What do yall think I should upgrade on my system?

First off, My system is running pretty good right now, but its a little dated. I want to try to stay a little bit ahead of the curve, as I am finding programs like games and video editing software becomming more and more demanding on the system. Currently this is the basics of what I have:

Heres a little info on the desktop (from memory)
Gigabyte GA-M56S-S3
AMD X2 5200+
Soundblaster Audigy?
BFG GTX260
4G Corsair Memory 2 sticks
250 gig WD SATA hard drive
Thermaltake 650 watt power supply

I would like to stay with an AMD based system. I have the processor overclocked by about 200 Megahertz, and the memory is running at stock speeds. all of the voltages are stock as well, and it runs stable. I know the processor and mobo are a bottleneck, as there are better ones out there. If this were your system, and you were looking to make it a bit faster, would you start with the mobo and processor? If so, what would you go with if you had around $300 to spend on it?

I wish I had found this board earlier. The others I have looked at always seemed to have a bunch of folks who would just kind of look down on someone who didnt have all the latest and greatest hardware in their systems, and seemed to berate people who asked what they consider 'stupid' questions. I find that there is none of that here, and have found alot of good information. Thanks for providing this site.

 

If you are interested in games, you need to consentrate on the graphics. The CPU and memory are important, but not as important as the graphics.

I looked at the system requirements for some high-end games, your CPU (without OC) and system memory should be fine. Specifications on your graphics may not be enough. For Far Cry 2, minimum graphics memory is 1024MB, your BFG has 896MB (I don't know if more can be shared with system memory), the recommended amount is 2048MB.

You can see your graphics information by going to Start -> Run and enter dxdiag -> Display tab.

Games depend on how much resolution you want to use. If you want to see "the most ", you need a graphics card that will run your game at high resolutions.

(You can spend as much, or more, on a graphics card than the rest of the computer...if you want to play games at the top end.)

Find out the system requirements of the games you want to play (minimum and recommended). You should be able to do that with a websearch. Concentrate on areas where you are low (I doubt it will be the CPU or system memory on your system).

My general suggestion...if you build a computer yourself, make it "balanced ". Get a good motherboard so that you can upgrade easily in the future (not that your motherboard seems insufficient either). As I said, if you want to play high-end games, concentrate on the graphics (dual-processor graphics cards are now becoming available, but they are not cheap).

Matt

 

I see what your saying, but the video card came with a copy of Far Cry 2, and my computer runs it great at high resolution (I cant remember what its set at, but I think its around 1280x960 or something like that) with all the settings at the highest on a 21" Samsung LCD monitor. I guess maybe its sharing some system memory?

What I was kind of worried about is that it seems like games and other stuff like Photoshop, and video editing software are getting more and more system intensive, and since I have a dual core AMD processor right now, how much better would it perform if I replace the processor with one that has a triple or quad core, and would I need to replace the motherboard to do so? Its been a couple years since I built this system, and alot has changed since then. It was alot easier back when it was clear by the name of the processor at what speed it ran, and what you could expect out of it. Alas, those were simpler times. It used to be easier to find out what kind of processors would work with a mobo too. I dont know anymore if I can even run anything other than a dual core on my mobo.

 

That card is stellar. Like.. Amazing. There's absolutely no need to upgrade it for video games. I used the Asus GTX260 (via HDMI) to power my 37" LCD playing Crysis maxed out. I only upgraded it to a GTX280 because a client desperately wanted mine and the wholesalers were out of stock and backordered at the time until after Christmas.

I think people need to get more hands on experience with these products before recommending upgrades.

VGA memory is ONLY for textures. Large textures require more VGA memory. A reasonable amount of VGA memory for most games is 512MB.

The X3 is junk, so do avoid it. All it is is a crippled X4. You'll do fine with an X2 6000 with the software you're running.

Everything else is ok....Except that crappy hard drive. Drop in a Seagate Perpendicular Recording series drive and it will be a significant improvement over that crapper..

What qualifies me to speak on this? I actually have (or have owned) ALL of the products you've mentioned and I build medium to high end systems for a living.

 

Thanks Aweston. I do like the card, and wasnt considering replacing it, rather, I was thinking that the rest of the system may have been slowing the cards potential. Actually I was considering simply replacing the CPU with a 6000+ its just that after reading about the newer chipsets on the mobos I was curious as to what kind of gains I could expect, and if it would be worth the money and time to replace both the CPU and the mobo.
The 260 is an incredibly good card, and I have been experimenting with overclocking it. It got to 700 before it started having issues, so I have it slowed down to 685 for now, and its stable.

 

Yeah, fearsome card. I love them. For chipsets, yeah, there are a couple of newer chipsets out there, but the gains aren't *that* big that it's worth throwing money at them if yours still works well.

Phenoms are really rather hopeless, but the Phenom 2s are much better. Intel leads the pack for gaming, but I do have a machine with an X2 6000 in it at the moment on an Asus and it can hold it's own.