It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Help with choosing a new graphic card?(72 posts)solved(72 posts)solved
(72 posts)solved
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 01, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: Thanks. What you have is actually a Packard Bell sold as Hyrican. It was a low-price computer from the start, but it is far from ready to be relegated to doorstop duty.

There's not much you can do to upgrade the CPU. The "Windsor" 64x2's are long ago out of production, and anything you can get used will be only fractionally faster. It cannot use more modern CPUs.

If you have not already upgraded the RAM from the stock size of 1GB, it would be very helpful to do so. The motherboard will take 4GB, though the OS is probably 32-bit and won't use it all. Games that want 2GB for themselves work best when the system has 3 to 4GB main memory. The memory type it takes is DDR2, which is still widely available.

You definitely can do a graphics card upgrade. Upgrading both the graphics card and the RAM will make it close enough to current that it will even run TW2 on low settings.

Your power supply has neither a PCI-e connector nor enough capacity to take on a mid-range graphics card. It can handle the current entry-level AMD graphics cards: HD 6570 and HD 6670. (In nVidia cards, no more than a GT 440 or GT 530. In this range, AMD has the better products.) I'd go with the HD 6570, if it were my decision.
avatar
Leroux: Oh yeah, I forgot, I already upgraded the RAM to 2GB (or maybe even more). Anyway, thanks a lot, that's really helpful advice! I'll think it over.

Do you think it would pay off to invest a little more and also buy a better power supply along with a more powerful graphic card, so that the effect will last a little longer (I mean so that I won't run into the graphic cards limit so soon again)? Or would it make no difference because of the low CPU etc.?
I probably would not go beyond the upgrades I already suggested, on that tower; I'd save my money for a new PC with a more modern CPU and graphics card.

You can get this GT 440 at MISCO for your €80 budget:
[url=http://www.misco.de/productinformation/~183076~WW~ms~/ASUS%20ENGT440%20DI/1GD3%201024MB%20PCIE%20DVI%20HDMI.htm]http://www.misco.de/productinformation/~183076~WW~ms~/ASUS%20ENGT440%20DI/1GD3%201024MB%20PCIE%20DVI%20HDMI.htm[/url]

The next step up would be something like an AMD HD 6770 or 6850, but you would also need a power supply:
[url=http://www.misco.de/productinformation/~174704~WW~/Sapphire%20RADEON%20HD%206850%20-%20Grafikadapter%20-%20Radeon%20HD%206850%20-%201%20GB%20-%20PCI%20Express%202.0%20x16.htm]http://www.misco.de/productinformation/~174704~WW~/Sapphire%20RADEON%20HD%206850%20-%20Grafikadapter%20-%20Radeon%20HD%206850%20-%201%20GB%20-%20PCI%20Express%202.0%20x16.htm[/url]
[url=http://www.misco.de/productinformation/~177347~WW~/Antec%20High%20Current%20Gamer%20HCG-520%20-%20Stromversorgung%20-%20520%20Watt.htm]http://www.misco.de/productinformation/~177347~WW~/Antec%20High%20Current%20Gamer%20HCG-520%20-%20Stromversorgung%20-%20520%20Watt.htm[/url]

But then you're in the vicinity of €215. I wouldn't sink something close to one-third the cost of a new computer into that old one.
Posted February 01, 2012
avatar
Leroux: (or maybe even more)
Go with 3GB would be my advice. Just remember that it will all run at the speed of the slowest stick so try and find out what speed RAM you have in there first. Then again it may be a better option to replace that too if it's very slow or depending on what RAM deals you find out there.
Posted February 01, 2012
I agree with cjrgreen. I doubt that your current system will stay in use long enough to warrant a larger upgrade. In the long run, you'll probably want to wait until the current generation of Sandy Bridge based systems gets cheap enough to switch to one of those. But currently these systems are still way beyond the budget you mentioned, and you'll then have to switch out lots of other parts too.
Posted February 01, 2012
avatar
Leroux: (or maybe even more)
avatar
Navagon: Go with 3GB would be my advice. Just remember that it will all run at the speed of the slowest stick so try and find out what speed RAM you have in there first. Then again it may be a better option to replace that too if it's very slow or depending on what RAM deals you find out there.
It's interleaved RAM, but it's four slots. If you already have 2 sticks of 1GB each, you can add 2 more for a total of 4GB, or 2 sticks of 512MB for 3GB. The problem is usually finding 512MB sticks with decent performance at a favorable price. Sometimes it's very little difference in price, but a big step up in performance, just to go ahead and get 2 more sticks of 1GB.

