Some questions about harddrive on A7V8X
in [Hardware]
|
From: Rene on 16 Apr 2008 07:10 "kony" <spam(a)spam.com> schreef in bericht news:s5q604lhgpvp4m6812jkgn079o93viison(a)4ax.com... >>> I think You would be highly surprised if You would see what the GPU is >>> able of doing in my computer without being hindered by the "old" CPU, at >>> least I was. I am also the happy owner of a 22" CRT (yes, I am quite >>> conservative ;-)) that supports very high resolutions and for that, the >>> CPU is not important, neither is it for high levels of AA and AF. > > Well that explains it, I had assumed you were playing at > lower resolutions. > >>> But >>> apart from that, the bottlenecking by the CPU is not that strong as >>> often >>> is read, well, off course it very much depends on the game one wants to >>> play. > > That is true, but even in situations where it seems like the > higher resolution or eyecandy is effected by video card the > most, CPU and memory can still account for a few FPS one way > or the other. Plus, looking forward you will still play at > same resolution till the monitor is replaced but games will > become more and more CPU intensive, including the effects > newer games have which aren't so well handled in hardware by > the older 7xxx series cards, like stuff that's shader > intensive. I agree. > Since you had a CRT and could pick resolution without > suffering a lost dropping out of native resolution as one > would with an LCD, I would have still replaced the > motherboard and CPU before getting the video card. That > doesn't mean it's the only way, you seem to be right that > for your use it was right to get the card when you did. Now _that_ is what someone who is looking for confirmation wants to read ;-). >>I wanted to but forgot to insert the link to >>http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/10/agp-platform-analysis/ , it is >>about >>this matter, I thought it was interesting reading (though I did not read >>it >>before buying my card, I already had it when I stumbled across this info). > > It is interesting, though now a bit dated and gaming > requirements went up again. Now a 8600GT PCIe video card > that can be had for about $55 after rebate can hit scores > about double what the 7600GT did in those 3DMark charts... > providing a little faster system to put it in. Having a CRT > you can drop resolution to get FPS as needed, but you can't > do much when CPU is the bottleneck on a game which puts a > bit of a cap on how long the combo will be viable before it > all has to be replaced at once. Well, another important thing I forgot to mention is that lately my interest in new games has been declining rapidly. First of all, this card will not allow me to play DX10 games, maybe some games can switch off DX10 features to be DX9 compatible (don't know if that is possible, I know there were games that supported DX9 but that could "down tune" themselves to support DX8.1 cards, an example is NFSU iirc, you could race the races but the "babes" in the beginning were just not there, they were DX9 babes) but those games will with great probability be too demanding towards my GPU and, as You have correctly stated, my CPU. But another reason is that DX10 is Vista only and that crappy piece of bloatware is not allowed the entrance to my house. For serious stuff I am swithching to Linux and for games and things that are not possible in Linux (I mean programs I definitely do not wish to do without but that do not run under Linux) I will use XP which I like. There is little risk I will run out of games for a long time because first of all I do not play games often and second because I have a rather big collection of games that are still waiting to be played. Add to that the latest games that I will be able to run on my current hardware that I am interested in and that I will buy when they have been transformed into budget games (I hardly ever buy games when they are brand new, only when I am very interested in them, like I was in S.T.A.L.K.E.R or in World racing because I definitely wanted to "drive" those beautifull Mercedeses at least once in my life) and there is a huge pile of fun waiting to be enjoyed by me. I think that the majority of the games I still have lying around would even be playable on my Radeon 8500 ;-). The only relatively modern title I would like to be able to play but am afraid not to be able to is Oblivion. I have a cousin who is very fond of that game and owns it, so luckily I can first try it before spending a lot of money on it with the risk that it would be wasted. They do list the minimum system requirements on http://www.elderscrolls.com/games/oblivion_faq.htm but this definitely is a game that should be rendered in all of its glory. Hmmm, I suddenly remembered I could check out gamespot, on http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/theelderscrollsivoblivion/tech_info.html it says that the recommended specs are more or less compatible with my system, though I have read in several places that the rating of 3000 of my processor is a bit of an exageration. I would be great to have that *pretty* game on my computer. I love forests and landscapes with a lot of nature in them (for that reason I enjoyed Far Cry very much as well (hated the shooting though), btw that ran very well on my GF6800, that made me even more amazed that stalker ran so extremely crappy, I think it had to with the lightning in the game). So though I do agree with You that the upgrade could be considered unwise and I would have not recommended to anyone of my friends myself but I still am very happy for having done it and am quite sure that, at least when it comes to the things I want to do with my computer in a relatively far future (I mean, I could have a traffic accident as well), I will be able to enjoy this hardware for a long time. Like I said, when it comes to gaming, I feel no need to play the latest or "not having been written yet" games and for the rest, well, another cousin of mine is a professional programmer (I am studying to become one) and he still uses a PIII-900 to his full satisfaction so for my serious stuff I even more do not feel any urge for upgrading. Perhaps it will make understanding us easier when I tell You we're Dutch, I am sure You are aware of our reputation, even though I can sincerely tell You that saving money has nothing to do with this - we both just like using something completely "to the max" and I think my current system is, though indeed not very modern, really a beautifull collection of sophistaticated hardware. The word "beautifull" may seem strange when it comes to computer hardware but when one has an interest in this matter that enables one to see beyond the superficial looks of a pcb, it can really be beautifull. Heck, I even sometimes still enjoy playing an old game on my MSX and that is definitely obsolete hardware but in those days it was state of the art and I still like looking at the inside of one of those computers, silly as many people may consider it/me. Yours sincerely, Rene P.S. I looked at http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/chipsets/k7-series/kt400/index.jsp where I saw that indeed You are right (not that I doubted it, I just wanted to learn a bit more about my chipset after having read Your advice), the PATA interface is in the south bridge and the SATA is in the external PCI bus. I can imagine that when playing a game (taking that as an example because it is, among the things I use my computer for, the thing which puts the most strain on it) that needs to read things from the hd during play (I mean not when there is a loading screen, in that case it would probably not make that big a difference) reading from a sata drive would slow the entire system down more than reading from a pata drive. A big sata drive would be useful for storing big things I do not need often but You are definitely right that for a drive that is very frequently accessed, a pata type would be a better choice. |