Printable View
-I now have a p4 2.4 ghz computer with 512 megs of ram, an 80 gig hardrive, and an all in wonder VE PCI :angry:
-I wiil keep the same prosessor keep the memory keep the hardrive but I will put in a new asus mobo - I will connect a new graphics card to that mobo - and put all that and my old hard ware into this case -!!! :D
Tell me if I need any changes.
What case?
There are hyperlinks next to each object I am adding.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@1 December 2003 - 04:14
What case?
Not in my universe.
????? :huh:Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@1 December 2003 - 04:23
Not in my universe.
Nevermind, I'm just not familiar with the way you displayed them.
My bad.
Wow, those aren't very obvious links. Just a small dash? '-'
Well Gamer, I don't see anything that lights up a warning to me, so I'd have to say go!
I like Asus mainboards.
Video cards I'm ambivalent about as I am not a gamer myself.
Cases, ah, now those I have issues with, but I'm a bit weird in that area, so case choice is also okay.
Of more interest to me will be your choice of PSU and HSF and final fan layout...
very nice combo. but if i were u and this coming from a nvidia fan whose kinda makin a transition to ATI i'd suggest a ATI 9600 Pro or XT if u can find one. my Pc is almost exaclty the same but im getting a 9800 XT this christmas, one other thing whats the FSB on your 2.4?
His ATI is a capture card too. He needs to tell us what video card he has, what it can do.
I'd use NVIDIA solely for graphics and buy a seperate capture card, just my opinion.
The ASUS boards usually come with integrated LAN. I lke that, XP will see it and install it. SOme ASUS have a half decent AGP graphics card built in them. Great for emergency backups.
Does that ASUS support the newest DDR [RAM] memory?
Yes.Quote:
Originally posted by Spindulik@1 December 2003 - 14:00
Does that ASUS support the newest DDR [RAM] memory?
Hardcore gamer: why would you pay $250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?
ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** $161.00
here
Let's compare performance in my favorite benchmark, Aquamark3:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...amark_pure.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...lling_pure.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...lling_4x8x.gif
As the heat turns on the cards, the ATI cards come out ahead. Without little AA or AF, Nvidia wins the battle. But what gamer wants to play with less than the best image quality settings?
Quote:
After turning on FSAA and AF, we witness a well-known effect: the cards on ATI VPUs easily break away from the competitors, leaving them far behind. The architecture of ATI’s chips coupled with efficient AF and FSAA algorithms helps handling huge workloads.
Quote:
Conclusion
I have already said this many times that modern graphics cards based on ATI Technologies chips have higher potential than those on GPUs from NVIDIA Corporation. In other words, if you’ve got a card with a RADEON in it, it is sure to be fast in more DirectX 9.0 games. Our testing in the AquaMark3 set confirms this statement. Both: expensive and mass graphics cards on RADEONs ensure good performance combined with excellent image quality.
As for NVIDIA, the company has corrected its mistakes by releasing the new driver, ForceWare. In fact, the release of a special code compiler was the only choice, since NVIDIA has no time to redesign the bulky NV3x architecture and is unlikely to have the time in the future. According to the test results, the ForceWare project is a success. The performance of NVIDIA’s GPUs has increased considerably. The performance gain is so high that NVIDIA regained the leadership in a number of tests. On the other hand, GPUs from ATI Technologies go unrivaled in the tests that use full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.
It means that if you want more fps, you may want to choose a GeForce FX 5950 Ultra card. Otherwise, if you go for a higher image quality, the RADEON 9800 XT and PRO may be your choice. If you cannot afford the top models, consider a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra or RADEON 9600 XT – these two solutions show similar level of performance. Besides that, other factors also should be considered. I am talking about physical dimensions and heat dissipation. From this point of view the RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous over the competitor that carries hot chips of DDR-II memory and a hot GPU on its massive PCB.
