Becuase i dont want to purchase more stuff everthing is fine, spent
too much on PCs already, just want to know if they 9800 pro would be a
wise investment with the system i have yes or no ?
(Buying PC hardware is never "wise investment", and it worries me
somewhat, when people use such words. ;-))
You're buying the 128MB version for about $200, yes? (With X800 round
the corner, at $400-$500, the more expensive 256MB R9800 cards don't
look good.)
If you like 3D games, hi res, have a nice monitor, and can afford
it... Mind you, there's the question of what you're upgrading from. If
it's like a GF4 Ti or R9500, don't bother! ;-)
The cpu's function (in relation to 3D graphics) is to run the software
3D engine, which feed the graphic card with render instructions.
There's remarkably little difference between 2400+\fsb266s^-1 and
something like 3000+\fsb333s^-1. 3000+ is only 18-20% faster than your
2400+, at driving a 3D engine, OpenGL or D3d.
There's a bigger difference between R9600pro (good in its class as it
is) and R9800pro.
The videocard does the heavy work of rendering the screen.
R9800pro is between 50-90% faster than R9600pro. (The tougher the
FX-AA-AF work, - bigger advantage.)
In the past, I've done some 'halfway' video upgrades on ageing cpus.
I've always experienced a dramatic performance improvement. I think
that equates into that the rendering in the video card tend to be the
major bottleneck.
In short, - if it's in your budget, I think you've got the right sort
of idea. ...- And it's what I would do,.. If I had a XP2400+ as my
main PC, and had a very wimpy, useless video card in it, - I'd get a
R9800pro (128MB) or FX5900XT for it. Your main performance
consideration _is_ game performance, right?
....But I have no lack of funds. The other question is if the practical
experience of that better performance is worth the money difference
between R9600pro and R9800pro, for you. That's hard to answer, and I
don't think I can.
ancra
