as that will be even more expense.

[Clements]

The 9200 SE is a very crippled 64-Bit card, so with a video card upgrade you may be able to up the resolution and use some extra filtering. Don't expect a massive speed boost though that a processor upgade would give (Celerons are also crippled but 2.7GHz should be well fast enough for 1964).

[AVFC2004]

The 9200 SE is a very crippled 64-Bit card, so with a video card upgrade you may be able to up the resolution and use some extra filtering. Don't expect a massive speed boost though that a processor upgade would give (Celerons are also crippled but 2.7GHz should be well fast enough for 1964).

Well is it possible for me to upgrade the processor that I have w/o having to get a new motherboard???

[-Shadow-]

Well is it possible for me to upgrade the processor that I have w/o having to get a new motherboard???

Nope , you will need a new mainboard . AFAIK the 2.7 GHz Celeron is the fastest Celeron , so you should get an AMD or P4 Mainboard if you want any more performance . The celeron is fast enough to play all n64 at decent performance , anyways , so you don't need to upgrade .

Your Graphics card is nice , ATI Rules :P ! *thumbs up*

[Clements]

Possibly, depends on your motherboard specs. You have to find out what motherboard you have and visit the manufacturers site, or look in your motherboard manual.

Are your frame rates really that bad? I know the Celeron is a budget CPU and isn't terribly fast, but it should be adequate for most games. I'd think about upgrading the card before you upgrade the CPU since eventually the video card will bottleneck your system with a fast CPU anyway.


Your Graphics card is nice , ATI Rules :P ! *thumbs up*

Not really :P

The card is greatly slower than my old GeForce4 MX 440.

[-Shadow-]

Not really

The card is greatly slower than my old GeForce4 MX 440.

I meant his new 9800Pro , not the 9200SE crap ! Umm... PWNED :P

[Clements]

Must of skipped that part :P

[AVFC2004]

Possibly, depends on your motherboard specs. You have to find out what motherboard you have and visit the manufacturers site, or look in your motherboard manual.

Well it says on packard bell's site that my motherboard 'supports Intel P4 FC-PGA2 (Flip-Chip Pin Grid Array), 1400 MHz to 3060 MHz'.

Therefore I know that my type of motherboard I have can take a Pentium 4 processor but the question is whether you can actually take my current processor out and put the P4 3.06ghz on my motherboard.



Are your frame rates really that bad? I know the Celeron is a budget CPU and isn't terribly fast, but it should be adequate for most games. I'd think about upgrading the card before you upgrade the CPU since eventually the video card will bottleneck your system with a fast CPU anyway.

Well the framerates are ok however I was wondering whether a Pentium 4 3.06ghz will really make any major differences to my PC that will be significant.

[Clements]

Well it says on packard bell's site that my motherboard 'supports Intel P4 FC-PGA2 (Flip-Chip Pin Grid Array), 1400 MHz to 3060 MHz'.

Therefore I know that my type of motherboard I have can take a Pentium 4 processor but the question is whether you can actually take my current processor out and put the P4 3.06ghz on my motherboard.

Can't see why not. If you got it from a shop, check with them first, but I can't see why not.


Well the framerates are ok however I was wondering whether a Pentium 4 3.06ghz will really make any major differences to my PC that will be significant.

A 3.06GHz chip out-performs my 3200+ CPU comfortably, and my chip can handle almost any game. Whether you feel you want this chip and can afford it I don't know, but I was very happy when I upgraded from 1800+ to 3200+ and it made a big difference. This extends to Dreamcast emulation as well as other types. I noticed the increase in frame rates particularly in games such as Goldeneye 007 which have higher requirements. You also won't be as CPU-limited with that new 9800 Pro!

And that 9800 Pro is fine (must have missed that). Crank up the resolution and filtering with that and it'll be fine. I was considering one myself.

[AVFC2004]

Can't see why not. If you got it from a shop, check with them first, but I can't see why not.

Well I went to PC World the place in which I got my PC from and asked about the processor and the guy there said that the motherboard would need to be replaced for a new processor. However I am not so convinced when he wasn't 100% sure of whether my new video card will go in my PC when I know it will. I know from the advice I was given recently from someone I know who knows how to build computers and recently added new RAM to my PC.