As for the image quality, we noticed no visual artifacts during our AquaMark3 tests. This doesn’t mean the ForceWare driver needs no further improvement. In some modern games, like Splinter Cell, you lose or distort shadows with this driver. Anyway, the new driver from NVIDIA does provide a performance growth in every application and game rather than in a selected few. This approach should be considered appropriate, but needs further working upon.
The situation with the GeForce FX reminds me of the one with the Intel Itanium processor. This high-performance 64-bit processor, featuring the EPIC architecture, has to use a translator to execute 32-bit code. The result is obvious: the Itanium is very slow at running x86 programs, notwithstanding all the advantages of the EPIC architecture. Intel is constantly polishing off the translator and that’s what NVIDIA’s going to do with its ForceWare. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the games of the new generation, like Doom III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost and Half-Life 2, will have too complex engines for the software optimizer to digest. We are going to see soon, if it is really the case.
The AquaMark3 benchmarking set itself proved to be a handy and precise tool for measuring the performance of graphics cards. Based on a real gaming engine, AquaMark3 offers a number of extras that make your work easier. I can recommend it to any professional tester. Of course, the suite has minor drawbacks, but is often more convenient than Futuremark 3DMark03.
hey adamp2p, wat's ur aquamark score again? i just got a radeon 9600. my score is 20808. is that good or bad?
400 mhz <_<Quote:
Originally posted by Pitbul@1 December 2003 - 15:42
very nice combo. but if i were u and this coming from a nvidia fan whose kinda makin a transition to ATI i'd suggest a ATI 9600 Pro or XT if u can find one. my Pc is almost exaclty the same but im getting a 9800 XT this christmas, one other thing whats the FSB on your 2.4?
Thanx for the bench marks, ill consider ATI.Quote:
Originally posted by adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 21:48
Hardcore gamer: why would you pay $250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?
ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** $161.00
here
Let's compare performance in my favorite benchmark, Aquamark3:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...amark_pure.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...lling_pure.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...lling_4x8x.gif
As the heat turns on the cards, the ATI cards come out ahead. Without little AA or AF, Nvidia wins the battle. But what gamer wants to play with less than the best image quality settings?
Quote:
After turning on FSAA and AF, we witness a well-known effect: the cards on ATI VPUs easily break away from the competitors, leaving them far behind. The architecture of ATI’s chips coupled with efficient AF and FSAA algorithms helps handling huge workloads.
Quote:
Conclusion
I have already said this many times that modern graphics cards based on ATI Technologies chips have higher potential than those on GPUs from NVIDIA Corporation. In other words, if you’ve got a card with a RADEON in it, it is sure to be fast in more DirectX 9.0 games. Our testing in the AquaMark3 set confirms this statement. Both: expensive and mass graphics cards on RADEONs ensure good performance combined with excellent image quality.
As for NVIDIA, the company has corrected its mistakes by releasing the new driver, ForceWare. In fact, the release of a special code compiler was the only choice, since NVIDIA has no time to redesign the bulky NV3x architecture and is unlikely to have the time in the future. According to the test results, the ForceWare project is a success. The performance of NVIDIA’s GPUs has increased considerably. The performance gain is so high that NVIDIA regained the leadership in a number of tests. On the other hand, GPUs from ATI Technologies go unrivaled in the tests that use full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.
It means that if you want more fps, you may want to choose a GeForce FX 5950 Ultra card. Otherwise, if you go for a higher image quality, the RADEON 9800 XT and PRO may be your choice. If you cannot afford the top models, consider a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra or RADEON 9600 XT – these two solutions show similar level of performance. Besides that, other factors also should be considered. I am talking about physical dimensions and heat dissipation. From this point of view the RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous over the competitor that carries hot chips of DDR-II memory and a hot GPU on its massive PCB.
As for the image quality, we noticed no visual artifacts during our AquaMark3 tests. This doesn’t mean the ForceWare driver needs no further improvement. In some modern games, like Splinter Cell, you lose or distort shadows with this driver. Anyway, the new driver from NVIDIA does provide a performance growth in every application and game rather than in a selected few. This approach should be considered appropriate, but needs further working upon.
