Do I really NEED my 9800 Pro now that I'm switching to a LCD??

[HardWired]

I have a Built by ATI 9800 Pro and it cost me 4 bills ($429 w/ tax...bought it locally).

I have a new LCD coming that's running me $726 and I'm wondering with a 60Hz. refresh rate on the LCD if I'm really going to be making use of the 9800 Pro, or if it's way overkill for a LCD since the display will only produce 60 frames per second anyway.

I was thinking of returning my 9800 Pro (still under 30 days from BestBuy) and buying a 95009600 and saving my self $200-$250 to help offset the cost of the new display on it's way.

I have a good grasp on hardware, and vid cards and the like, but was just wanting to get some input as to whether I can save myself $250 and still have acceptable framefrate with the 9500/9600.

 

[DaFinn]

What you mean only 60 frames??? 1st, if you LCD only has 60Hz refresh rate its not a very good LCD. 2nd, refresh rate only affects framerate if V-Sync is on. 3rd, 9500/9600 will not get anywhere near 60 fps in upcoming games like Doom3/ H-L 2 etc...

I guess it all depends how much gaming you're gonna do. For any other use, i would say ditch the 9800.

 

[FearoftheNight]

refresh rate dont' mean that much for LCS...response time matters not refresh

 

[r0guenj]

refresh rates are only for crt's anyway....(i think) the refresh rate for lcd's is just for compatibility/setting up the video card to use an lcd because you have to have something to set (can't remember if i am thinking of the same thing here....)

correct me if im wrong anybody......don't have an lcd but want one.......i am gonna wait till my nec 21" dies.......

 

[capricorn]

If you go looking at LCDs, which I just did recently, you'll find LCDs with refresh rates of 60-85 Hz. But I also read an article somewhere about why 60 Hz may actually be better than 75 Hz for LCD monitors. In general, it's the response time that is the driver.

At any rate, the real reason for having a 9800 vs. any other card is to get good frame rate in the latest games or 3D CAD programs. If you are not a hardcore gamer, the 9800 is probably overkill for anything you do. If you are a hardcore gamer, you still need a good graphics engine rendering your display regardless if the display is a CRT or LCD. The 9800 is the current top dog in the gaming world, and there are some games in the pipeline that will definitely give the 9800 a workout. If all I ever looked at were web pages, Word docs, and spreadsheets, my five year old 16 MB nVidia TNT2 card would be more than enough. If you're not a gamer, you could save some serious cash with a 9500 and be happy. Maybe you could take the difference and buy an all-in-wonder version of the 9700 Pro (about $350) or go with the All-In-Wonder 8500DV (about $170). Those would let you have Tivo-like functionality on your computer - you could watch TV on the PC and do some video editing if that's of interest to you. Basically, whether or not a 9800 vs 9500 makes sense depends on what you do.

-cap

 

[Lonyo]

What size/resolution is the LCD? If it's 1280x960 or higher, then get the 9800Pro, you should be able to run most things with 6xAA/16xAF at probably 60fps, it'd be nice.
If it's "only 1024x768 or something, then a 9800Pro would be overkill as you don't need that much power when you're limited to 1024 by the LCD's resolution. Get a 9700 or 9500Pro in that case.

 

[HardWired]

Thanks for your all your input....It's a 19" Planar PX191 (native 1280x1024) that I'm buying. It has a pixel response time of 25 ms. There a guy in another group that has found some of the first release "old" ATI 9500's with the red pcb, and L-shaped memory that look like the 9700 and he's been able to get the 9700 Pro bench numbers out of it with the softmod, including bios flash. I was thinking for $150, that would be close enough for me since I play less and less games as I'm getting older.

Less gaming in my life is also why I didn't go with a 16 ms. LCD. I know all about the 16 ms. response time LCD's out there (including Planar's) but again, I'm not that much into games and I won't go down to 17" to get that fast of pixel response time. No one makes a LCD bigger than 17" AND a sub 20 ms., afaik.

And you know what? I'll probably d'l DoomIII and Half-Life II off the newsgroups and spend maybe an hour total with them just to check them out. I really don't care about kill and conquer and all that. I play NFS:HPII right now "once in a while" and that's really about it for games.


I have two weeks left under the 30 return poilcy to bring back my 9800 Pro and for as little to almost no gaming that I seems to do anymore ...I'm sitting here wondering why I bought it (other than to be "King of the Hill") and I'm thinking the 9500 to the 9700 mod maybe the way to go...at least until the next round of killer cards come out and I get an itching to buy one

P.S DaFinn: Most if LCD's run at 60 Hz.. It's a different technology than CRT's and 60 Hz. is average and appropriate for an LCD.

 

[Mday]

25ms response time is 40fps by the LCD. the point of getting the 9800 right now is bragging rights. otherwise, you're just spending money. if you really care about saving money, why the hell did you get the 9800 in the first place.

