bob2001 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Been saving up for a new computer for a while now and started looking at various pc's. I have been looking at computers with intel processors for a long time, but now i have started noticing amd alot more. I am looking to buy a cheep(ish) pc that i can keep for a good while and add to it as and when i need to. but i have a few questions as i am not the hottest on computers. If i buy a pc with integrated graphix and wish to upgrade it to an actual graphix card in teh future, would i just be able to slot it in and go for it. The AMD64 bit processors are able to run the next version of windows but seem to ramp up in price for anything over 2Ghz would 2Ghz be fine fro any length of time or is it betetr to just pay the money now and save buying a new pc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militaris Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 AMD processors are supior then intels for most tasks. 2Ghz on a AMD processor would be fine for the next few years. I do not personally beleive there is much need to purchase faster and hence more expensive CPUs. Integrated graphics are rather bad, and upgradeing is reccomended. If the PC has a free PCI-E slot, or for older models a AGP slot, then you would be able to slot in a new video card of the apporiate type. It is better the spend more money on a good video card then on a faster CPU. A few suggested cards: Radeon X1300 PRO $99 GeForce 6600 GT $139 (Lowest: $114) Radeon X800GT $139 Radeon X800GTO $159 (Cheaper ones have 128MB) GeForce 6800 GS $199 GeForce 7800 GT $299 (Ranked according to preformance, slowest top, best bottom) (prices from newegg.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob2001 Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 yes i realise that integrated graphics are close to useless, but i should have explained that i really dont intend playing anything more demanding than runescape right now, and was just wondering if it was easy enough to just buy and slot that card right into the computer. So you would say its better to just buy the pc with the card already installed and get it over with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militaris Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Integrated graphics would be fine for playing runescape. The longer you can hold of buying a video card the better, There is a massive performance increase for video cards between generations. The best cards currently would probably be equal to next generations mid-range. I made do until recently with a Radeon 7500 Pro, I could play a wide range of games (Half life, Black & White, incredible creatures ect) without any issue. I suspect todays integrated graphics would out preform that card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwisatz Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Integrated graphics would be fine for playing runescape. The longer you can hold of buying a video card the better, There is a massive performance increase for video cards between generations. The best cards currently would probably be equal to next generations mid-range. I made do until recently with a Radeon 7500 Pro, I could play a wide range of games (Half life, Black & White, incredible creatures ect) without any issue. I suspect todays integrated graphics would out preform that card. I would not be so sure. My old Compaq had a 2.8Ghz Celeron and Intel "EXTREME" Integrated Graphics and got 20 FPS on 640x480 on CS 1.6 handed me TWO tissues to clear up. I was like "i'm going to need a few more paper towels than that luv" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevepole Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Integrated graphics would be fine for playing runescape. The longer you can hold of buying a video card the better, There is a massive performance increase for video cards between generations. The best cards currently would probably be equal to next generations mid-range. I made do until recently with a Radeon 7500 Pro, I could play a wide range of games (Half life, Black & White, incredible creatures ect) without any issue. I suspect todays integrated graphics would out preform that card. the radeon 7500 pro is like bare min for battlefield 2 and any newer game that will come out will probly be upping or trying to, have better graphics i would suggest geting a radeon 9500+ you can get a padeon 9550 AGI at bestbuy for $100 and it would good for about a year to a year and a half at the rate a which games are improving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullmetaboy Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Been saving up for a new computer for a while now and started looking at various pc's. I have been looking at computers with intel processors for a long time, but now i have started noticing amd alot more. I am looking to buy a cheep(ish) pc that i can keep for a good while and add to it as and when i need to. but i have a few questions as i am not the hottest on computers. If i buy a pc with integrated graphix and wish to upgrade it to an actual graphix card in teh future, would i just be able to slot it in and go for it. The AMD64 bit processors are able to run the next version of windows but seem to ramp up in price for anything over 2Ghz would 