A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Radeon 9800 Pro, Xp 2400,266mhz,1 gig pc2100 ram, this a good setup ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 23rd 04, 02:49 AM
We Live for the One we Die for the One
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Radeon 9800 Pro, Xp 2400,266mhz,1 gig pc2100 ram, this a good setup ?



Radeon 9800 Pro, Xp 2400,266mhz,1 gig pc2100 ram, this a good setup ?

Will the 9800 pro use all its power, or should i just stick to the
9600 Pro worth the upgrade to the 9800 Pro ?

Thanks.
  #3  
Old May 24th 04, 12:41 AM
Wayne Youngman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cuzman" wrote
What motherboard do you have?


I think he has an ageing ASUS A7A266.

We Live for the One we Die for the One: The price difference between the
9600XT and the 9800Pro is now very small.
--
Wayne ][


  #4  
Old May 24th 04, 02:45 AM
Phil Weldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Eventually we'll reach the point the rest of a computer is thrown in as a
freebie when one buys a display adapter!

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


"Wayne Youngman" wrote in message
...

"Cuzman" wrote
What motherboard do you have?


I think he has an ageing ASUS A7A266.

We Live for the One we Die for the One: The price difference between the
9600XT and the 9800Pro is now very small.
--
Wayne ][




  #5  
Old May 24th 04, 12:21 PM
Wayne Youngman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil Weldon" wrote
Eventually we'll reach the point the rest of a computer is thrown in as a
freebie when one buys a display adapter!


Indeed!
I feel a bit sorry for this kid, he has been *theorising* over an upgrade
for about 9 months, but you can never get ahead of the *joneses* as new
things are always creeping out.

If the O.P has a 9600XT, XP2400+, 1GB of PC2100 and an ASUS A7A266 I think
that's a nice enough system, I built something similar for my Brother in
February except I used an ABIT AN7 + 512MB of Crucial PC3200, so instead of
running the XP2400+ @15x133 it is running at 11x200, of course the extra
FSB/Mem MHz really helps.

From my limited recent game playing experience I find it hard to tell the
difference between the 9800 and the 9600XT while running say 1024x768 res.
Of course I can see the difference in benchmarks!
--
Wayne ][


  #6  
Old May 24th 04, 01:21 PM
Phil Weldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!

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


"Wayne Youngman" wrote in message
...

"Phil Weldon" wrote
Eventually we'll reach the point the rest of a computer is thrown in as

a
freebie when one buys a display adapter!


Indeed!
I feel a bit sorry for this kid, he has been *theorising* over an upgrade
for about 9 months, but you can never get ahead of the *joneses* as new
things are always creeping out.

If the O.P has a 9600XT, XP2400+, 1GB of PC2100 and an ASUS A7A266 I think
that's a nice enough system, I built something similar for my Brother in
February except I used an ABIT AN7 + 512MB of Crucial PC3200, so instead

of
running the XP2400+ @15x133 it is running at 11x200, of course the extra
FSB/Mem MHz really helps.

From my limited recent game playing experience I find it hard to tell the
difference between the 9800 and the 9600XT while running say 1024x768 res.
Of course I can see the difference in benchmarks!
--
Wayne ][




  #7  
Old May 24th 04, 03:01 PM
We Live for the One we Die for the One
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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!


  #8  
Old May 24th 04, 03:28 PM
Phil Weldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!




  #9  
Old May 25th 04, 01:31 AM
David Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Phil Weldon wrote:

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.)


Yeah. PAL and SECAM 25 FPS (50Hz refresh) DOES flicker, their claims to the
contrary notwithstanding. I notice it too.

While I'm not sure I buy the whole theory, partly because it's not
something I've spent a lot of time on, there IS research which shows a
perceptible difference with frames rates 'too high to see'. I.E. faster
than the monitor refresh interval.

The postulated reason is that, with movie and TV, you're taking a
'snapshot' of real life movement, not a 'frozen in time' stagnant image
(things don't stop moving for your snapshot to take place), so there is
'smearing' of it over the frame interval and, they think, this provides
additional cues to the eye.

With computer generated frames, however, they ARE simply one stagnant image
after another, computer shifted the 'right amount', 'full frame' at a time,
to the next image to simulate movement. The idea is that faster than the
refresh rate frame generation creates a more lifelike 'moving picture' that
the refresh rate is then taking the 'snapshot' of, kind of like how 'real
life' is moving all the time as the frame is taken.

