I am just indicating that rating performance by frames per second may allow
comparisons, but is it a USEFUL comparison, especially since we all seem
perfectly satisfied by movies at 24 frames per second and television
displays at 30, 50, or 60 frames per second (I'm sorry, but PAL and SECAM at
25 frames per second gives me a headache.)

As for my personal use, I like the price on display adapters two generations
behind the bleeding edge. Paying $400 US or $500 US for performance that is
only helpful for a handful of 3-D game programs is a very expensive
performance boost for a very limited use. Money spent on boosting the
performance of your entire system for a wide range of uses is better spent.

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."


"We Live for the One we Die for the One" Mr wrote in
message ...


Ive got an A7v266-e so iam limited to a Xp 2600 266mhz CPU but can't
get one in Australia so i settled for XP 2400

So you think 9800 would be lets say 50% bettter than a Readeon 9600
pro ?

Worth the upgrade if i keep all i have ?

And upgrading i can do tommorow NEW everthing, but i realy want to cut
that down to maybe a nre PC every four years FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Pcs are SUCH a WASTE of money, as soon as you buy one its worth 50%
less

Thanks.




On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:21:21 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
wrote:

Yeah, and who can actually SEE 500 frames per second, or even 200 frames
per
second for that matter, and as if any monitor could DISPLAY 200 frames
per
second!