Those AMD CPUs do not much like asymmetric RAM configurations; they will turn off memory interleaving altogether if you try a 3-stick configuration. Always configure memory in pairs for these CPUs.

If you run CPU-Z (http://www.cpuid.com), it will tell you what memory you have now, and then you can try to match it.
Post edited February 01, 2012 by cjrgreen
Posted February 01, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: It's interleaved RAM, but it's four slots. If you already have 2 sticks of 1GB each, you can add 2 more for a total of 4GB, or 2 sticks of 512MB for 3GB. The problem is usually finding 512MB sticks with decent performance at a favorable price. Sometimes it's very little difference in price, but a big step up in performance, just to go ahead and get 2 more sticks of 1GB.

Those AMD CPUs do not much like asymmetric RAM configurations; they will turn off memory interleaving altogether if you try a 3-stick configuration. Always configure memory in pairs for these CPUs.

If you run CPU-Z (http://www.cpuid.com), it will tell you what memory you have now, and then you can try to match it.
I think that's what I did already. I didn't remember if I exchanged the old RAM or added the new one to it, but apparantly it's the latter. Vista and CPU-Z tell me I have 3GB RAM (I guess I've got 2x2GB installed but effectively the system can only use three fourths of it).
Posted February 01, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: It's interleaved RAM, but it's four slots. If you already have 2 sticks of 1GB each, you can add 2 more for a total of 4GB, or 2 sticks of 512MB for 3GB. The problem is usually finding 512MB sticks with decent performance at a favorable price. Sometimes it's very little difference in price, but a big step up in performance, just to go ahead and get 2 more sticks of 1GB.

Those AMD CPUs do not much like asymmetric RAM configurations; they will turn off memory interleaving altogether if you try a 3-stick configuration. Always configure memory in pairs for these CPUs.

If you run CPU-Z (http://www.cpuid.com), it will tell you what memory you have now, and then you can try to match it.
avatar
Leroux: I think that's what I did already. I didn't remember if I exchanged the old RAM or added the new one to it, but apparantly it's the latter. Vista and CPU-Z tell me I have 3GB RAM (I guess I've got 2x2GB installed but effectively the system can only use three fourths of it).
Yes, that's typical. 32-bit Windows uses 2GB for user RAM and 1GB for system RAM (for the 3GB total), and 1GB for memory-mapped devices. So you're already full-up on RAM and don't need to upgrade. The graphics card is the only thing you should need to modernize, and that will make your computer practical for at least a couple years.
Posted February 01, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: Yes, that's typical. 32-bit Windows uses 2GB for user RAM and 1GB for system RAM (for the 3GB total), and 1GB for memory-mapped devices. So you're already full-up on RAM and don't need to upgrade. The graphics card is the only thing you should need to modernize, and that will make your computer practical for at least a couple years.
Sounds good. Is the GT 440 better or worse than the HD 6570 or 6670 that were suggested before? (Or would my power supply have issues feeding the latter and is better suited for the GT 440?)
Posted February 01, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: Yes, that's typical. 32-bit Windows uses 2GB for user RAM and 1GB for system RAM (for the 3GB total), and 1GB for memory-mapped devices. So you're already full-up on RAM and don't need to upgrade. The graphics card is the only thing you should need to modernize, and that will make your computer practical for at least a couple years.
avatar
Leroux: Sounds good. Is the GT 440 better or worse than the HD 6570 or 6670 that were suggested before? (Or would my power supply have issues feeding the latter and is better suited for the GT 440?)
The 440's a little less powerful than those two. I mentioned it because it was the lowest-priced good card in MISCO's selection.

