Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Radeon 9800 Pro, Xp 2400,266mhz,1 gig pc2100 ram, this a good setup ?

Will the 9800 pro use all its power, or should i just stick to the
9600 Pro worth the upgrade to the 9800 Pro ?

Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"We Live for the One we Die for the One" <Mr fred@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
message news:mo00b05dpfopceijfnleuc7rn7opoeiubi@4ax.com...

" Radeon 9800 Pro, Xp 2400,266mhz,1 gig pc2100 ram, this a good setup ?
Will the 9800 pro use all its power, or should i just stick to the 9600 Pro
worth the upgrade to the 9800 Pro ? "


It all depends what games you play. Also, depending on the rest of your
system, upgrades may be better utilised elsewhere. What motherboard do you
have?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Cuzman" wrote
What motherboard do you have?


I think he has an ageing ASUS A7A266.

We Live for the One we Die for the One: The price difference between the
9600XT and the 9800Pro is now very small.
--
Wayne ][

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Eventually we'll reach the point the rest of a computer is thrown in as a
freebie when one buys a display adapter!

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."


"Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40b13664$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Cuzman" wrote
> What motherboard do you have?
>
>
> I think he has an ageing ASUS A7A266.
>
> We Live for the One we Die for the One: The price difference between the
> 9600XT and the 9800Pro is now very small.
> --
> Wayne ][
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Phil Weldon" wrote
> Eventually we'll reach the point the rest of a computer is thrown in as a
> freebie when one buys a display adapter!

Indeed!
I feel a bit sorry for this kid, he has been *theorising* over an upgrade
for about 9 months, but you can never get ahead of the *joneses* as new
things are always creeping out.

If the O.P has a 9600XT, XP2400+, 1GB of PC2100 and an ASUS A7A266 I think
that's a nice enough system, I built something similar for my Brother in
February except I used an ABIT AN7 + 512MB of Crucial PC3200, so instead of
running the XP2400+ @15x133 it is running at 11x200, of course the extra
FSB/Mem MHz really helps.

From my limited recent game playing experience I find it hard to tell the
difference between the 9800 and the 9600XT while running say 1024x768 res.
Of course I can see the difference in benchmarks!
--
Wayne ][

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Yeah, and who can actually SEE 500 frames per second, or even 200 frames per
second for that matter, and as if any monitor could DISPLAY 200 frames per
second!

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."


"Wayne Youngman" <waynes.spamtrap@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40b1da87$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Phil Weldon" wrote
> > Eventually we'll reach the point the rest of a computer is thrown in as
a
> > freebie when one buys a display adapter!
>
> Indeed!
> I feel a bit sorry for this kid, he has been *theorising* over an upgrade
> for about 9 months, but you can never get ahead of the *joneses* as new
> things are always creeping out.
>
> If the O.P has a 9600XT, XP2400+, 1GB of PC2100 and an ASUS A7A266 I think
> that's a nice enough system, I built something similar for my Brother in
> February except I used an ABIT AN7 + 512MB of Crucial PC3200, so instead
of
> running the XP2400+ @15x133 it is running at 11x200, of course the extra
> FSB/Mem MHz really helps.
>
> From my limited recent game playing experience I find it hard to tell the
> difference between the 9800 and the 9600XT while running say 1024x768 res.
> Of course I can see the difference in benchmarks!
> --
> Wayne ][
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Ive got an A7v266-e so iam limited to a Xp 2600 266mhz CPU but can't
get one in Australia so i settled for XP 2400

So you think 9800 would be lets say 50% bettter than a Readeon 9600
pro ?

Worth the upgrade if i keep all i have ?

And upgrading i can do tommorow NEW everthing, but i realy want to cut
that down to maybe a nre PC every four years FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Pcs are SUCH a WASTE of money, as soon as you buy one its worth 50%
less

Thanks.




On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:21:21 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
<notdisclosed@example.com> wrote:

>Yeah, and who can actually SEE 500 frames per second, or even 200 frames per
>second for that matter, and as if any monitor could DISPLAY 200 frames per
>second!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

I am just indicating that rating performance by frames per second may allow
comparisons, but is it a USEFUL comparison, especially since we all seem
perfectly satisfied by movies at 24 frames per second and television
displays at 30, 50, or 60 frames per second (I'm sorry, but PAL and SECAM at
25 frames per second gives me a headache.)

