WOW - New Graphics Card or more RAM?

[Boutros]

I wish I had a reasonable way to upgrade my computer. Right now I'm running a 1.2 GHz Athlon Thunderbird with 384 megs of ram and a Radeon 8500. Sadly, though I don't think I can upgrade ram without getting a whole new motherboard, as I don't think my Asus A7V133A supports DDR ram. And gettting a new motherboard, ram, and possibly a processor is out of the realm of financial possibilities, at least until I get my tax refund.

Though, all things considered, I'm fairly impressed with how well my computer runs WoW. I typically get around 20fps when not in a major city, running at 1024x768. In Orgrimmar, though, I usually get anywhere from 3-8fps, and when I first hearth in I know I'm going to have to wait a couple minutes before I try to move.

[Ruvanal]

I had your exact same card. Then I bought a GeForce 6800 (plain). Worked like a charm. Although I also have a gig of RAM (Planetside used to run like #$%& with anything less, and I mean like #$%&).
[right][snapback]67154[/snapback][/right]

As was pointed out by Thecla, the typical memory footprint of most systems when this game is running is going to be in the area of 650-820 MB. So anyone that is trying to play with 512 MB or less is going to be facing a lot data getting to swapped to the HDD for any active areas. Since the speed difference for HDD access is orders of magnitude slower than the even the slowest RAM access speeds, getting ones system RAM to 1024 MB or better will generally yield far better results at game performance compared with any of the video card upgrades (including whatever is the newest/greatest video card this week). Once you can get the system RAM to at least 1024 MB, then it can start to be worthwhile to look to better video card performance.

As you noted about the performance of Planetside with less that 1024 MB, that is starting to be the case with many of the larger and newer games that have been coming out. They may work with less than 1024 MB, but the performance is going to be "#$%&". ;) So for anyone else out there having choppy video in WoW and using less than 1024 MB; look for the sales on memory and get it up to at least 1024 before worrying about a new video card. The system RAM is likely to be a far cheaper and better boost for the first step.

[Nystul]

I wish I had a reasonable way to upgrade my computer. Right now I'm running a 1.2 GHz Athlon Thunderbird with 384 megs of ram and a Radeon 8500. Sadly, though I don't think I can upgrade ram without getting a whole new motherboard, as I don't think my Asus A7V133A supports DDR ram. And gettting a new motherboard, ram, and possibly a processor is out of the realm of financial possibilities, at least until I get my tax refund.

Though, all things considered, I'm fairly impressed with how well my computer runs WoW. I typically get around 20fps when not in a major city, running at 1024x768. In Orgrimmar, though, I usually get anywhere from 3-8fps, and when I first hearth in I know I'm going to have to wait a couple minutes before I try to move.
[right][snapback]67204[/snapback][/right]

SDRAM is not all that hard to find yet. If WoW is the most taxing game you plan on playing for the next year or two, it might be worthwhile. But if you expect to upgrade your platform in the not-too-distant future anyway, it might be a waste of money, because you surely won't be using PC133 SDRAM on whatever your next motherboard is.

[Concillian]

I wish I had a reasonable way to upgrade my computer. Right now I'm running a 1.2 GHz Athlon Thunderbird with 384 megs of ram and a Radeon 8500. Sadly, though I don't think I can upgrade ram without getting a whole new motherboard, as I don't think my Asus A7V133A supports DDR ram. And gettting a new motherboard, ram, and possibly a processor is out of the realm of financial possibilities, at least until I get my tax refund.
[right][snapback]67204[/snapback][/right]

For people in your situation, I strongly suggest going to a set of enthusiast forums like www.anandtech.com and shopping in their FS/FT forums. I put an entire computer together for my girlfriend's 14 year old brother with used parts (AthlonXP, 512MB, motherboard, Radeon 9500Pro, 40 GB drive, used CDROM drive, case, etc...) that plays games pretty well for under $350 (not including monitor) using used parts.

A decent MB (nForce2) + 512 MB RAM can be had from places like this for around $100 if you spend some time in the forums. That will allow you to later upgrade your CPU and video card seperately to something more modern at your own pace. You are in need of a platform upgrade, but in the case of WoW an older platform (AthlonXP) is just fine.

The other "on the cheap" option is a Fry's special. Fry's often have Sempron specials that have MB+CPU for essentially the price of the CPU. These boards are never anything to write home about (usually VIA chipset), but they do work (I had to return one, but the replacement worked).