The situation with the GeForce FX reminds me of the one with the Intel Itanium processor. This high-performance 64-bit processor, featuring the EPIC architecture, has to use a translator to execute 32-bit code. The result is obvious: the Itanium is very slow at running x86 programs, notwithstanding all the advantages of the EPIC architecture. Intel is constantly polishing off the translator and that’s what NVIDIA’s going to do with its ForceWare. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the games of the new generation, like Doom III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost and Half-Life 2, will have too complex engines for the software optimizer to digest. We are going to see soon, if it is really the case.
The AquaMark3 benchmarking set itself proved to be a handy and precise tool for measuring the performance of graphics cards. Based on a real gaming engine, AquaMark3 offers a number of extras that make your work easier. I can recommend it to any professional tester. Of course, the suite has minor drawbacks, but is often more convenient than Futuremark 3DMark03.
Also who knows what ATI cards come with Half Life 2?
Thanx for the bench marks, ill consider ATI. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer+1 December 2003 - 23:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HardcoreGamer @ 1 December 2003 - 23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 21:48
Hardcore gamer: why would you pay $250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?
ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** $161.00
here
Let's compare performance in my favorite benchmark, Aquamark3:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...amark_pure.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...lling_pure.gif
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...lling_4x8x.gif
As the heat turns on the cards, the ATI cards come out ahead. Without little AA or AF, Nvidia wins the battle. But what gamer wants to play with less than the best image quality settings?
Quote:
After turning on FSAA and AF, we witness a well-known effect: the cards on ATI VPUs easily break away from the competitors, leaving them far behind. The architecture of ATI’s chips coupled with efficient AF and FSAA algorithms helps handling huge workloads.
Quote:
Conclusion
I have already said this many times that modern graphics cards based on ATI Technologies chips have higher potential than those on GPUs from NVIDIA Corporation. In other words, if you’ve got a card with a RADEON in it, it is sure to be fast in more DirectX 9.0 games. Our testing in the AquaMark3 set confirms this statement. Both: expensive and mass graphics cards on RADEONs ensure good performance combined with excellent image quality.
As for NVIDIA, the company has corrected its mistakes by releasing the new driver, ForceWare. In fact, the release of a special code compiler was the only choice, since NVIDIA has no time to redesign the bulky NV3x architecture and is unlikely to have the time in the future. According to the test results, the ForceWare project is a success. The performance of NVIDIA’s GPUs has increased considerably. The performance gain is so high that NVIDIA regained the leadership in a number of tests. On the other hand, GPUs from ATI Technologies go unrivaled in the tests that use full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.
It means that if you want more fps, you may want to choose a GeForce FX 5950 Ultra card. Otherwise, if you go for a higher image quality, the RADEON 9800 XT and PRO may be your choice. If you cannot afford the top models, consider a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra or RADEON 9600 XT – these two solutions show similar level of performance. Besides that, other factors also should be considered. I am talking about physical dimensions and heat dissipation. From this point of view the RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous over the competitor that carries hot chips of DDR-II memory and a hot GPU on its massive PCB.
As for the image quality, we noticed no visual artifacts during our AquaMark3 tests. This doesn’t mean the ForceWare driver needs no further improvement. In some modern games, like Splinter Cell, you lose or distort shadows with this driver. Anyway, the new driver from NVIDIA does provide a performance growth in every application and game rather than in a selected few. This approach should be considered appropriate, but needs further working upon.
The situation with the GeForce FX reminds me of the one with the Intel Itanium processor. This high-performance 64-bit processor, featuring the EPIC architecture, has to use a translator to execute 32-bit code. The result is obvious: the Itanium is very slow at running x86 programs, notwithstanding all the advantages of the EPIC architecture. Intel is constantly polishing off the translator and that’s what NVIDIA’s going to do with its ForceWare. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the games of the new generation, like Doom III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost and Half-Life 2, will have too complex engines for the software optimizer to digest. We are going to see soon, if it is really the case.