The 6570 would be my preference, but only slightly.

(The difference between the 6570 and 6670 is that the 6670 has a faster clock speed. Some 6670 models also have GDDR5 memory, which is faster. But there is very little difference between the two, overall.)
Posted February 02, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: ~snip~
Apparantly ATELCO.de has several version of both the GT 440 and the HD 6570 ranging from 55-80 EUR, so I could get a HD 6570, too, if it makes no difference with relation to the power supply. Is there anything I should consider when comparing manufacturers, some famously good ones or notoriously bad ones (e.g. what makes a 78 EUR HD 6570 better than a 58 EUR one?).

Once again, thanks a lot for your help! :)
(And thanks to everyone else here, too!)
Post edited February 02, 2012 by Leroux
Posted February 02, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: ~snip~
avatar
Leroux: Apparantly ATELCO.de has several version of both the GT 440 and the HD 6570 ranging from 55-80 EUR, so I could get a HD 6570, too, if it makes no difference with relation to the power supply. Is there anything I should consider when comparing manufacturers, some famously good ones or notoriously bad ones (e.g. what makes a 78 EUR HD 6570 better than a 58 EUR one?).

Once again, thanks a lot for your help! :)
(And thanks to everyone else here, too!)
It's very hard to say just offhand what makes the difference. Look at how much memory each one has; maybe the inexpensive one is 512MB (you're better off with 1GB)?

All of those are designed as low-power cards, to draw all their power direct from the PCI-Express bus rather than auxiliary connectors, and to work with stock power supplies in commercially built computers.
Posted February 02, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: It's very hard to say just offhand what makes the difference. Look at how much memory each one has; maybe the inexpensive one is 512MB (you're better off with 1GB)?
Hm, no, they both have 1GB (see here: vs. [url=http://www1.atelco.de/1024+MB/hd%2B6570/6/50695/ASUS+EAH6570+DI+1GD3%28LP%29%2C+AMD+Radeon+HD+6570%2C+1GB%2C+PCI-+Express.article]Asus). What's better or more preferable, DDR3 or GDDR5? And what's "Effective Memory Clock"? Should that be high or a low?

EDIT: Wait, the "Club" card says GDDR3 in the title but GDDR5 in the specs. Maybe they messed that up? GDDR3 seems to be the more probable spec, doesn't it? But what's the difference between DDR3 and GDDR3 (if there's any)?
Post edited February 02, 2012 by Leroux
Posted February 02, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: It's very hard to say just offhand what makes the difference. Look at how much memory each one has; maybe the inexpensive one is 512MB (you're better off with 1GB)?
avatar
Leroux: Hm, no, they both have 1GB (see here: vs. [url=http://www1.atelco.de/1024+MB/hd%2B6570/6/50695/ASUS+EAH6570+DI+1GD3%28LP%29%2C+AMD+Radeon+HD+6570%2C+1GB%2C+PCI-+Express.article]Asus). What's better or more preferable, DDR3 or GDDR5? And what's "Effective Memory Clock"? Should that be high or a low?

EDIT: Wait, the "Club" card says GDDR3 in the title but GDDR5 in the specs. Maybe they messed that up? GDDR3 seems to be the more probable spec, doesn't it? But what's the difference between DDR3 and GDDR3 (if there's any)?
DDR2 < DDR3 < GDDR3 < GDDR5

They're somewhat different memory technologies. GDDR3 and GDDR5 are optimized for use as video RAM. GDDR5 is about 2.5 times faster than any other memory. This is important in a graphics card, which has to move a lot of data, constantly.

DDR3 has taken over from DDR2 and GDDR3 due to economy of scale: it's available in huge quantities from gigantic manufacturers, and very, very cheap.

Premium cards are always GDDR5. You can see why, in the "effective memory clock" spec. Both cards have a memory clock of 650 MHz, which is how the card was designed. The GDDR5 card, because of the superior memory, can deliver data more than twice as fast.