[Kevin]

I wish I had a reasonable way to upgrade my computer. Right now I'm running a 1.2 GHz Athlon Thunderbird with 384 megs of ram and a Radeon 8500. Sadly, though I don't think I can upgrade ram without getting a whole new motherboard, as I don't think my Asus A7V133A supports DDR ram. And gettting a new motherboard, ram, and possibly a processor is out of the realm of financial possibilities, at least until I get my tax refund.

Though, all things considered, I'm fairly impressed with how well my computer runs WoW. I typically get around 20fps when not in a major city, running at 1024x768. In Orgrimmar, though, I usually get anywhere from 3-8fps, and when I first hearth in I know I'm going to have to wait a couple minutes before I try to move.
[right][snapback]67204[/snapback][/right]

Well your board use that KT133A chipset, and if you have PCB 1.05. or later you can do up to an XP 2100+ processor, I think it will have to be a Palamino core though. You are stuck with PC 133 RAM, but you can get up to 1.5 GB of it. But that would be a purchase with no future, as would the processor. So yeah, you are pretty much end of life on the cycle.

[mjdoom]

Sometimes I wonder if I am blessed with some strange luck or something. My current computer (which I put together piecemeal by buying parts online 2 years ago) seems to run WoW just fine. I don't remember exactly what resolution I use (I think it's 1024x768) but my gryphon fights are fine and I can even participate in raids without any serious problems. Almost all of the lag I experience is due to server population and I very rarely run into any load time issues. The one key aspect is that I keep terrain distance at the minimum, all other settings available to me don't seem to make much of a performance difference. (Side note: How do I see my fps numbers?) This is all despite the fact that my computer is:

Windows XP Pro
2 GHz Pentium 4 CPU
512 MB RAM
NVidia GeForce 2 MX 32 MB graphics card
Soyo K7V Dragon Plus! mobo (I think that's the one)

Now, I'll admit that I don't know much about graphics cards. My previous computer had a Voodoo Banshee that served me well all the way into the beginning of 2003 and then I bought this card cheap off my roommate when he wasn't using it any more around that time. Despite all of this 2 year old equipment I seem to run the game fine. That said it seems that not all of my graphics are up to the same caliber that I have seen in some screenshots but it still seems to run fairly smoothly.

All of these stats seem similar to Nobbie's from my perspective. Am I just lucky somehow or is there something more that I might have/be doing?

I feel kind of bad because it sounds to me like I'm bragging a bit but I'm kind of curious as I never really understood how RAM and Video Cards interacted to allow you to play certain games effectively.

- mjdoom

[Drasca]

This is all despite the fact that my computer is:

Windows XP Pro
2 GHz Pentium 4 CPU
512 MB RAM
NVidia GeForce 2 MX 32 MB graphics card
Soyo K7V Dragon Plus! mobo  (I think that's the one)

All of these stats seem similar to Nobbie's from my perspective.  Am I just lucky somehow or is there something more that I might have/be doing?

I feel kind of bad because it sounds to me like I'm bragging a bit but I'm kind of curious
[right][snapback]67216[/snapback][/right]

Not despite. Yes, your graphics card is a limitation, but the all important CPU + RAM are good (although I am not familiar with the mobo).

I think Nobbie's getting decent performance (10x7 with moderate detail settings). You're getting good performance out of low detail settings :) You're very right about terrain settings at low to zero being key to getting smooth gameplay. Also, you have enough ram (for the most part), and although the GeForce 2 is ailing... it still is/was a good-ish card for its age.

A better card would do much for your gaming's graphics experience, but that's up to you and your wallet.

[Concillian]

Windows XP Pro
2 GHz Pentium 4 CPU
512 MB RAM
NVidia GeForce 2 MX 32 MB graphics card
Soyo K7V Dragon Plus! mobo  (I think that's the one)
[right][snapback]67216[/snapback][/right]

That is kind of surprising, I'd speculate it's primarily due to the GF 2 MX supporting no pixel shaders at all.

For what it's worth ~$35 on eBay can get you a signficant upgrade to a GeForce 3 level card or Radeon 8500LE, or ~$50 to a GF 4 Ti 4200. Both will let you turn up the terrain distance significantly.

There is very little dependence on the CPU in WoW, as in many other games. Performance is almost exclusively dependent on graphics card and RAM size.

