Socket A confusion

  [DELETED] 19:41 17 Dec 2004

Hi guys!

I am trying to upgrade my PC System from Duron 1100 with 256mb ram and nvidia GeForce MMX440. Also I'm adding a new hard drive, a cd rom/writer and new speakers. And I'm getting broadband. There will be no more upgrades as I plan to get a new system in around two years.

I was thinking of buying a barebones bundle with 512mb RAM, but was unsure about which to get.
After spending 48 hours intensive reading on motherboards and processors, I thought I was doing well but when I visited Novatech I saw this:

click here

Can someone tell me if this makes sense?

And can you tell me if I should even be bothering with socket 754 or just stay with a socket A Athlon XP2800 barebones bundle for £40 less.

As for use, I will be buying Call of Duty sooner or later and similar war games.

I would also appreciate it if someone out there could tell me what's the diff in practical terms between framerates for Radeon 9800 Pro (77.6)and GeForce FX5700 (57.2) as in this comparison of graphics cards used to play Call of Duty:

click here

The only reason I ask is money; if I had loads I would just buy the most expensive components and hope, but I haven't and I've recently had cause to regret penny pinching and bargain hunting.


  [DELETED] 22:19 17 Dec 2004

I've worked out it is Novatech's mistake. I suppose they don't care what people put onto their web pages selling their products.

If someone has any idea about the framerates I'd be interested, like for instance does a 10 frame per second drop in the rate cause real noticeable flickering or what? Surely someone out there into games must know something?

Or are they all playing games....... ;-)

  Totally-braindead 22:38 17 Dec 2004

We're all playing games! But I can't tell you about the 5700 v the 9800 but I can give you a similar comparison - sort of. I had a 5600 and one game in particular was stuggling so I upgraded to a 5900 and it works perfectly with all the graphic options on which the 5600 wouldn't do. Now the 9800 frame rates are quite a bit faster than my 5900 so it'll last longer in that as newer games come out it'll cope whereas my 5900 might not. Regarding the framerates it depends on what game you're running so its not an easy question. For example, if you get say 100 fps(frames per second) running on one graphics card and you get 60 fps running on another then I would think you probably wouldn't notice but if you're getting say 10 fps you would, it wouldn't be as smooth and may even look a bit jerky. Sorry if I'm not explaining this too well but 10 fps isn't a lot BUT if the 10fps drops you down to say 10 or 15 fps then you would really notice, if the game still runs at a high fps then it doesn't matter. Clear as mud eh!

  [DELETED] 22:51 17 Dec 2004

Your explanation was clear enough for me and thank you very much for it.
Normally I would go for as much as my purse will stand, but there are those on this forum who have stated that chasing high specs is a waste of good money. It all depends on what you're using the computer for, I know, but I am not likely to get the chance to see what spec does what until I've got it at home and paid for it. In that situation I am forced to ask difficult questions in the hope that someone out there is smart enough to answer before I make guesses and possibly lose out.

  JIM 22:57 17 Dec 2004

following articles worth reading.

How to Buy a Graphics Board.

click here

Old,but points regarding graphics still valid?

click here

  Totally-braindead 23:09 17 Dec 2004

For what its worth heres my advice, Call of Duty ran fine on my 5600 and runs the same on my 5900, it would also run perfectly on a 9800 which, if you look at the charts at Toms Hardware is a faster card, so any of these cards would be fine BUT newer games as you know demand more so if you can afford it I'd go for the Ati 9800 Pro as it'll last you longer than the others and if you look at the prices it should be roughly the same price as my 5900 and its a faster graphics card. Haven't looked at the newer cards that have come out though so I'll have to leave it to somone else to comment as to whether there is a newer card out for about the same price thats better. I'm sure someone will have some thoughts on the subject.

  [DELETED] 23:15 17 Dec 2004

I have already read the article in Toms Hardware along with many others and I thought I understood it all. But if I do understand it right, then a frame is defined as the screen refreshed once.
So if 100fps was being observed on a screen which was running at 100hz refresh rate then surely you wouldn't be able to improve on it by upping the fps would you?
Which leads me to ask why would anyone want to know about 140+ frame rates if they are on a screen that's running short of that?

Or have I got it wrong again?

  [DELETED] 23:30 17 Dec 2004

Thanks for your advice. I am particularly relieved at the knowledge that Call of Duty runs on your computer with those specs. May I ask what processor you use?

I will probably get a card that comes close to the radeon 9800 pro but I'm going to hang around until after I've upgraded my system and get the graphics card in the new year. It will probably come cheaper than its present £140 or so.

  Totally-braindead 13:58 18 Dec 2004

This is me just back on, I have a AMD 2500+ with 256mb Ram and a MSI FX5900XT graphics card and it runs everything I've tried so far.

  [DELETED] 19:59 18 Dec 2004

I have just realised what you have been going through with reference to your posting about the sasser worm/virus, and I think it's great of you to worry about my troubles at the same time.
Thanks a lot.


  howard60 21:39 18 Dec 2004

the barebones bundle at novatech has a foxconn motherboard and in my experience these have problems with xp sp2 even with the latest bios update. I will not buy until I can get it with a different make of motherboard.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

HTC U12 Plus review: Hands-on

Best Android emulators for Mac

TV & Streaming : comment regarder Roland Garros ?