As for my personal use, I like the price on display adapters two generations
behind the bleeding edge. Paying $400 US or $500 US for performance that is
only helpful for a handful of 3-D game programs is a very expensive
performance boost for a very limited use. Money spent on boosting the
performance of your entire system for a wide range of uses is better spent.

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."


"We Live for the One we Die for the One" <Mr fred@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
message news:jrv3b09bg8dqt63o110k3dfaqckuoaarnm@4ax.com...
>
>
> Ive got an A7v266-e so iam limited to a Xp 2600 266mhz CPU but can't
> get one in Australia so i settled for XP 2400
>
> So you think 9800 would be lets say 50% bettter than a Readeon 9600
> pro ?
>
> Worth the upgrade if i keep all i have ?
>
> And upgrading i can do tommorow NEW everthing, but i realy want to cut
> that down to maybe a nre PC every four years FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
>
> Pcs are SUCH a WASTE of money, as soon as you buy one its worth 50%
> less
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:21:21 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
> <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, and who can actually SEE 500 frames per second, or even 200 frames
per
> >second for that matter, and as if any monitor could DISPLAY 200 frames
per
> >second!
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Phil Weldon wrote:

> I am just indicating that rating performance by frames per second may allow
> comparisons, but is it a USEFUL comparison, especially since we all seem
> perfectly satisfied by movies at 24 frames per second and television
> displays at 30, 50, or 60 frames per second (I'm sorry, but PAL and SECAM at
> 25 frames per second gives me a headache.)

Yeah. PAL and SECAM 25 FPS (50Hz refresh) DOES flicker, their claims to the
contrary notwithstanding. I notice it too.

While I'm not sure I buy the whole theory, partly because it's not
something I've spent a lot of time on, there IS research which shows a
perceptible difference with frames rates 'too high to see'. I.E. faster
than the monitor refresh interval.

The postulated reason is that, with movie and TV, you're taking a
'snapshot' of real life movement, not a 'frozen in time' stagnant image
(things don't stop moving for your snapshot to take place), so there is
'smearing' of it over the frame interval and, they think, this provides
additional cues to the eye.

With computer generated frames, however, they ARE simply one stagnant image
after another, computer shifted the 'right amount', 'full frame' at a time,
to the next image to simulate movement. The idea is that faster than the
refresh rate frame generation creates a more lifelike 'moving picture' that
the refresh rate is then taking the 'snapshot' of, kind of like how 'real
life' is moving all the time as the frame is taken.

Seems to me that, if it were 'perceptible', it would appear more like
tearing, since it isn't as if the entire image were moving, only 'part' of
the frame would be in the 'new position', but then I haven't run actual
human tests so I would be speculating whereas others claim to have observed
it. Also, by perceptible they don't mean consciously observable, just that
the observers seem to feel that the 'too fast' frame rates are 'more
realistic'. Maybe the eye compensates for the 'partial' smear just as it
does for flicker and in recreating full color from 3 primaries. That would
make me think there is some minimum multiple (maybe an odd multiple so it
cycles through the image) before the effect would be effective, again, like
a minimum rate to remove flicker.


> As for my personal use, I like the price on display adapters two generations
> behind the bleeding edge. Paying $400 US or $500 US for performance that is
> only helpful for a handful of 3-D game programs is a very expensive
> performance boost for a very limited use. Money spent on boosting the
> performance of your entire system for a wide range of uses is better spent.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

When images on a strip of film are projected onto a screen, the images are
discrete, perhaps separated by a small blank interval, depending on the
projector (one type has continuous film advance rather than intermittent,
and uses a rotating prism syncronized with the film movement to project a
single frame until the next moves into place.)

As for frame rate on a comuter monitor, there is absolutely no way for
information to reach the screen faster than the frame rate of the monitor.
If frame synch is turned off, and the frame generation rate allowed to
exceed the monitor frame rate then GPU and CPU power is just being wasted
because the extra will never reach the screen (to display at twice the
monitor frame rate would mean that half the information is never displayed,
and the GPU and CPU processing power would be better spent on increased
image quality.) And then there would be the displacement with moving objects
or a panning motion at some point in the displayed composite frame.

