NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400 [Display adapter] (I found this because I helped him long-distance not long ago and I make him run a program to know all the part of his computer, hihihi).
He has also an integrated one on his board (Board: Seanix Technology Inc. GA-8S661FXM-775) -- but I doubt integrated video card is that good and I guess that is why he installed the mx 400 one.
IMHO, all I want is a card that will allow him to get all the newest game playable (30fps+ I guess is what is required) for 1y/1.5y+. If the r9600 stuff are not up to do that in your opinion (or in practice) then it is not really worth it, especially if the gf6600 will scale for 1/1.5y+
Unless you want the ultimate experience with all the effects and max resolution (not sure that always allow you to enjoy the gaming more, but I guess it depends the person).
Paying 2x more for a card that will be half price next year and that you won't use to its full capacity, might be a waste of money.
Example:
card1, performance = 100%, price = 100$
card2, performance = 200%, price = 200$
But for year1, all you need is performance of card1. Then in one year, you begin to need card2. But in 1y, card2 will be 100$. Then you pay 100$ each year... but the 2nd year, you can resell your card1 for some buck too. So that decrease your cost. Maybe it doesn't always work that way.
Anyway I think if the 141$ deal I can get still persist tomorrow, that will be a good buy.
And I doubt he need all this TV Tuner, VideoIn (like the MSI with VIVO that would have attracted me more). He will play games and use his computer for do non-intensive stuff (chat, homework, watch video, etc.). So that will do the job and well I believe.
Unless now that I say this you tell me, with the 9600 pro, you will be able to do the job for at less 1y and a good job, but I think I understood that the 9600pro is a little bit behind now. (http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=191&card2=75 -- most difference are in chip detail)
Yeah and I compare let's say the 9600pro vs. 6600 on the 3Digest (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/) the 6600 seems sometime similar, but always upper (I only check lowest resolution without special effect) and sometime way upper. Not that I know what all benchmark number mean but I try to figure out how it looks like compared to other.
If that is fps in the number, then I guess 6600 is a good choice for the buck. It seems to scale a little, and I don't want to go too high in price. I think that will be very benefit compared to what he used to have and I guess all newest game will run on a 6600.
Now last thing I go check is if the asus board that I can get is good enough and has no hidden stuff. ;-)
He has also an integrated one on his board (Board: Seanix Technology Inc. GA-8S661FXM-775) -- but I doubt integrated video card is that good and I guess that is why he installed the mx 400 one.
IMHO, all I want is a card that will allow him to get all the newest game playable (30fps+ I guess is what is required) for 1y/1.5y+. If the r9600 stuff are not up to do that in your opinion (or in practice) then it is not really worth it, especially if the gf6600 will scale for 1/1.5y+
Unless you want the ultimate experience with all the effects and max resolution (not sure that always allow you to enjoy the gaming more, but I guess it depends the person).
Paying 2x more for a card that will be half price next year and that you won't use to its full capacity, might be a waste of money.
Example:
card1, performance = 100%, price = 100$
card2, performance = 200%, price = 200$
But for year1, all you need is performance of card1. Then in one year, you begin to need card2. But in 1y, card2 will be 100$. Then you pay 100$ each year... but the 2nd year, you can resell your card1 for some buck too. So that decrease your cost. Maybe it doesn't always work that way.
Anyway I think if the 141$ deal I can get still persist tomorrow, that will be a good buy.
And I doubt he need all this TV Tuner, VideoIn (like the MSI with VIVO that would have attracted me more). He will play games and use his computer for do non-intensive stuff (chat, homework, watch video, etc.). So that will do the job and well I believe.
Unless now that I say this you tell me, with the 9600 pro, you will be able to do the job for at less 1y and a good job, but I think I understood that the 9600pro is a little bit behind now. (http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=191&card2=75 -- most difference are in chip detail)
Yeah and I compare let's say the 9600pro vs. 6600 on the 3Digest (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/) the 6600 seems sometime similar, but always upper (I only check lowest resolution without special effect) and sometime way upper. Not that I know what all benchmark number mean but I try to figure out how it looks like compared to other.
If that is fps in the number, then I guess 6600 is a good choice for the buck. It seems to scale a little, and I don't want to go too high in price. I think that will be very benefit compared to what he used to have and I guess all newest game will run on a 6600.
Now last thing I go check is if the asus board that I can get is good enough and has no hidden stuff. ;-)
Facebook
Twitter