[Yuen]

I have a athlon 2400 with a Ti 4200,

I previously had 512 RAM and experienced the same problems as you describe.

i upgraded to 1024 RAM. this made a HUGE difference. I upgraded all my graphical settings from medium to high (with 1024x768 resolution). and experienced less graphical lag. the only place i lag now is in fully packed IronForge. Otherwise no lag - the difference is certainly significant. I am very happy with the amount of $ i paid for the RAM upgrade vs its effects on my fps in game.

[swirly]

At the very least, send that 30 gigs of anime to .zip compression! That'll save you some space.
[right][snapback]67128[/snapback][/right]

I'd just like to say that this probably won't help much. Video files are generally already using pretty tight compression and so trying to zip them has very little benefit. Like for instance, I just tried zipping an anime episode that is 245,125,120 bytes and when zipped it became 239,132,071 bytes. If you use "best" mode instead of "normal" then it becomes 239,068,799 bytes. So even using "best" mode for zip compression you are only seeing a gain of about 3%. So for 30G you are talking cutting it down to 29.1G. So while you are gaining 900M of space in this instance (which may be helpful for playing the game), overall its a very small gain. One also has to consider the time it would take to compress it and the hassle of decompressing it anytime the person wishes to watch the episode.

Basically my point is that for video files, the space gained from compressing them is rarely worth the time and hassle of dealing with the compressed files.

[nobbie]

Well, I went to my dealer for a 512 MB RAM upgrade yesterday, and to my surprise even the PC266 (PC2100) RAM modules from i.e. Kingston "ValueRAM" refuse to work with my mainboard or the first generation P4 2 GHz. It has been said that PC333 or PC400 should be backwards compatible (frequency-wise) and would work in PC266 slots when clocked at lower frequency, but that's not the case either with my mainboard. We've tested PC266 and PC333, but none of them work. When these chips were used, the well-known "wrong or missing system memory" sound began to ring after power-on. Maybe someone here knows what's going on.

My processor is a first generation Pentium 4 with 2 GHz (either P4-Northwood 2.0G or P4-Willamette 2.0G, I can't say for sure), and the mainboard is a relatively new Gigabyte GA-8PE800(-L) motherboard with an Intel 845PE chipset that supports PC266 and PC333 RAM modules and P4's up to 3 GHz. Supported FSB (Front Side Bus) speeds via BIOS settings are 400, 533 and 667 MHz. The BIOS on the mainboard is the latest version (F9) from 2004/3/1. Supported RAM sizes are as follows:


Support of Unbuffered DDR DIMM Sizes (according to the GA-8PE800(-L) motherboard manual):

64 MBit (2Mx8x4 banks)
64 MBit (1Mx16x4 banks)

128 MBit (4Mx8x4 banks)
128 MBit (2Mx16x4 banks)

256 MBit (8Mx8x4 banks)
256 MBit (4Mx16x4 banks)

512 MBit (16Mx8x4 banks)
512 MBit (8Mx16x4 banks)

Total System Memory: 2 GB max.


What I've figured out so far is the following: The first generation P4 2 GHz has only 400 MHz FSB (100 MHz Host clock) support which means - due to the limited capabilities of the Intel 845PE chipset - (official) support of 200 MHz and 266 MHz RAM frequencies. 333 MHz (or PC333 (PC2700) RAM support respectively) is supported only for P4 processors with 533 MHz FSB (133 MHz Host clock), which would be the 2nd or 3rd generation of the P4 2+ GHz CPU's. The old original 512 MB RAM chip that's currently installed in the computer is labeled as follows:


Infineon 64Mx64 SDRAM (16 chips, 8 on each side)
PC2100U-20330-B1
512 MB, DDR, 133 MHz, CL2


Now, this is "Double Data Rate" DDR-RAM (184 or 186 pin module respectively), so I assume that both the label "SDRAM" and "133 MHz" on the sticker of the RAM are somehow an old description (from the year 2002) but actually mean "PC266". But even when we've removed that old RAM chip and inserted i.e. a new Kingston PC266 (PC2100) 512 MB "ValueRAM" module, the system hangs at power-on with a ring tone. We've also tried all BIOS options available for the 400 MHz FSB ("Auto" (set Memory frequency by DRAM SPD data), "2.66" (Memory frequency = Host clock x 2.66), "2.0" (Memory frequency = Host clock x 2.0)).