The "frozen in time" effect is just as present in film as in CGI. After
all, the exposure time can be varied in cinemaphotography to freeze any
motion (the downside is that more sensitive film, a faster lens, increased
scene illumination, and or "pushed" development must be used.) And what
about CGI use in filmed movies ("Hell Boy", "Von Helsing", "Shreck II"?)

Those who report seeing a difference with computer display images when the
computer frame rate is higher than the monitor display rate are either
perceiving the "image tearing" you mention as meaningful screen action
(indicating really short attention spans, really short) or reacting to frame
rate hype for 3-D accelerated adapter cards and games. Or maybe it is the
aura of an impending seizure.

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10b54vdk7psai09@corp.supernews.com...
> Phil Weldon wrote:
>
> > I am just indicating that rating performance by frames per second may
allow
> > comparisons, but is it a USEFUL comparison, especially since we all seem
> > perfectly satisfied by movies at 24 frames per second and television
> > displays at 30, 50, or 60 frames per second (I'm sorry, but PAL and
SECAM at
> > 25 frames per second gives me a headache.)
>
> Yeah. PAL and SECAM 25 FPS (50Hz refresh) DOES flicker, their claims to
the
> contrary notwithstanding. I notice it too.
>
> While I'm not sure I buy the whole theory, partly because it's not
> something I've spent a lot of time on, there IS research which shows a
> perceptible difference with frames rates 'too high to see'. I.E. faster
> than the monitor refresh interval.
>
> The postulated reason is that, with movie and TV, you're taking a
> 'snapshot' of real life movement, not a 'frozen in time' stagnant image
> (things don't stop moving for your snapshot to take place), so there is
> 'smearing' of it over the frame interval and, they think, this provides
> additional cues to the eye.
>
> With computer generated frames, however, they ARE simply one stagnant
image
> after another, computer shifted the 'right amount', 'full frame' at a
time,
> to the next image to simulate movement. The idea is that faster than the
> refresh rate frame generation creates a more lifelike 'moving picture'
that
> the refresh rate is then taking the 'snapshot' of, kind of like how 'real
> life' is moving all the time as the frame is taken.
>
> Seems to me that, if it were 'perceptible', it would appear more like
> tearing, since it isn't as if the entire image were moving, only 'part' of
> the frame would be in the 'new position', but then I haven't run actual
> human tests so I would be speculating whereas others claim to have
observed
> it. Also, by perceptible they don't mean consciously observable, just that
> the observers seem to feel that the 'too fast' frame rates are 'more
> realistic'. Maybe the eye compensates for the 'partial' smear just as it
> does for flicker and in recreating full color from 3 primaries. That would
> make me think there is some minimum multiple (maybe an odd multiple so it
> cycles through the image) before the effect would be effective, again,
like
> a minimum rate to remove flicker.
>
>
> > As for my personal use, I like the price on display adapters two
generations
> > behind the bleeding edge. Paying $400 US or $500 US for performance
that is
> > only helpful for a handful of 3-D game programs is a very expensive
> > performance boost for a very limited use. Money spent on boosting the
> > performance of your entire system for a wide range of uses is better
spent.
> >
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Phil Weldon wrote:

> When images on a strip of film are projected onto a screen, the images are
> discrete, perhaps separated by a small blank interval, depending on the
> projector (one type has continuous film advance rather than intermittent,
> and uses a rotating prism syncronized with the film movement to project a
> single frame until the next moves into place.)

I am aware of how a movie projector works. You missed the point.

> As for frame rate on a comuter monitor, there is absolutely no way for
> information to reach the screen faster than the frame rate of the monitor.

No one said it could.

> If frame synch is turned off, and the frame generation rate allowed to
> exceed the monitor frame rate then GPU and CPU power is just being wasted
> because the extra will never reach the screen (to display at twice the
> monitor frame rate would mean that half the information is never displayed,
> and the GPU and CPU processing power would be better spent on increased
> image quality.) And then there would be the displacement with moving objects
> or a panning motion at some point in the displayed composite frame.
>
> The "frozen in time" effect is just as present in film as in CGI. After
> all, the exposure time can be varied in cinemaphotography to freeze any
> motion (the downside is that more sensitive film, a faster lens, increased
> scene illumination, and or "pushed" development must be used.) And what
> about CGI use in filmed movies ("Hell Boy", "Von Helsing", "Shreck II"?)

