I'm trying to figure out what really makes a good upgrade
for gaming. So far, using 3DMark2001, I see the following
somewhat strange results:

1) AMD AthlonXP 2000+ with ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128, 1gig ram: 6747
2) Same as above, but with ATI Radeon 9600XT 128:
9023
3) P4/2.4/800fsb, ATI Radeon 9200 Pro, 512 ddr:
7119
4) P4/1.8/400fsb, ATI Radeon 9000 ( same ), 1 gig ddr
7259
5) P4/2.8/400fsb, nVidia Quadro4 900XGL, 1 gig ddr
12,415

Note: before you run out and buy nVidia, the 900XGL only has
a 300mhz dac clock, and 128 meg ddr !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Card is
several years old. I'm very suspicious of that test.
What is most interesting is the 2 P4s not making much difference,
AND, the ATI 9000 on a 1.8/400 system, beat a ATI 9200 on a
2.4/800 system ???????? Weird. My AMD Athlon clocks at
about 1.7 gbit, but the ATI 9600XT makes a big difference.

So far, I conclude: the biggest difference is Video card. Next is
ram size. CPU speed is marginal. I think I have to jump a lot
to get any improvement. RAM speed is also marginal. My AMD
is using SDRAM 133 and CPU has 266 fsb.

I also conducted the following Far Cry tests by number of above:
1) Ran FC beautifully but all in low setting except water medium.
2) Ran FC super good .. water medium, environ high .. fish/ birds
3) Ran FC about same as 1)
4) Ran FC well, fish/birds, but crappy seaweed.
5) I have not been able to test FC on that machine ( I'll try )

Conclude: not much so far. I could spend a lot of money and
have nothing to show for it. Far Cry is a better benchmark than
3DMark2001.

johns