Could it be that my P4 2 GHz is actually that old that it doesn't even support "PC266" modules of today, or that it will only work with chips like the Infineon above? Or are the PC266 modules being sold today de-rated PC333 modules which won't work with a 400 MHz FSB anyway? Is there any difference between the architectures of PC266 (PC2100) and PC333 (PC2700) modules? Do special older versions of PC266 exist which will work with the first generation P4 2 GHz CPU? Or do DDR memory size configurations matter (as listed above)? Any help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

[redinter]

Support of Unbuffered DDR DIMM Sizes (according to the GA-8PE800(-L) motherboard manual):

64 MBit (2Mx8x4 banks)
64 MBit (1Mx16x4 banks)

128 MBit (4Mx8x4 banks)
128 MBit (2Mx16x4 banks)

256 MBit (8Mx8x4 banks)
256 MBit (4Mx16x4 banks)

512 MBit (16Mx8x4 banks)
512 MBit (8Mx16x4 banks)

Total System Memory: 2 GB max.

It may be indeed that your motherboard doesn't support the new architecture of the modules. Has the kingston chip you tested this kind of architecture? look if there are chips on both sides of the module, or if there are only onesided. count how many chips there are on either side. If the count differs from the specification on your manual, they may be incompatible. If it is so, try buying a module that has the same chip size as your current infineon module, or try using another infineon module.
As for the Bios setting, I would recommend setting a frequency to force the modules to work at that setting. Your motherboard may not be able to read the SPD data correctly.

[Quark]

The old original 512 MB RAM chip that's currently installed in the computer is labeled as follows:
Infineon 64Mx64 SDRAM (16 chips, 8 on each side)
PC2100U-20330-B1
512 MB, DDR, 133 MHz, CL2
Now, this is "Double Data Rate" DDR-RAM (184 or 186 pin module respectively), so I assume that both the label "SDRAM" and "133 MHz" on the sticker of the RAM are somehow an old description (from the year 2002) but actually mean "PC266".

SDRAM = "Synchronous Data Ram". Almost any computer RAM you see now is SDRAM, whether or not it's mentioned. It uses the same methodoly as RAM chips have been using for years, replacing the EDO and Fast Page RAM styles. The chip is really a "DDR-SDRAM" chip.

But even when we've removed that old RAM chip and inserted i.e. a new Kingston PC266 (PC2100) 512 MB "ValueRAM" module, the system hangs at power-on with a ring tone. We've also tried all BIOS options available for the 400 MHz FSB ("Auto" (set Memory frequency by DRAM SPD data), "2.66" (Memory frequency = Host clock x 2.66), "2.0" (Memory frequency = Host clock x 2.0)).

Have you tried underclocking the RAM at all? Just to see if it will boot? Are there any settings for memory timings? Settings like CAS, tRCD, tRPD, tRAS. If there are, try setting them really high (slow) and see if that works.

Or are the PC266 modules being sold today de-rated PC333 modules which won't work with a 400 MHz FSB anyway?

It depends on the memory chips on the stick. There are many RAM chips out there right now, but all follow the same philosophy as CPUs: stringently test them at higher speeds, and if they fail even in the slightest, mark them at a lower speed for selling. The reason overclocking is a hit or miss affair is because the vendor's tests are much more aggressive than normal usage.

I'm confused as to why anything labeled DDR-SDRAM would not work in a system that supports it, since the fundamental technology hasn't changed at all, just the speeds it runs as. New systems may or may not use DDR2, but that's a whole nother ballpark and those wouldn't even fit in your memory slots. It may be that you have a finnicky motherboard in general. I used to have one of those, and it sucked. You'll have to do a huge amount of research into what chips have worked with your motherboard in order to upgrade, if that's the case.

[nobbie]

The original Infineon PC266 (PC2100) RAM (that works) has 8 chips on each side (16 total), and one of the test Infineon PC333 (PC2700) chips (that doesn't work) has 8 chips on each side (16 total), too. There's no visible difference at first glance. The original Infineon PC266 RAM however, says "64Mx64" on the sticker while the test Infineon PC333 chip says "32x8". Both chips have 512 MB total.

So, what's the difference here? I'm also confused about the labels "64Mx64" and "32x8" because the following list of supported memory configurations with 3 values each seems to be completely different, i.e. "16Mx8x4" and "8Mx16x4" for 512 MBit. How do these two values ("64Mx64" and "32x8") translate to the list from the manual?