The AquaMark3 benchmarking set itself proved to be a handy and precise tool for measuring the performance of graphics cards. Based on a real gaming engine, AquaMark3 offers a number of extras that make your work easier. I can recommend it to any professional tester. Of course, the suite has minor drawbacks, but is often more convenient than Futuremark 3DMark03.
Those benchmarks are false.
I would advise Hardcore Gamer to spend less money on a 5700 ultra, but the 9600xt does NOT support combination 4x fsaa and 8x antisotropic filtering. The 9600 pro does not support this combination either. ATI used this as a safeguard to prevent overheating.
If these benchmarks were actually true, then the drivers were hacked, and the fans must have been replaced.
Thus, the last benchmarks are invalid, and should NOT be considered.
of course, it is worth getting the ATI card for the Half life 2 promotion
but no release date is even set for the game, so why does it matter?
To add more suspense to the heat, the 5700 ultra supports 8x fsaa+ 8x asf
but if one wants o play with such high rates, why not just pick up a matrox parhelia? it supports 16xfsaa+8xasf!
the 9600 xt should be ruled out in this situation, as it does not qualify for the majority of the benchmarks.
the 9800xt, the 9600xt, and the all in wonder 9600 proQuote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:22
Also who knows what ATI cards come with Half Life 2?
notice that the asylum 5700 ultra comes with a lifetime warranty, but your ATI OEM card comes with only 60 day!Quote:
Originally posted by adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 21:48
Hardcore gamer: why would you pay $250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?
ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** $161.00
if you havent noticed, oem means original equipment manufacturer, and NEVER comes with warranty > 90 days.
plus, the asylum card should cost around $200, the same as a 9600xt
but asylum has a lifetime warranty, while ATI has only a 3 year warranty.
this makes nVidia a cheaper buy in this case.
for info on the asylum 5700 ultra, visit the BFG tech web page
the 9800xt, the 9600xt, and the all in wonder 9600 pro [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by atiVidia+1 December 2003 - 23:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 1 December 2003 - 23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:22
Also who knows what ATI cards come with Half Life 2?
are they good cards and how much are they?
can any 1 recomend a graphics card from $200-$250?
are they good cards and how much are they? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer+1 December 2003 - 23:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HardcoreGamer @ 1 December 2003 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by atiVidia@1 December 2003 - 23:34
<!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer
Quote:
@1 December 2003 - 23:22
Also who knows what ATI cards come with Half Life 2?
the 9800xt, the 9600xt, and the all in wonder 9600 pro
9800xt retail: 499
9600xt retail: 200
aiw 9600 pro retail: 250
note: the all in wonder 9600 pro is slightly slower than the 9600 xt, but it comes with a tv tuner, tv in, tv out, FM radio, etc. but it LACKS DVI (for flatscreen biggiez, greater than 21")
That's good enough, abu. We are in no competition. I hope your new card plays your games and keeps you happy. Does the 9600 overclock to the speed of the 9600 pro? What kind of memory chips are on it and what does the small writing say. If you enter it I can tell you what cas latency you have.Quote:
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@2 December 2003 - 00:07
hey adamp2p, wat's ur aquamark score again? i just got a radeon 9600. my score is 20808. is that good or bad?
It even says in the aquamark3 end screen that 20,000 and above will play the next generation games well. I would think you could score 30,000 with that card overclocked.
9600xt: 200 averageQuote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:41
can any 1 recomend a graphics card from $200-$250?
asylum, chaintech 5700 ultra: 200-220 average
aiw 9600 pro: 250 average
Also can any 1 recomend a computer case for $100 that suits my computer?
antec makes excellent cases. if you must have a well suited case visit antec.comQuote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:45
Also can any 1 recomend a computer case for $100 that suits my computer?
for cases over 100, visit thermaltake at www.thermaltake.com
antec and thermaltake both have kickass cases
@atividia--you are new around here, but let me tell you something.
