russianbossman97301 said:i currantly am running a spakle geforce 9400 1gb ddr2 ho much would be improving with an upgrade to one of the above
Here it is compaired with other cards the lowest which is GT220 which is close or better than your current 9400. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-240,2475... the upgrade would be substantial.
Quote:Athlon 64 X2s are getting a bit long in the tooth, might get slight bottleneck but overall for COD it should be fine, there should be no reason that you couldn't play COD with high detail @ 1440x900 with 2xAA. Saying that though COD is on of the easier games as far as specification most other games you'd probably have to scale back to medium settings.
The GTS 240 would be way better than your current 9400 GT but the GT240 is getting long in the tooth as well, I believe its a rebadged 9600GT from 2008 but its still capable. If the budget allows I would drop in an Athlon II X3 and a GTS 250 which should be attainable for less than $200.
But to answer your question more clearly, yes COD will play well.
what is long in the tooth? is it cache related?
Here is the golden rules, always read the reviews regardless of the perceived hierarchy.
Most desktop Nvidia video cards are "Geforce" they just stopped announcing it and marketing it as a "Geforce". The 9800 GT is faster than ALOT of video cards with GT infront of its name. For example the GT210, GT220, GT240 are all slower than the a vanilla 9800 GT.
where can i get a vanilla 9800 and what does the vanilla part mean?
russianbossman97301 said:i thought the gt series was better than the geforce because i also was told the 9800 was way better than the 9400
The GT and GTS definition is a marked gimmick that started with the GTX2xx cards since they had already used up the 9xxx series for their cards. This way they could start at the beginning again. For example the GTS250 is a rebranded 9800GTX+
Quote:Vanilla, I mean its a regular 9800 GT, nothing fancy not an overclocked version or a soup up version.
The 9800 GT from 2008 is a rebadged 8800 GT from 2006 and is still faster than the GT210, GT220, and GT240 from late 2009. Shocking isnt it!
I'm not saying to suddenly get the 9800 GT, you need to decide what your budget is, whether your PSU can cope with it before you jump and buy it.
i know nothing about graphic cards cpu requirements this is my proccessor ADA5600IAA6CZ
Quote:What model name/number is your mates quad core? Not all quad cores are the same.
Even the slowest quadcore would most probably be faster than the fastest dual core "overall", there might be the odd task the dual core would be faster in. More applications are becoming multi threaded so dual cores will be going slower whilst quads start to peek in performance over time. Think of a quad core as wine, it matures with age.
funny yo see it that way, because i actually agree, but for 2009 and probably early 2010 my dual core kicks gludious maximus
Quote:Not true, for the most part during 2009 dual cores were starting to show its age. For example with clock for clock the old Athlon X2s are slower than the new Athlon II and Phenom II quad cores so even if the application or game task you are doing only takes advantage of two of the four cores the "new" quad cores two cores are faster than your old athlon's two cores.
well i only make my assessment from my experience, so maybe my proccessor is not as bad as most dual cores or maybe it's my computer habbits as tend to not multi task much and i don't use to any demanding programs though i don't remember my friends processor model i know it was 50 dollars and i paid 160 for my processor which to me seems to high, but maybe is better than his, but overall i agrre that quads are better, thats why i plan to get a phenomx4, but must wait until i have a better board than i'm sing since i want to experiment with sli
Palit GTS 250 $112
The performance of all these cards can be found on the chart above.
will mobo have enough power or does it get power directly from the power supply?
rolli59 said:Power from the power supply and you need to have a power supply that has 24amps minimum on the +12 volt rail.
i don't understand what that means. here is a link to my power supply specs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... as educated guess i would say my power supply is 18 amps on the 12v rail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ImageGallery.aspx?CurImag... If you look at the picture in the link You see all the voltage output with amps underneath. Your particular unit shows 3 +12volt rails with max amps on each rail under neath, there under it has the total combined wattge that those rails can supply at the same time. In this case 450watts which then gives 450w/12v=37.5amps total on the +12 volt rails.
rolli59 said:http://www.newegg.com/Product/ImageGallery.aspx?CurImag... If you look at the picture in the link You see all the voltage output with amps underneath. Your particular unit shows 3 +12volt rails with max amps on each rail under neath, there under it has the total combined wattge that those rails can supply at the same time. In this case 450watts which then gives 450w/12v=37.5amps total on the +12 volt rails.
oh ok thankz i didn realize i had to add them, will it only work if use 2 rails on the card with the adaptor or can i just use the 6 pin connector on the power supply?