Support of Unbuffered DDR DIMM Sizes (according to the GA-8PE800(-L) motherboard manual):

64 MBit (2Mx8x4 banks)
64 MBit (1Mx16x4 banks)

128 MBit (4Mx8x4 banks)
128 MBit (2Mx16x4 banks)

256 MBit (8Mx8x4 banks)
256 MBit (4Mx16x4 banks)

512 MBit (16Mx8x4 banks)
512 MBit (8Mx16x4 banks)

Total System Memory: 2 GB max.

Also, the list mentiones the support of UNBUFFERED DDR DIMM sizes. Are all memory chips unbuffered?

[Leshy]

One small nit :)

SDRAM = "Synchronous Data Ram".

"Synchronous Dynamic RAM", actually ;)

[nobbie]

Have you tried underclocking the RAM at all?  Just to see if it will boot?  Are there any settings for memory timings?  Settings like CAS, tRCD, tRPD, tRAS.  If there are, try setting them really high (slow) and see if that works.

There are no direct memory clocking settings for CAS etc in the BIOS as far as I can see. The only setting that has to do with memory clocking is the "Host/DRAM Clock Ratio" parameter for the various FSB speeds. For 400 MHz FSB (100 MHz Host clock) that would be either "Automatic", factor "2.66" or factor "2.0". I've tried them all but had no luck so far, even with factor "2.0" which would be 200 MHz memory clock.

The mainboard was rather cheap, but the manufacturer Gigabyte is known for quite reliable products in general. I would be surprised if such a simple "bread and butter" board sucks that badly with respect to standard things like PC266/333 RAM support. It's also the latest board revison with the ninth/last BIOS update.

[Kevin]

The processor should have nothing to do with the RAM, that communication is all handled by the chipset on the motherboard.

If you want to mail order and you want a garuntee that it will work get it from Crucial.com, though I don't know about shipping outside the US with them. I've linked the Giga-Byte GA8PE800-L just to see.

I didn't look, but some motherboards are picky about how you populate the slots. Some of them only read the spd info off the memory in one slot and assume that the rest of the memory is that speed. Some memory controllers can't read higher density modules (the whole 32x8, etc stuff).

Put the working memory in the system, go into the BIOS and make sure that memory detection by SPD is shut off (as has already been mentioned). Force the memory timings to a lower setting. I've had to do that on several boards when putting a higher rated speed module in there.

Have you tried with just the new memory in there without the old module? If that works it is even more likely that the new memory is running at a higher speed than the old memory can handle based on spd information and you need to tell the BIOS to not do that. Your motherboard already runs the memory and CPU clocks asynchronously, I haven't looked to see just how high of a memory clock it will allow, but it is possible that with the new stuff in there you are overclocking the old stuff.

Memory can be buffered or unbuffered, ECC or non ECC, registered or unregistered. If your board requires registered memory and you put unregistered in, it won't work. If it requires buffered and you put unbuffered in it won't work. So yes that is important information.

[nobbie]

Yes, I've tried only the new RAM cip(s) and also with fixed frequency settings (200 MHz and 266 MHz) without the automatic SPD data readout. So that should have worked, normally. If 32x8 means "high density", then that might be an issue but it would require a support request to Gigabyte to be sure (which I've just done anyway). As far as unbuffered, buffered etc goes, the mobo supports unbuffered memory. All memory I've tested so far was unbuffered though, afaik.

[nobbie]

Thanks for the link to Cruicial.com! That's just the RAM type info I was looking for :)

[nobbie]

According to Cruicial.com, there are actually only two PC266 (PC2100) modules that would fit in my mobo:

512 MB:

DDR PC2100 • CL=2.5 • UNBUFFERED • NON-ECC • DDR266 • 2.5V • 64Meg x 64
http://www.crucial.com/store/MPartspecs.As...WSPN=CT6464Z265

1024 MB:

DDR PC2100 • CL=2.5 • UNBUFFERED • NON-ECC • DDR266 • 2.5V • 128Meg x 64
http://www.crucial.com/store/MPartspecs.As...SPN=CT12864Z265


As expected, the cruicial point with the Gigabyte GA-8PE800-L mobo is the memory configuration: 64Meg x 64 (for 512 MB) and 128Meg x 64 (for 1024 MB). I'll check this with my dealer on Monday. These sizes should be available from Infineon or Kingston, for example. The old 512 MB Infineon chip in my mobo, by the way, has a 64Mx64 configuration, and the tested chips anything else but not this one.

Thanks again for the Cruicial.com tip, great link! :)