You mean they weren't real?

On the other hand I doubt they were generated real time on a PC.

> Those who report seeing a difference with computer display images when the
> computer frame rate is higher than the monitor display rate are either
> perceiving the "image tearing" you mention as meaningful screen action
> (indicating really short attention spans, really short)

It indicates no such thing. Just as perceiving 'purple' from three
phosphors, none of which are 'purple', doesn't 'indicate' you're damn fast
at fourier calculations.

> or reacting to frame
> rate hype for 3-D accelerated adapter cards and games. Or maybe it is the
> aura of an impending seizure.

I told you I had doubts about it but for you to just whimsically dismiss
it, unless you have done the appropriate experiments, is a bit cavalier.

You are looking solely at the 'mechanics' of the 'device' and, using that
kind of analysis, it's also obvious that color television can't work
because there isn't enough bandwidth for the color information, by an order
of magnitude, and you simply can't reproduce the visible spectrum with 3
fixed wavelength phosphors. But it does work due to the peculiarities of
the human eye and human perception.

But I'm not going to 'argue' it with you because it isn't my theory and I'm
not an expert on it. I simply note that there ARE people who say it makes a
difference, based on experiments they've done, and they have a theory as to
why.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

I didn't explain to you how movie projectors work, I just responded to your
description of the 'theory' and the errors in that 'theory' as you describe
it. Evidently the expounders of that theory don't understand how movie
projectors work, nor how the cameras work either.

How the CGI composite images were generated has nothing with how they are
currently displayed in cinemas. The point is that they are quite satisfying
at 24 frames per seconds.

And of course color television isn't impossible, and WHAT bandwidth? USA
broadcast channels? Video amplifier bandwidth in television receivers?
Red bandwidth? Green bandwidth? Blue bandwidth? Video bandwidth? In NTSC
encoding, GREEN bandwidth is more than three times that of BLUE, something
like 1.7 MHz to .5 MHz, with RED bandwidth falling somewhere in between.

I don't whimiscally dismiss theory, it is bogus and I make fun of it, as it
deserves. NTSC television, on the other hand, depends on valid theories
that are confirmed, and depends on information that reaches the screen. The
video game rate "theory" evidently depends on information that does not
reach the screen. THAT is why I make fun of it.
--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10b5gq2oeirgb05@corp.supernews.com...
> Phil Weldon wrote:
>
> > When images on a strip of film are projected onto a screen, the images
are
> > discrete, perhaps separated by a small blank interval, depending on the
> > projector (one type has continuous film advance rather than
intermittent,
> > and uses a rotating prism syncronized with the film movement to project
a
> > single frame until the next moves into place.)
>
> I am aware of how a movie projector works. You missed the point.
>
> > As for frame rate on a comuter monitor, there is absolutely no way for
> > information to reach the screen faster than the frame rate of the
monitor.
>
> No one said it could.
>
> > If frame synch is turned off, and the frame generation rate allowed to
> > exceed the monitor frame rate then GPU and CPU power is just being
wasted
> > because the extra will never reach the screen (to display at twice the
> > monitor frame rate would mean that half the information is never
displayed,
> > and the GPU and CPU processing power would be better spent on increased
> > image quality.) And then there would be the displacement with moving
objects
> > or a panning motion at some point in the displayed composite frame.
> >
> > The "frozen in time" effect is just as present in film as in CGI.
After
> > all, the exposure time can be varied in cinemaphotography to freeze any
> > motion (the downside is that more sensitive film, a faster lens,
increased
> > scene illumination, and or "pushed" development must be used.) And what
> > about CGI use in filmed movies ("Hell Boy", "Von Helsing", "Shreck II"?)
>
> You mean they weren't real?
>
> On the other hand I doubt they were generated real time on a PC.
>
> > Those who report seeing a difference with computer display images when
the
> > computer frame rate is higher than the monitor display rate are either
> > perceiving the "image tearing" you mention as meaningful screen action
> > (indicating really short attention spans, really short)
>
> It indicates no such thing. Just as perceiving 'purple' from three
> phosphors, none of which are 'purple', doesn't 'indicate' you're damn fast
> at fourier calculations.
>
> > or reacting to frame
> > rate hype for 3-D accelerated adapter cards and games. Or maybe it is
the
> > aura of an impending seizure.
>
> I told you I had doubts about it but for you to just whimsically dismiss
> it, unless you have done the appropriate experiments, is a bit cavalier.
>
> You are looking solely at the 'mechanics' of the 'device' and, using that
> kind of analysis, it's also obvious that color television can't work
> because there isn't enough bandwidth for the color information, by an
order
> of magnitude, and you simply can't reproduce the visible spectrum with 3
> fixed wavelength phosphors. But it does work due to the peculiarities of
> the human eye and human perception.
>
> But I'm not going to 'argue' it with you because it isn't my theory and
I'm
> not an expert on it. I simply note that there ARE people who say it makes
a
> difference, based on experiments they've done, and they have a theory as
to
> why.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Phil Weldon wrote:

> I didn't explain to you how movie projectors work,


I didn't say you did. I said I know how they work, which includes your
"rotating prism" explanation and the rest.

> I just responded to your
> description of the 'theory' and the errors in that 'theory' as you describe
> it. Evidently the expounders of that theory don't understand how movie
> projectors work, nor how the cameras work either.

They understand it just fine.

> How the CGI composite images were generated has nothing with how they are
> currently displayed in cinemas.

More appropriately, "how they are currently displayed" has nothing to do
with how they are generated, which is the POINT of their theory: what
happens BEFORE it's sent to display.

> The point is that they are quite satisfying
> at 24 frames per seconds.

Which is irrelevant to the idea they proposed.

> And of course color television isn't impossible,

Yes, of course. And I gave the reason why.

> and WHAT bandwidth?

The color information, as I said. Makes no difference 'where' in the whole
schlemiel we look, there is a LIMIT to how much color information can
POSSIBLY be there because of how it's encoded.

> USA
> broadcast channels? Video amplifier bandwidth in television receivers?
> Red bandwidth? Green bandwidth? Blue bandwidth? Video bandwidth? In NTSC
> encoding, GREEN bandwidth is more than three times that of BLUE, something
> like 1.7 MHz to .5 MHz, with RED bandwidth falling somewhere in between.

NTSC. The entire video bandwidth for luminance is 4.2 MHz. All of that is
available for 'B&W'. For color, the chroma subcarrier is modulated on top
of it at about 3.58Mhz and is comprised of two color information signals, I
and Q, (since we can use those with the luminance to recreate 3 primary
color signals). The I signal is bandwidth limited to about 1.5 MHz with the
Q limited to about .6 Mhz. That's the 'best' you could get without the
attendant phase and amplitude distortions resulting from broadcast
transmission.

(If you care, the I and Q are derived as follows"

I = 0.74 (R'-Y) - 0.27 (B'-Y) = 0.60 R' - 0.28 G' - 0.32 B'
Q = 0.48 (R'-Y) + 0.41 (B'-Y) = 0.21 R' - 0.52 G' + 0.31 B'

)

Now, subtract a .6Mhz bandwidth signal from a 4.2 MHz bandwidth signal and
the useful resulting signal is not going to contain any more resolution
than the lower of the two bandwidths: .6 MHz (plus uncorrected high
frequency luminance components, unless they're filtered out.)

The result is that NTSC color resolution STINKS. Which is one reason why
they make incredibly lousy PC monitors.

But, as it turns out, the human eye is more sensitive to luminance
information than it is to color so your mind's eye just doesn't give much
of a tinker's dam about how positively dismal the color resolution is when
viewing 'natural scenes' (as opposed to graphics/text) on a TV.


> I don't whimiscally dismiss theory, it is bogus and I make fun of it, as it
> deserves.

That's exactly what they said about Goddard's stupid notion that rockets
would work in the vacuum of space.

> NTSC television, on the other hand, depends on valid theories
> that are confirmed, and depends on information that reaches the screen. The
> video game rate "theory" evidently depends on information that does not
> reach the screen. THAT is why I make fun of it.

Your 'humor' of it is based on a false premise then.