(Yes, there was a GDDR4. It came out shortly before GDDR5, and was made obsolete by it. I still have some HD 3870 cards with GDDR4.)
Post edited February 02, 2012 by cjrgreen
Posted February 02, 2012
avatar
cjrgreen: ~snip~
So in this case the cheaper card actually seems the better choice, provided it really has GDDR5 (and even GDDR3 would make it superior to the more expensive one with DDR3, because everything else seems equal)? Hm ...

Very helpful comments, thanks!
Post edited February 02, 2012 by Leroux
Posted February 08, 2012
Thanks to your advice I got myself the HD 6570, and I managed to replace the old card with it and I installed the driver that came with it, but for some reason Vista doesn't recognize the card. It doesn't even notice there's a new hardware component and only displays a "VGA standard" (onboard video card?). I only get very limited options for resolutions, excluding my native resolution of 1600x1050. And the Catalyst Control Center offers less options than I think it should. It seems like the new card is completely ignored.

The weird thing is that with the old card, the monitor was connected to the motherboard, not the graphic card and Vista still recognized the card. If I connected the monitor to the graphic card itself, the monitor just went black. Now it's the other way around: With the new card installed, the monitor has to be connected to the card, not the motherboard, or else the screen will just go black. I guess that rules out the PCI-e slot or the card being defect, since the monitor is working when connected to the card? And still the card itself is ignored ... While the old one is immediately recognized as new hardware.

I deinstalled all of the old Nvidia drivers, to the best of my knowledge, I also ran CC Cleaner and Driver Sweeper to be on the safe side, but to no avail. Right now I'm pretty desperate and clueless as to what else to try. Is it possible that I would need a BIOS update in order for the old computer to recognize the HD 6570? (I shudder at the thought though.) :-(

Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated!
Post edited February 08, 2012 by Leroux
Posted February 08, 2012
avatar
Leroux: Thanks to your advice I got myself the HD 6570, and I managed to replace the old card with it and I installed the driver that came with it, but for some reason Vista doesn't recognize the card. It doesn't even notice there's a new hardware component and only displays a "VGA standard" (onboard video card?). I only get very limited options for resolutions, excluding my native resolution of 1600x1050. And the Catalyst Control Center offers less options than I think it should. It seems like the new card is completely ignored.

The weird thing is that with the old card, the monitor was connected to the motherboard, not the graphic card and Vista still recognized the card. If I connected the monitor to the graphic card itself, the monitor just went black. Now it's the other way around: With the new card installed, the monitor has to be connected to the card, not the motherboard, or else the screen will just go black. I guess that rules out the PCI-e slot or the card being defect, since the monitor is working when connected to the card? And still the card itself is ignored ... While the old one is immediately recognized as new hardware.

I deinstalled all of the old Nvidia drivers, to the best of my knowledge, I also ran CC Cleaner and Driver Sweeper to be on the safe side, but to no avail. Right now I'm pretty desperate and clueless as to what else to try. Is it possible that I would need a BIOS update in order for the old computer to recognize the HD 6570? (I shudder at the thought though.) :-(

Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated!
If Windows says it's a "standard VGA", either of two things have happened:

* Windows lost track of the driver on reboot. You should be able to recover this by going into CCC (use the Advanced mode) and select your card. GPU drivers have a bad habit of doing this (I've had nVidia drivers do it to me, too) the first time you reboot after installing. Once you force the proper card, it won't bother you again.

* If it persists, you haven't succeeded in getting the driver to install. Get the current driver bundle direct from AMD's site and try again.

Also, somewhere in the BIOS is a setting that decides whether to use the built-in graphics or the add-on card at boot. The system usually figures out the right one for itself, but sometimes you need to force it to use the add-on card and/or disable the built-in graphics.
Post edited February 08, 2012 by cjrgreen
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Help with choosing a new graphic card?(72 posts)solved(72 posts)solved
(72 posts)solved