2Ghz be fine fro any length of time or is it betetr to just pay the money now and save buying a new pc. YES! PCI SLOTS HAVE BEEN THE SAME FOR MANY YEARS NOW! i currently have 2 512 mg graphics cards in about 5 of my 12 computers back at home. But yeah... don't buy a cheap PC, build one... i have opterons in all my computer other then my laptops (BOTH USE FRIGGEN althlons). but yes, build your own, and use AMD. Intel has shamed itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militaris Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Integrated graphics would be fine for playing runescape. The longer you can hold of buying a video card the better, There is a massive performance increase for video cards between generations. The best cards currently would probably be equal to next generations mid-range. I made do until recently with a Radeon 7500 Pro, I could play a wide range of games (Half life, Black & White, incredible creatures ect) without any issue. I suspect todays integrated graphics would out preform that card. I would not be so sure. My old Compaq had a 2.8Ghz Celeron and Intel "EXTREME" Integrated Graphics and got 20 FPS on 640x480 on CS 1.6 I might have to load Half life on to my mums laptop which is power by a SiS 330 Mirage Integrated to see what it is capabel of. I spent a good hour trying to find reviews comparing intergrated with external... the only luck was this review here. http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2269 A few quotes "The lowly Radeon X300 SE is basically twice as fast as the Radeon Xpress 200, which isn't saying much as the X300 SE is basically the minimum level of playability for Doom 3." " the Radeon Xpress 200 actually makes Far Cry playable. If you turn the quality settings down even further the game becomes even more playable, but at the expense of making it look like one big aliased blur" From reading the info, it is clear that Intergrated graphics is around 30% slower then a x300 SE. Now I have to try and relate the x300 SE with a radeon 7500 pro.... 'fun' By looking at this review here, it seems that the x300 SE is slightly better then the Radeon 9200. The 9200 is slightly worst then the older Radeon 8500 (Maybe 10-15% slower).... From what I could find out (could not find any direct comparison)... the 8500 is about 40% better then the 7500pro.. Apart from being half losted. ummm... x 300 SE: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 9200: 20% Faster then Xpress 200 8500: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 7500 pro: 10% Slower then Xpress 200 Ummm.... I dunno how accurate my little comparison is (probably a waste of time). I wished I remembered to list the reviews I used. Although I reckon there is a good chance that todays intergrated graphics are simalar in preformace to the 7500 pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 From reading the info, it is clear that Intergrated graphics is around 30% slower then a x300 SE. By looking at this review here, it seems that the x300 SE is slightly better then the Radeon 9200. The 9200 is slightly worst then the older Radeon 8500 (Maybe 10-15% slower).... From what I could find out (could not find any direct comparison)... the 8500 is about 40% better then the 7500pro.. Apart from being half losted. ummm... x 300 SE: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 9200: 20% Faster then Xpress 200 8500: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 7500 pro: 10% Slower then Xpress 200 Ummm.... I dunno how accurate my little comparison is (probably a waste of time). I wished I remembered to list the reviews I used. Although I reckon there is a good chance that todays intergrated graphics are simalar in preformace to the 7500 pro. I don't know about the reviews, but the Maths suck :D xpress 200 = 0.7 * x300SE x300SE = 1.1 * Radeon 9200 Radeon 9200 = 0.9 * Radeon 8500 Radeon 8500 = 1.4 * Radeon 7500Pro So: xpress 200 = 0.7 * 1.1 * 0.9 * 1.4 * Radeon 7500Pro = 0.9702 * Radeon 7500Pro So, it's about 3% slower than the original 7500 Pro. And yes, cumulative percentage taking sucks. Never just add them up, always multiply their numerical equivalents :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob2001 Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 great, that has helped alot. im not sure i can really build my own though. Their would probably be alot fo fried electronics after i turned it on for the first time. I will go buy my a nice pc with the capability to expand it in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomster Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 There WAS a generation of onboard graphics motherboards (in the PCI to AGP era) that did NOT carry an AGP slot - a mistake not often repeated, other by companies like DELL, who saved a few cents by having a custom motherboard that was not fitted with an AGP slot - it could have had one, but it just wasn't fitted with the slot ... empty space on the board for it, chipset supported an all! The other thing to decide if you must have support for now, is SLI (Nvidia) or Crossfire (ATI) - the ability to link two graphics cards for increased performance. Unless the motherboard supports it, you can't, but it seems to be a way to sell two very expensive cards instead of just one, to all the people who MUST be at the top of