Those benchmarks, I should have stated, came from xbitlabs.com, one of the most respected hardware review sites.
It has been proven in several benchmarks what that one concluded. It is not new news that Nvidia's entire product line struggles with high AA and AF.
I love AA and AF and high detail settings. The entire reason why I play games in the first place is to enter an alternate reality, and ATI's card offer a spectacular view of every game I play. That's why I love ATI. That's why Valve chooses ATI as a parner for the release of Half Life 2. The rest of us gamers who know that will chill with ATI while you get laggy frames...okay, dude :lol:
See ya!
antec makes excellent cases. if you must have a well suited case visit antec.comQuote:
Originally posted by atiVidia+1 December 2003 - 23:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 1 December 2003 - 23:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:45
Also can any 1 recomend a computer case for $100 that suits my computer?
for cases over 100, visit thermaltake at www.thermaltake.com
antec and thermaltake both have kickass cases [/b][/quote]
Thanx, but do u know a case that whould go well with my sysems needs?
i use a matrox parhelia. i care ONLY about image quality, and i do know what cards provide.Quote:
Originally posted by adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 23:48
@atividia--you are new around here, but let me tell you something.
Those benchmarks, I should have stated, came from xbitlabs.com, one of the most respected hardware review sites.
It has been proven in several benchmarks what that one concluded. It is not new news that Nvidia's entire product line struggles with high AA and AF.
I love AA and AF and high detail settings. The entire reason why I play games in the first place is to enter an alternate reality, and ATI's card offer a spectacular view of every game I play. That's why I love ATI. That's why Valve chooses ATI as a parner for the release of Half Life 2. The rest of us gamers who know that will chill with ATI while you get laggy frames...okay, dude :lol:
See ya!
now be nice, and prevent this from turning into a flame war.
whoever benchmarked those for xbit labs was biased towards ati, as i can see you are as well.
and lastly, if you wanted to truly be helpful to our dear friend here, you would be nicer than to recommend an OEM card and promote it. you me both understand that OEMs from anyone spell disaster because of their lack of warranty.
antec makes excellent cases. if you must have a well suited case visit antec.comQuote:
Originally posted by atiVidia+1 December 2003 - 23:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 1 December 2003 - 23:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:45
Also can any 1 recomend a computer case for $100 that suits my computer?
for cases over 100, visit thermaltake at www.thermaltake.com
antec and thermaltake both have kickass cases [/b][/quote]
I cant see any of the prices of the thermaltake beasts on thermaltake.com
OEM cards are a bargain, that's why I suggested that particular purchase. The real issue is whether the guy has dough to spare or not. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't need a 3 year warranty for my monitor. That's why I bought it OEM. I don't need a 3 year warrany for my Dell computer, either. I don't need a 3 year warranty for my GFX card as well. Why pay money for something you don't need? If the thing is going to break, then it will break in 60 days like it or not. And this is no flaming, it is a discussion. Gotta get back to my calculus 2 homework, polar coordinates are more interesting than this conversation.
Thanx, but do u know a case that whould go well with my sysems needs? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer+1 December 2003 - 23:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HardcoreGamer @ 1 December 2003 - 23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by atiVidia@1 December 2003 - 23:47
<!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer
Quote:
@1 December 2003 - 23:45
Also can any 1 recomend a computer case for $100 that suits my computer?
antec makes excellent cases. if you must have a well suited case visit antec.com
for cases over 100, visit thermaltake at www.thermaltake.com
antec and thermaltake both have kickass cases
as you are not going after a major graphics solution, and your products will produce little heat, i would suggest an antec case, specifically this one here
while not exactly cheap (150 with shipping included), it is silent, and performs Very well, and is set for upgrades.
