Low-end High Spec Rig, looking to push for money's worth

[Mafia Leader]

My rig specs are currently sitting at:
AMD64 3000+ Newcastle (512Kb L2 Cache)
Gigabyte K8VT800
Crucial 512Mb DDR400 PC3200 CL=3 Unbuffered
Asus GeForce 6800 128Mb

I'm getting a twinned pair of 512Mb sticks of RAM to add to my collection (and fill up the slots), so when I get my rig back I shall have 1536Mb RAM.
Anywho, my problem is that everything there is vanilla, and pretty low-end for a high spec machine. This shows in Half-Life 2, as I can quite happily go out and make a cuppa between sections, so I'm wondering if there are any tricks-of-the-trade I can use to get myself out of this low-cost mess I got myself in to.
I've also got twinned 120Gb Western Digital Caviar ATA100 hard-drives, but my mobo is SATA compatible. Would the loading times be better with SATA drives? If so, would it be worth getting rid of my old ATA100's and getting new SATAs, or keeping the ATA100's and getting SATA on top of that? My OS is sitting on a separate 20Gb Seagate Barracuda with a 4Gb PF in case you were wondering.

Looking for low/nil cost solutions, so if I can make money back, too (talking about HDDs here), that'd also be pretty awesome.

[siddy]

SATA doesn't make much (if any) of a difference. We've not even hit ATA bandwidth restrictions yet.

Truth be told, I can't see all too much that you can do with your computer. Your RAM kinda blows. I would certainly look at getting RAM with tighter timings and ditching your CL3 stuff.

The cheapest way to get more out of your system is to overclock. Your VIA chipset might be a bit of a hassle to get some big overclocks out, but your gfx card shows promise, and I've got a 3000 Winchester in a via that I clocked up to 2.6 without much tweaking to voltages.

[Mafia Leader]

Truth be told, I can't see all too much that you can do with your computer. Your RAM kinda blows. I would certainly look at getting RAM with tighter timings and ditching your CL3 stuff.

The cheapest way to get more out of your system is to overclock. Your VIA chipset might be a bit of a hassle to get some big overclocks out, but your gfx card shows promise, and I've got a 3000 Winchester in a via that I clocked up to 2.6 without much tweaking to voltages.
Hit me with some improvements for RAM. I've got no idea what the timings are. I'll definately be looking in to getting Corsair, though, as I've heard many a good thing about them. What kind of timings should I be looking at?

What's wrong with the VIA chipset and overclocks? I heard VIA was super-good, so I went with it. And how much performance can I look in to getting out of my 6800 vanilla?

[Moe_Rahn]

And how much performance can I look in to getting out of my 6800 vanilla?
AGP, presumably? A bunch. You can try unlocking the extra pipes with Rivatuner, and of course you can OC it however much the card'll take. Right now mine's sitting at 350/750, but only with the default pipes after the extra quad putzed out on me.

[BattleWhack]

This is almost like listening to a different language.

[Mirsky]

I feel the same way when mechanics start talking about their big ends and stud girdles. :)

[Agent Law]

Hit me with some improvements for RAM. I've got no idea what the timings are. I'll definately be looking in to getting Corsair, though, as I've heard many a good thing about them. What kind of timings should I be looking at?
Ideally, CAS 2-2-2-5. If you want Corsair, it'd be the TWINX1024-3200XL or TWINX1024-3200XLPRO.

[Mafia Leader]

Ah, thanks Law. Wondering if it'd be possible to get the Corsair in the twin channel slots, and keep the Crucial in the normal slot. I know it's usually a damned stupid idea to keep mixed RAM, but I really can't be arsed with throwing away perfectly good RAM.

[siddy]

Well, as far as RAM timings go, lower is better. 2-2-2-5 is the best you can grab, but unless you want to pay out the wazzoo, there are some good prices for some RAM.

Personally, I've had a lot of good experiences with OCZ RAM. The Platinum edition is one of the best that you can buy. I recently bought some OCZ Gold EL (enhanced latency) ram that ran at 2-3-2-5 (I think) and it's absolutely fantastic.

VIA chipsets are great, rock-solid chipsets if you're not into overclocking (I have a VIA in my gaming comp, but i'll be going to ULI soon). But nforce has historically been the better overclocker. Don't get me wrong, I like my VIA chipset...but as far as overclocking goes, it's just no where near as good.

[Agent Law]

Ah, thanks Law. Wondering if it'd be possible to get the Corsair in the twin channel slots, and keep the Crucial in the normal slot. I know it's usually a damned stupid idea to keep mixed RAM, but I really can't be arsed with throwing away perfectly good RAM.
I suppose you could, but you probably wouldn't need to.

[StandingCow]

SATA doesn't make much (if any) of a difference. We've not even hit ATA bandwidth restrictions yet.

Truth be told, I can't see all too much that you can do with your computer. Your RAM kinda blows. I would certainly look at getting RAM with tighter timings and ditching your CL3 stuff.

The cheapest way to get more out of your system is to overclock. Your VIA chipset might be a bit of a hassle to get some big overclocks out, but your gfx card shows promise, and I've got a 3000 Winchester in a via that I clocked up to 2.6 without much tweaking to voltages.

Im going to sorta disagree with that first comment.. now it COULD just be in my head.. but when I went SATA from UATA my loading times.. at least in WoW dropped by alot...

both hard drives were the same RPM too. However.. like I said, coulda been in my head :D

[siddy]

Im going to sorta disagree with that first comment.. now it COULD just be in my head.. but when I went SATA from UATA my loading times.. at least in WoW dropped by alot...

both hard drives were the same RPM too. However.. like I said, coulda been in my head :D

well, possibly. From what I've heard, there's very little difference between SATA and ATA. I'll see if I can find something to substantiate those claims ;)

EDIT: Well, after a bit of googling, it seems to me like there is some difference, but not much.

But Cow, when you switched to SATA, did your drive have NCQ? And plus there are other variables than RPM, ie: seek time, buffer size, etc.