[Clements]

Okay, seems like PC shop staff aren't as smart as I thought :P

Your motherboard sounds like it can support any P4-based CPU that uses 533 (effective) FSB. Unless they glue the CPU on, or have some anti-upgrade type feature somewhere, you should be able to stick a 3.06GHz P4 in (which is the fastest 533MHz P4 you can buy) you should be alright... I have no experience with shop-bought PCs and their upgradability though. I couldn't say upgrading your motherboard and CPU would be worth it.

[Trotterwatch]

Do me a big big big favour.... Don't go to PC World for PC advice, they are by and large a group comprised full of clueless halfwits :)

[-Shadow-]

Do me a big big big favour.... Don't go to PC World for PC advice, they are by and large a group comprised full of clueless halfwits

You can say that again :D The advises that you get in PC shops are nearly useless , with a few exceptions , of course :D . I prefer to get PC knowledge via PC magazines like the "PC Games Hardware" , they know what they're talki'n 'bout :D

[BountyJedi]

for me its running really nice with just 9800pro and 3.06 ghz p4 :D my comp isnt very old and was the very latest when bought so all my stuff are up to date for atlest one year more =p (i hope)

well its isnt really bought yet =p its one of these comps you get thru your job and my mom happned to get a new job =p so i should thank her hehe =p

[jdsony]

I read a big article on Celerons but can't remember where. Basically in almost every situation the 1.8ghz P4 outperformed the 2.6ghz Celeron's. Even if you get a P4 2.8 you will notice a huge increase in speed and it will likely be quite a bit cheaper than the 3.06ghz. As for in N64 emulation I'm not sure what performance gains you will get but I have no problem with framerates on my Athlon XP 2000+. If I set the resolution to 1280x1024 with 4x Anti Aliasing some of the more demanding games like Conker would slow a little but the majority of games ran great. I recently bought a new motherboard and some DDR ram to replace my aging SDRAM and my gaming performance has increased about 20% but I haven't tried out 1964 with it yet.

[AVFC2004]

I read a big article on Celerons but can't remember where. Basically in almost every situation the 1.8ghz P4 outperformed the 2.6ghz Celeron's. Even if you get a P4 2.8 you will notice a huge increase in speed and it will likely be quite a bit cheaper than the 3.06ghz.

What really annoys me about this is that I have bought this PC and I have found out that the intel celeron 2.7ghz is completly rubbish. Now that you have said that a 1.8ghz P4 out performed a 2.6ghz intel Celeron, I'm really annoyed. Just shows I should never buy PC packages from PC world again as they are expensive and they give you a cheap computer.

I have recently added 1GB PC2700 RAM and will be adding a Radeon 9800 PRO 128 MB which has cost me about £270. Furthermore I would have bought a Radeon 9800 Pro with 256 MB but that would have cost me a further £130. In addition I had to get someone else other than PC world to fit these parts in as they don't install third party parts into your PC which is extremely annoying when I have just taken out a 5 year cover with them.
Anyway from now on when I buy a new PC I will be doing some research in what are the best parts I can get with my money.

[dataangel]

Seeing as an AthlonXP 1600+ and a Geforce2 can run any 1964 game at full speed, a 2.7ghz celeron (which jdsony informs us should only be a little below a P4 1.8ghz) and a Radeon 9800 pro 128MB should able to run the emu silky.

[riles9262]

The new celerons (330 d's I think) based on prescott are actually quite good now, but the northwood p4 celerons are uber crappy. However, with your new vid card, you should have hi frames, even with hi antialiasing/anisotropic filtering and any texture enhancements in the emu enabled.

[hurleybird]

Well, the new celerons still get there butts kicked by price and performance by the athlon, but oh well, its a start.

[riles9262]

For them to be effective the price of them will have to drop considerably, but at least their performance is respectable for a budget chip now.

[milen]

It's very funny.

I have Duron Applebread 1400@1950 (real Mhz not pentuim rating :P )
Two video cards:
Voodoo3 16mb 143@174 - Perfect gameplay (Glide64)
Radeon9000pro 275@310 - Very good but little worst than my voodoo.

All supported games run fullspeed, Goldeneye too.

For PC games there is need for Radeon9800 , otherwise only for antialiasing.
Celeron2700 lol so much money for such rubish.

The diffference between Duron Applebread and Atholns is very very minimal only in the amount of cash which is not so important in athlon's architecture.On the other side smaller cash more overclocking :P .

Everybody has right to give his money if he don't need them but why :)

[AVFC2004]

Seeing as an AthlonXP 1600+ and a Geforce2 can run any 1964 game at full speed, a 2.7ghz celeron (which jdsony informs us should only be a little below a P4 1.8ghz) and a Radeon 9800 pro 128MB should able to run the emu silky.