I cant see any of the prices of the thermaltake beasts on thermaltake.com [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer+2 December 2003 - 00:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HardcoreGamer @ 2 December 2003 - 00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by atiVidia@1 December 2003 - 23:47
<!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer
Quote:
@1 December 2003 - 23:45
Also can any 1 recomend a computer case for $100 that suits my computer?
antec makes excellent cases. if you must have a well suited case visit antec.com
for cases over 100, visit thermaltake at www.thermaltake.com
antec and thermaltake both have kickass cases
Hardcore gamer, go to www.newegg.com or www.zipzoomfly.com to find the best deals on hardware. If you are a complete idiot or newb and think that you need a three year warranty for your hardware, then don't buy OEM. If you know your hardware well enough after 60 days then go OEM. Okay?
Hardcore gamer, go to www.newegg.com or www.zipzoomfly.com to find the best deals on hardware. If you are a complete idiot or newb and think that you need a three year warranty for your hardware, then don't buy OEM. If you know your hardware well enough after 60 days then go OEM. Okay? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by adamp2p+1 December 2003 - 23:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (adamp2p @ 1 December 2003 - 23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer@2 December 2003 - 00:55
Quote:
Originally posted by atiVidia@1 December 2003 - 23:47
<!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer
Quote:
Quote:
@1 December 2003 - 23:45
Also can any 1 recomend a computer case for $100 that suits my computer?
antec makes excellent cases. if you must have a well suited case visit antec.com
for cases over 100, visit thermaltake at www.thermaltake.com
antec and thermaltake both have kickass cases
I cant see any of the prices of the thermaltake beasts on thermaltake.com
Thanx, I'll check
thats your issueQuote:
Originally posted by adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 23:57
OEM cards are a bargain, that's why I suggested that particular purchase. The real issue is whether the guy has dough to spare or not. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't need a 3 year warranty for my monitor. That's why I bought it OEM. I don't need a 3 year warrany for my Dell computer, either. I don't need a 3 year warranty for my GFX card as well. Why pay money for something you don't need? If the thing is going to break, then it will break in 60 days like it or not. And this is no flaming, it is a discussion. Gotta get back to my calculus 2 homework, polar coordinates are more interesting than this conversation.
last i checked, more than half the people in this world DO want their crap to run right
more than half the people in this world lose their stuff AFTER the 60 days
more than half the people in this world DO buy a 3 year warranty from dell (this is completely irrelevant to this conversation).
and more than half the people in this world WILL return an oem product because it failed, just to find out that they Cant!
you are busy with your homework, so i should not see a response to this for another hour (from you)
have a nice day :lol:
oh yes, and that half i reffered to are not idiots or noobs. they build pcs for a living
So what graphics card should I use?
your pick:Quote:
Originally posted by HardcoreGamer@2 December 2003 - 00:11
So what graphics card should I use?
both ati and nvidia are good
5700 ultra or 9600xt is what it comes down to
only difference between the two is slight performance loss on ATI's part, and high noise (not too bad) on nVidia's part
if you dont like noise, go to ATI
if you add noise for performance, go to nVidia
if you have money to burn, get an nvidia 5950 ultra, as it is quiet and better than the 9800 XT (be warned, both the 9800 xt and the 5950 ultra are 500 dollars!!!)
your pick:Quote:
Originally posted by atiVidia+2 December 2003 - 00:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 2 December 2003 - 00:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer@2 December 2003 - 00:11
So what graphics card should I use?
both ati and nvidia are good
5700 ultra or 9600xt is what it comes down to
only difference between the two is slight performance loss on ATI's part, and high noise (not too bad) on nVidia's part
if you dont like noise, go to ATI
if you add noise for performance, go to nVidia
if you have money to burn, get an nvidia 5950 ultra, as it is quiet and better than the 9800 XT (be warned, both the 9800 xt and the 5950 ultra are 500 dollars!!!) [/b][/quote]
Well my budget is $500 for a computer case a mobo AND a graphics card. That card is out of my reach.
Are any coputer cases on this site any good for my motherboard?