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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |