Prev: display port on - HP Compaq dc7900 Ultra-Slim Desktop
Next: lcd repalcemnte on a laptop packard bell
From: kony on 3 Apr 2010 10:39
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:24:38 -0500, Joel <Joel(a)NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>Anoi Ance <noi(a)home.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:03:31 +0100, GT frustrated with the OS wrote:
>>
>> > "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message
>> > news:hoqt6b$j6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> [quoted text muted]
>> >
>> > Would an HD 3450 be faster at 3d games than the 8500? Benchmarks are hard to
>> > go on because the cards are different eras and the reviews compare different
>> > games. 3dMark scores are also useless as they are different versions too.
>> > Has anyone compared these two cards directly?
>>
>>
>> I think these days especially if you have DD2 memory you could find a
>> CPU/mothwerboard combo under $80-100 w/ video that would handle your
>> needs. Like a Amd X4 635 Biostar AM2/2+ board w/ ATI HD3000 vga $90USD
>> that should be able to play all the HD + 5.1ch you need, when you need it.
>>
>> Tom's hardware guide has an excellent interactive vga comparison guide
>> that lets you select and compare vga cards performances for different
>> application software. Any of the later vga card reviews should have a
>> chart at the conclusion that recommends which vga cards you would need
>> consider before you actually notice performance increases.
>>
>> The issue you have now is finding a quiet DX9c, or DX10 AGP in case you do
>> want to play games, that fits your case and power supply. Another poster
>> recommended some of the older AGP VGA cards (ATI X850, 9650) but those
>> cards need to match your case and I wouldn't take any less than DX9c
>> capable.
>
> I have never been a gamer, but I had to upgrade my graphic card to DX10 (I
>think mine is 10 or hgiher) because DX9 is the monimum requirement for
>Windows 7.


.... isn't that only if you want the Aero interface? IMO,
it's neat and pretty but also saps usability... but to each
his own preference.
From: kony on 3 Apr 2010 10:44
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:37:17 -0500, Joel <Joel(a)NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>kony <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:21:24 -0500, Joel <Joel(a)NoSpam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"GT" <ContactGT_rem_ove_(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Full Current Spec:
>> >> Shuttle SK41 case with original motherboard (Forgotten model)
>> >> Athlon 2500
>> >> 1.5GB DDR2 (2 sticks)
>> >> 1x IDE drive
>> >> 1x DVD drive
>> >> 1x 120mm fan
>> >> 1x AGP Radeon 8500 (passive) - to be replaced.
>> >
>> > Get a faster CPU and more memory.. That's about all you need cuz faster
>> >graphic card won't make much or any difference besides faster displaying.
>> >
>> > And if you want faster encoding (authoring) then Win7 holds a very
>> >important key. Here, I authoring DVD 24/7 and I can tell you that Win7
>> >64-bit cooks it much faster than WinXP.
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> The absolute last thing that matters, given the right
>> codecs, is Win7.
>>
>> On the contrary, Win7 on average pales in comparison to XP
>> when it comes to performance.
>
> I have been doing DVD authoring and WinRAR almost none stop for years, and
>I can smell the speed difference between WinXP and Win7

In these tasks you won't find a significant difference.
More likely you are simply using a faster CPU and/or more
evolved video codec and version of WinRAR. For example at
some point they started becoming multi-threaded so our
dual/quad/etc CPUs could be put to better use.



>
>> If you want to talk about features on the other hand...
>> well then it depends entirely on what features the PC owner
>> deems important.
>
> Features? I only use my computer for DVD Authoring and photo retouching,
>other than that I don't know what kinda of feature I am missing. Or I don't
>play game, don't listen to music, and don't play video etc.. to know more
>about the features besides doing theng faster.
>
>> ... but generally speaking, it is nonsense that the OS makes
>> any significant difference in comparison to any other
>> factors including CPU, video card, software, driver, etc.
>
> I heard some do, but I am not experted on this to confirm it. IOW,
>recently Adobe claims their newer Photoshop (I am still using CS3) can take
>advantage of Windows 64-bit and graphic card.

Yes, but this isn't OS so much as comparing a newer
application, and 32/64bit of any OS, and of course you have
a different driver for each.



> IOW, 99.99% of things come out of my mouth are things I have seen with my
>very own eyes, some of them could be mistaken or something ain't right.

You are experiencing the evolution of PCs, that they get
faster, but it is despite the bloat of certain newer OS.

On the other hand, given specific scenarios you may need a
newer OS to support certain things like more memory, more
CPU cores, the newest version of an application... other
things that can in themselves improve performance.

When I speak of XP and Vista or Win7 I am comparing
apples:apples where all the rest stays as near the same as
possible, not just a computer from a few years ago to one
today. Certainly they have become faster overall.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: display port on - HP Compaq dc7900 Ultra-Slim Desktop
Next: lcd repalcemnte on a laptop packard bell