Seems to me that, if it were 'perceptible', it would appear more like
tearing, since it isn't as if the entire image were moving, only 'part' of
the frame would be in the 'new position', but then I haven't run actual
human tests so I would be speculating whereas others claim to have observed
it. Also, by perceptible they don't mean consciously observable, just that
the observers seem to feel that the 'too fast' frame rates are 'more
realistic'. Maybe the eye compensates for the 'partial' smear just as it
does for flicker and in recreating full color from 3 primaries. That would
make me think there is some minimum multiple (maybe an odd multiple so it
cycles through the image) before the effect would be effective, again, like
a minimum rate to remove flicker.


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.


  #10  
Old May 25th 04, 03:19 AM
Phil Weldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

When images on a strip of film are projected onto a screen, the images are
discrete, perhaps separated by a small blank interval, depending on the
projector (one type has continuous film advance rather than intermittent,
and uses a rotating prism syncronized with the film movement to project a
single frame until the next moves into place.)

As for frame rate on a comuter monitor, there is absolutely no way for
information to reach the screen faster than the frame rate of the monitor.
If frame synch is turned off, and the frame generation rate allowed to
exceed the monitor frame rate then GPU and CPU power is just being wasted
because the extra will never reach the screen (to display at twice the
monitor frame rate would mean that half the information is never displayed,
and the GPU and CPU processing power would be better spent on increased
image quality.) And then there would be the displacement with moving objects
or a panning motion at some point in the displayed composite frame.

The "frozen in time" effect is just as present in film as in CGI. After
all, the exposure time can be varied in cinemaphotography to freeze any
motion (the downside is that more sensitive film, a faster lens, increased
scene illumination, and or "pushed" development must be used.) And what
about CGI use in filmed movies ("Hell Boy", "Von Helsing", "Shreck II"?)

Those who report seeing a difference with computer display images when the
computer frame rate is higher than the monitor display rate are either
perceiving the "image tearing" you mention as meaningful screen action
(indicating really short attention spans, really short) or reacting to frame
rate hype for 3-D accelerated adapter cards and games. Or maybe it is the
aura of an impending seizure.

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

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Phil Weldon wrote:

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.)


Yeah. PAL and SECAM 25 FPS (50Hz refresh) DOES flicker, their claims to

the
contrary notwithstanding. I notice it too.

While I'm not sure I buy the whole theory, partly because it's not
something I've spent a lot of time on, there IS research which shows a
perceptible difference with frames rates 'too high to see'. I.E. faster
than the monitor refresh interval.

The postulated reason is that, with movie and TV, you're taking a
'snapshot' of real life movement, not a 'frozen in time' stagnant image
(things don't stop moving for your snapshot to take place), so there is
'smearing' of it over the frame interval and, they think, this provides
additional cues to the eye.

With computer generated frames, however, they ARE simply one stagnant

image
after another, computer shifted the 'right amount', 'full frame' at a

time,
to the next image to simulate movement. The idea is that faster than the
refresh rate frame generation creates a more lifelike 'moving picture'

that
the refresh rate is then taking the 'snapshot' of, kind of like how 'real
life' is moving all the time as the frame is taken.

Seems to me that, if it were 'perceptible', it would appear more like
tearing, since it isn't as if the entire image were moving, only 'part' of
the frame would be in the 'new position', but then I haven't run actual
human tests so I would be speculating whereas others claim to have

observed
it. Also, by perceptible they don't mean consciously observable, just that
the observers seem to feel that the 'too fast' frame rates are 'more
realistic'. Maybe the eye compensates for the 'partial' smear just as it
does for flicker and in recreating full color from 3 primaries. That would
make me think there is some minimum multiple (maybe an odd multiple so it
cycles through the image) before the effect would be effective, again,

like
a minimum rate to remove flicker.


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.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Radeon 9800 Pro and Mobile barton at 2.5ghz good match ?? The Other Guy. General 3 November 19th 04 04:03 AM
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro installation error Ben C General 4 October 21st 04 11:55 PM
Overclocking ATI Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro video card? Cyde Weys General 3 July 21st 04 11:18 PM
Water-cooled 865PE + Radeon 9800 XT = rocketship . . . pulls a Challenger Ben Morehead Overclocking 7 October 30th 03 10:48 AM
Overclocking Radeon 9800 Pro? Ulf Stahl Overclocking 3 August 23rd 03 08:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.