PDA

View Full Version : System still seems slow



Case_logic
04-09-2004, 12:35 AM
I just picked up a copy of Far Cry (all bow down) and noticed that my system was in serious need of a ram upgrade. I went from 768mb to 1.25gbs, and I have not noticed any significant difference. Here is a my current and ever-changing set-up:

Albatron K600 Mobo
AMD 2400+
Nvidia 5600fx 256mb
1.25gb PC2700 RAM
Maxtor 60GB HD
Maxtor 200GB HD
Dell Digital Display
420W PSU

If someone could please let me know what may be wrong, it would be greatly appreciated. All other games run fine; UT2004, QuakeIII, Call of Duty,RTCW etc.

rugbydude
04-14-2004, 05:25 AM
What speed is your new ram in comparison to your old? If your new ram is say ddr 533mhz and your old is 333mhz then your new ram will be forced to run slower which may be causing the slow performance. Also check ram timings, make sure you defrag your hard disk, clean disk, get rid of as many background programs as possible before playing. Also try turning the graphical flares down on the game if fps are what your after:thumb:

Case_logic
04-14-2004, 05:41 AM
Thanks,

I believe that my Ram are all the same speed (333 I think), what that is exactly is beyond me at this very moment, but they are different brands (Kingston, & PNY), Now as far as timings and so forth, what would be optimal? (it is located in the bios I'm sure... I believe it is current 5/1/2 or something close to that) This is the first system I'd built from scratch, even though I work on PC's all of the time. Background programs are at the bare minimum. I'm not so concerned about the games, it's more about simple applications, opening windows, booting etc. I expected lightning speed.

~Q~

Yawgm0th
04-14-2004, 06:23 AM
and noticed that my system was in serious need of a ram upgrade.Hardly.... A 2400 isn't going to get that much better with more RAM. In fact, 768 was probably more than you would need (it certainly doesn't hurt, though). Upgrading your processor would probably produce much better results. Same with the video card. Upgrading video would help more with Far Cry, but it wouldn't help much with the rest of the system.

Read the Windows XP Tweaking Guide, found here. (http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=324) That's assuming you're using XP (I imagine you are).

I'm not so good with RAM timings, someone else can help you there. But messing with them won't help too much

Case_logic
04-14-2004, 06:33 AM
So my poor little 2400+ is not even worth overclocking either I assume? In fact my video card is now a 9800 Pro By Xstay (upgrade from the Nvida 5200 by Gainward) and there is a noticable difference in my games (I looked at the 9800XT but is it worth it?) but overall system speed obviously was not increased. Now if I were to upgrade to at least a 2800+ or so I would get more umph from my xp powered system?

Yawgm0th
04-14-2004, 07:17 AM
A 9800 XT isn't really worth it with that if you already have a 9800 Pro. By the time you need that, you'll want upgrade your entire system (as in replace it). AS for the processor, as guess you could try OCing it. But it's probably best to upgrade to a 2800 or better.

joshuajames
06-04-2004, 02:44 PM
now adays you would want a x800 video card. that is assuming you just recently won the lottery.

amd_man2005
06-05-2004, 12:04 AM
You need a new video card, other than that you should have no problems running FarCry. Don't take all the crap about it being your CPU...

Amdking
06-05-2004, 10:54 PM
his video card should be able to run Far cry. If he ran it on lower resolutions like medium or high he should have no trouble. IMO the Ram is bottlenecking the system and i suggest you get PC3200 if your MB supports it. How long ago did u but you AThlon XP2400? If it was fairly recent then i strongly sggest you overclock as you could probably get it up to Athlon 3400 XP> because it is a low end chip and heaps of potential for it to be Overclocked. But if you bought it say 2 years ago overclocking it wont make much of a difference because you wont be able to get that much out of the chip because it would have been a high end chip at that time.

amd_man2005
06-06-2004, 01:33 AM
Technically, since he's not OC'ing the RAM isn't a bottleneck, its running the same speed as the FSB at least. Seriously, the FX5600 is a piece of ****, I speak from experience

joshuajames
06-06-2004, 03:15 AM
what about the 5700?

metallicat666
06-06-2004, 03:20 AM
the 5700 is a better card than the 5600 its still a mid range card though. and the 9600 series (except the SE) dominates the midrange sector.

joshuajames
06-06-2004, 04:02 AM
ok.

Amdking
06-06-2004, 12:44 PM
AMD MAn 2003 if you read all of CAse logics qutes you will see taht he now has a 9800 Pro by xtray and that is not a **** video card by any means

amd_man2005
06-06-2004, 01:09 PM
Well I wasn't thinking. I forgot the 2400+ is only on a 133mhz FSB. Upgrade to a 2500+ and you'll notice a huge difference...