Well my celeron 2.7ghz and radeon 9800 pro 128mb do not run the goldeneye rom at full speed. In actual fact it is very sluggish and I am very disappointed with the performance. I really am starting to hate the processor as that is the only thing that could be creating the slow down. This is because the graphics card is decent, the 2 modules of 512mb ddr333 pc2700 RAM (1GB Samsung RAM) is also great and finally the sound card I have is great as its a USB Sound Blaster Audigy 2 NX.

In conclusion the intel celeron is the one to blame for poor performance.

[riles9262]

Then sell it and grab a p4 2.4C, if your mobo is compatible. They're not too pricey and can be oc'd quite a bit even with a stock cooler.

[Satanic_Pimp]

i got the same question, i got a chance to trade a my copy of windows xp for a geforce3 ti200 it's a 64mb, my current card is a radeon 7000 32mb, i only got a 900 mhz duron, runs most games i've played fine, just a tiny bit of slow down when you have all 4 people in the ring on no mercy, will i notice any difference in graphics, and stuff? the card is agp and the guy also has a 128mb pci geforce4, but he said the 64mb is better because it's agp, is that true?

[jdsony]

i got the same question, i got a chance to trade a my copy of windows xp for a geforce3 ti200 it's a 64mb, my current card is a radeon 7000 32mb, i only got a 900 mhz duron, runs most games i've played fine, just a tiny bit of slow down when you have all 4 people in the ring on no mercy, will i notice any difference in graphics, and stuff? the card is agp and the guy also has a 128mb pci geforce4, but he said the 64mb is better because it's agp, is that true?

It depends on what Geforce 4 it is. If it's a MX 420 - 460 then it will be worse than the Geforce 3 if it's a TI4200 or up it will be faster. AGP is faster but it also depends on the card. The RAM isn't a huge factor, there are budget cards with 256mb of ram that are slower than the fastest 64mb cards. Those cards will become obsolete before 256mb of ram is neccesary and they won't be able to run games that are that demanding anyway.

I recommend looking at the VGA Charts II Benchmarks which has all those cards and how they compare. There is a VGA Charts III but it doesn't have the older cards in it anymore.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/index.html

[riles9262]

^ That's a good guide to see where most of the cards nowadays stands. You really have to be careful with the naming schemes for some cards. Anything radeon that has le, se, lite at the end be careful. nVid cards naming can be quite confusing, especially in the fx series.

Basically, in radeon land, I'd say stay with the 9700/9800's or 9600pro/xt, unless you can afford the big budget x800's. For older stuff, the 8500/9100s/9000pro are decent, while the 9200 series are hit and miss - mostly a miss. For nvid, the fx 5900's and 5700ultra were nice and the gforece 4ti series are good bang for buck cards, though starting to become outdated. All other fx cards are either too expensive, or their performance/ip is simply not very good compared to competing cards (read 5200, 5500, 5600, 5800).

[jdsony]

^ Agreed. Even within a specific model sometimes there can be different variations. I had a Radeon 8500 le which is supposed to be clocked at 250/250 and mine was 250/183 which made it vastly slower. I switched it with a Radeon 8500 le that was made by ATI and had the 250/250 speed and then I flashed the bios with the non "le" bios and got 275/275 and then overclocked it to about 300/310. The Radeon 8500 is around Geforce 3 speed but usually a little faster and more advanced features. It still makes a pretty decent budget card but it is a bit outdated now if your running modern PC games. Games like Halo or Deus Ex 2 are really slow except in low resolutions but if you have a decent processor UT2004, Painkiller, and a variety of others work great. The Radeon 8500 was renamed to 9100 after the 9000 came out because people were confused as it was better than the 9000.

If your just playing emulators almost any video card will be good. As long as it's Nvidia or ATI you shouldn't have any many issues and the video card isn't a big factor in emulation. When I got my 9800 Pro some games were a little faster such as Conker and antialiasing was a little faster too but not big enough to really benefit. Some emulators and plugins are moving into DirectX 9 so a DirectX 9 compatible card might be the best option if possible.

[cooliscool]

/me hugs his P4 :blush:

[RJARRRPCGP]

*-RJARRRPCGP hugs his Athlon XP.

[BountyJedi]

/me hugs his P4 3.06 ghz

[AVFC2004]

Where is the best place to buy a intel pentium 4 3.2ghz on the net. Please note that I live in the UK.