Graphics card upgrade - 32 bit or 64 bit?

  • Thread starter Tyger
  • 41 comments
  • 7,100 views
If you have a 32 bit OS, it can only use up to 3GB RAM (technically, from what I understand, it uses 3.5GB but only 3GB is useable) so even upgrading to 4GB RAM would show no difference whatsoever and you would simply be paying for something that you wouldn't be able to use.

It would be advisable to save the money and just use it either on the graphics card/processor or alternatively save it for a future build.

I do know what you mean about having a very limited budget. You can try and see if you can source computer parts from friends or family friends who no longer need their own computer and are happy to either give it away or for a small cost, but check whether they actually have the item that would prove to be useful for you.

You sound relatively happy with the computer you have and just want to make sure you can get the most out of it to make it a little bit better. You can, if you want to get the maximum from the computer, try overclocking the processor. However that can shorten the life of the processor and the motherboard, so its only if you have a back up computer or a new build in progress and you want to see exactly how fast the computer can go.
 
You won't see ANY boost from another Gigabyte of RAM, mainly because you're running Windows XP, and I can guarantee you that you don't have the 64bit OS.

Good luck with the upgrade, though I agree with everyone in here that says you should tough it out and get a new system.
 
Why don't you just run some benchmark test on the system you have now, then order the card you are looking at, and run the tests again. If there was improvement keep it, and if not send it back. Seems pretty simple to me.

Whatever you do though, you need to run some sort of benchmark test and put the results on here of the before and after, so everyone can see who is right.
 
Yeah why not, any suggestions what to use? Second Life has built in diagnostics but there are way too many factors that can make it lag, many not client-side.
 
Tyger
I'm going to give it a whirl and post my results here. If there is no real perceivable difference i'll say so and then perhaps "form some patience" (nice choice of words but you might want to refer to people you never met in slightly less general and insulting terms) and start saving towards bigger upgrades, or a new system.

Oh and I run XP, the recommended maximum RAM is 4Gb for my set up, confirmed by Dell some time ago as well as the people I previously got my RAM from, who specialise in memory upgrades. Though I am sure someone here will know better. Will stagger the upgrades to see what effect each has, if I get RAM too.

Thanks again guys for the more helpful suggestions!

EDIT - Thanks Nick, not what i'd heard about the RAM but might leave that for now. Can't remember how much I have slotted in where, it's gonna be a little more expensive if some of it needs to be swapped out. I think I have four slots but also have a feeling i have 2x1Gb and 2x512Mb. Oh and my OS seems no slower than when I first got it either, regularly defrag, delete as much temporary stuffs as I can, run a registry cleaner app etc. etc. and seldom really thrash it as I don't need to for every day use.
Click to expand...

First of, those general terms are friendly. I could've implied you are a fool to waste money on an obsolete box, as you would get better returns burning the bills than buying that. Second, this is the internet, a forum, and you've taken offense to what most people would call honesty. Get over yourself.

As for the RAM, it has only to do with the OS supporting it, nothing to do with the hardware.

I find it hilarious you want to argue with people who clearly understand this issue better than you, and this is often the reason why I've stopped posting in these threads because I can't compete with "blah blah, numbers here you go" that some of the less experienced users constantly toss out because, while they look convincing, they are meaningless 99% of the time.
 
And how did you get that "99%" number?

I also see you never answered my question from before. All I'm getting from you is assumptions and my dad calls it "Ass of U and ME". Those numbers back the products and they do mean a lot for performance from my experience.
 
nick09
And how did you get that "99%" number?

I also see you never answered my question from before. All I'm getting from you is assumptions and my dad calls it "Ass of U and ME". Those numbers back the products and they do mean a lot for performance from my experience.
Click to expand...

The numbers you often cite, in various threads, have very little to do with real world performance. It is more or less overloading someone with data that doesn't actually matter.

And its an ass of you and mption when you make assumptions, and to assume is another story.

Clearly 99% is over the top.
 
99% is over what? Still does not make sense. How do the numbers do not affect real world performance? I'm not hearing any solid evidence from you at all.
 
One, I'm certain he was alluding to the fact that his 99% statistic was purposely exaggerated. Two, he's also saying synthetic benchmarks are more often than not absolutely useless.

IF that's what he was implying. You can find any website asserting the very same thing, you're unlikely to be running CineBench or HDTach, or any of these other synthetic benchmarks 24/7. The best benchmark is whatever you use the PC for on a daily basis, whether it be image editing, gaming, music, etc.
 
Yep although benchmarks/performance tests give a taste of what your PC is able to do, it doesn't represent real-world performance due to a countless number of measures. Different applications deal with things differently to others, and heavy benchmarks don't represent real world performance at all because they're doing tasks the average joe would never do.

On the topic of upgrading your current system, people have hit the nail on the head already. For example upgrading the RAM on top of the 3GB of RAM you have already on Windows XP will make a negligible difference. XP can happily run with lots of breathing space with 2GB. The other issue that if you have a 32 bit version installed it won't recognise slightly over 3GB of RAM anyways, making it a totally pointless upgrade. If you upgrade other parts you'll be bottlenecked by another, so you'll have to replace that, and so on and so on.

To completely eliminate the problem, as others had suggested, is to buy a new system, which you would end up doing anyways. But it doesn't have to be the latest system - you could just buy an old Core 2 Duo system off eBay or something. Shouldn't cost you anymore than £200, if that. It would be a major improvement over what you have. I'd save the £20-£30 + quid at a time you may spend on your current system to make it faster and save it up for a newer system.
 
To give an example of a bottleneck'd system that I have here...

I have an "old" AMD 2700+ processor with a motherboard (I think a MSI K7 Turbo series) that has a AGP graphics port. Takes DDR2 RAM sticks too. Maximum memory was 3GB. I made the mistake of thinking of improving the HD playback feature by using an top-of-the-line AGP card (AMD 3450, that had AGP sockets).

It was a pointless upgrade as the motherboard didn't support the extra bandwidth required to allow the graphics card to fully display the required HD resolution.

Even though I had upgraded the graphics card, the whole system was unable to use it as it was intended for, due to bottlenecks and also me not fully understanding that system properly.... Since then, I've made sure to fully understand whether it is wise to upgrade or not with regards to motherboards.

The motherboard is almost like a chassis of a car. Put in a processor that does vastly more work than the motherboard is expected to work with, the motherboard can just die due to voltages requirements. Or the processor would be severely crippled. Almost like dropping a 700 hp engine in a car that the chassis can only handle 300 hp.
 

Latest Posts

Back