the benchmarks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militaris Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 From reading the info, it is clear that Intergrated graphics is around 30% slower then a x300 SE. By looking at this review here, it seems that the x300 SE is slightly better then the Radeon 9200. The 9200 is slightly worst then the older Radeon 8500 (Maybe 10-15% slower).... From what I could find out (could not find any direct comparison)... the 8500 is about 40% better then the 7500pro.. Apart from being half losted. ummm... x 300 SE: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 9200: 20% Faster then Xpress 200 8500: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 7500 pro: 10% Slower then Xpress 200 Ummm.... I dunno how accurate my little comparison is (probably a waste of time). I wished I remembered to list the reviews I used. Although I reckon there is a good chance that todays intergrated graphics are simalar in preformace to the 7500 pro. I don't know about the reviews, but the Maths suck :D xpress 200 = 0.7 * x300SE x300SE = 1.1 * Radeon 9200 Radeon 9200 = 0.9 * Radeon 8500 Radeon 8500 = 1.4 * Radeon 7500Pro So: xpress 200 = 0.7 * 1.1 * 0.9 * 1.4 * Radeon 7500Pro = 0.9702 * Radeon 7500Pro So, it's about 3% slower than the original 7500 Pro. And yes, cumulative percentage taking sucks. Never just add them up, always multiply their numerical equivalents :) My method of maths was accurate enough for the quality of the data... and both methods gave a simalar answer that 7500 pro and xpress 200 are simalar in preformance. (The best maths is the simple method). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 From reading the info, it is clear that Intergrated graphics is around 30% slower then a x300 SE. By looking at this review here, it seems that the x300 SE is slightly better then the Radeon 9200. The 9200 is slightly worst then the older Radeon 8500 (Maybe 10-15% slower).... From what I could find out (could not find any direct comparison)... the 8500 is about 40% better then the 7500pro.. Apart from being half losted. ummm... x 300 SE: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 9200: 20% Faster then Xpress 200 8500: 30% Faster then Xpress 200 7500 pro: 10% Slower then Xpress 200 Ummm.... I dunno how accurate my little comparison is (probably a waste of time). I wished I remembered to list the reviews I used. Although I reckon there is a good chance that todays intergrated graphics are simalar in preformace to the 7500 pro. I don't know about the reviews, but the Maths suck :D xpress 200 = 0.7 * x300SE x300SE = 1.1 * Radeon 9200 Radeon 9200 = 0.9 * Radeon 8500 Radeon 8500 = 1.4 * Radeon 7500Pro So: xpress 200 = 0.7 * 1.1 * 0.9 * 1.4 * Radeon 7500Pro = 0.9702 * Radeon 7500Pro So, it's about 3% slower than the original 7500 Pro. And yes, cumulative percentage taking sucks. Never just add them up, always multiply their numerical equivalents :) Who gives a toss, damn you're the biggest nerd here. Holy crap I just read what Militar.. whatever his name is. He's as worse. You're going to buy a computer, just make sure it has at least one sixteen speed PCI express slot for upgrades later. AGP will not suffice. - I'm smart and you're not! Hahaha *hic*. :o Notoriously Trollish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 You're going to buy a computer, just make sure it has at least one sixteen speed PCI express slot for upgrades later. AGP will not suffice. /me pats his regular PCI card ;) Yeaaaah, still kickin :D I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 You're going to buy a computer, just make sure it has at least one sixteen speed PCI express slot for upgrades later. AGP will not suffice. /me pats his regular PCI card ;) Yeaaaah, still kickin :D PCI's fine if you're living in the stoneage, if you have any will to upgrade in the future at all. You have to go PCI-E. :? Notoriously Trollish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militaris Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 You're going to buy a computer, just make sure it has at least one sixteen speed PCI express slot for upgrades later. AGP will not suffice. /me pats his regular PCI card ;) Yeaaaah, still kickin :D PCI's fine if you're living in the stoneage, if you have any will to upgrade in the future at all. You have to go PCI-E. :? PCI-E is not the only option, AGP is still struggling on. That struggle is being supported by a decent range of AGP cards available (X800 XT, X800 GT, X800 GTO, 6600GT, 6800GS...) these are same very nice cards and would easily out preform the majority of graphic cards being sold while allowing playable performance in the newer games for little expense. These cards are slower then the likes of the 7800 GT/GTX or X1800XT but anyone who plans to spend approx $300/500 USD on a top of the line GPU would not want to use it with old hardware. There is not much point to build a new system with AGP (Unless its a cheapie based around Sempron on socket 754 (which would play all current games combined with a 6600 AGP). But there are still many good computers based around nforce3, these machines require AGP and would still be usable for several more years. (In short, if money is tight, AGPx8 is still worth considering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now