 

[HardWired]

That's what I was looking for I guess is what FPS the LCD displays. So 25 ms. equaling 40 FPS makes sense.

And as I said, NOW I'm buying the new $700+ LCD. I wasn't really considering that purchse when buying the card, but rather sticking with my CRT. So returning the 9800 would save me $250 and help offset the cost of the new spendy LCD. Get it?

 

[pelikan]

Originally posted by: Mday
25ms response time is 40fps by the LCD. the point of getting the 9800 right now is bragging rights. otherwise, you're just spending money. if you really care about saving money, why the hell did you get the 9800 in the first place.

That is not true. I have an LCD and can watch frame rates in UT2003 go near 200 FPS. If I turn on Vsync then frame rates stay at 75, as my monitor's refresh rate is 75Hz.

 

[murphy55d]

Yeah, the 40fps only applies if you have vsync turned on. I too have a 19" Planar, with 25ms response, and 60mhz refresh, and as long as I keep vsync off, I have no framerate issues.

 

[pelikan]

I use vsync. I find that a constant 75 FPS is very smooth with my system.

 

[boyRacer]

LCDs don't have a refresh rate like CRTs do because they do not have that cancer gun shooting at you... ...each individual pixel is changing color on the LCD. Sometimes i still want my Trinitron back.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

You can't see 60fps anyway, so it wouldn't matter if it were a CRT or LCD... I have no idea how your logic is working. How did you get all that money??

 

[murphy55d]

pelikan, there is no way your LCD can do 75fps with vsync on. It's response time would have to be between like 5 and 10. 15ms is roughly equal to 60fps, i believe. refresh rate AFAIK doesnt play a factor here.

correct me if i'm wrong though.. i may be mistaken.

 

[pelikan]

Originally posted by: murphy55d
pelikan, there is no way your LCD can do 75fps with vsync on. It's response time would have to be between like 5 and 10. 15ms is roughly equal to 60fps, i believe. refresh rate AFAIK doesnt play a factor here.

correct me if i'm wrong though.. i may be mistaken.

I can enable "show FPS" in quite a few games and then watch a constant 75fps with vsync on. My monitors response time is rated at 25ms.

 

[fumbduck]

no you don't need it. give it to me.

 

[pelikan]

murphy55d- I've just done some research. I found this at Toms Hardware:

Response time of 50 ms = 1/ 0.050 = 20 images displayed on the screen per second.
Response time of 30 ms = 1/ 0.030 = 33 images displayed on the screen per second.
Response time of 16 ms = 1/ 0.016 = 62.5 .
Response time of 11.6 ms = 1/ 0.0116 = 86.2 images displayed on the screen per second.

So my LCD, with a response time of 25ms = 40 images displayed on the screen per second.

Why then do games show me 75 fps with vsync on and as high as 200+ fps with vsync off? It must be that "images displayed on the screen per second" does not equal "frames per second." I think the frames per second that I am claiming are real, but that response time may not display the frames well enough to do it without ghosting. It took me a year, but the other day I finally noticed slight ghosting on monitor.

 

[Cadaver]

LCD pixel response time has more to do with ghosting/blurring.
DVI LCDs update the screen at 60Hz, but since only pixels that change from frame to frame are updated, the image looks rock stable. VGA analog LCDs have to update all pixels, which is one reason VGA LCDs dont generally have as good of an image as a DVI LCD. The analog to digital conversion can also blur edges between light an dark colors, resulting in a picture thats less sharp.
A slow pixel response time simply means that some pixels will still be 'on' when the next frame is drawn, resulting in LCD ghosting. Faster response time means less ghosting.
Turning on vsync will prevent tearing in games, much the same way it will for CRTs. Turning off vsync will allow the video card to push as many FPS as possible, but there will be some/more ghosting. Vsyncing an LCD will prevent tearing, but ghosting will still exist. How much this ghosting bothers you is an individual preference. I have good LCDs on all my computers, and the ghosting doesn't bother me at all.
CRTs dont generally have this ghosting problem since pixel response times are so fast. Higher CRT refresh rates mean less frame tearing at higher FPS (up to 120Hz on some monitors/cards).
This is why hard-core gamers still prefer high refresh-rate CRTs to LCDs.

 

[gf4200isdabest]

To be honest, you don't really need that 9800. The 9600 will run all the upcoming games just fine so, since you seem tight on the budget, I suggest you save yourself the money and get a 9600. You could save even more money by buying from a place like newegg.com or googlegear.com which both are much more reliable (not to mention cheaper!) than even your local BestBuy.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that a card like the 9600 will not have "acceptable" frame rates for doom3 and the like. I, for one, will be running these games on a gf4 4400 o/c'ed to 4600 speed. I am not expecting to be running the games at 1600x1200 with AA but I do expect at least 30 FPS at 1024x768 on normal detail. Maybe in a year or two I will buy a new video card but I'm gonna be fine until then.

My conclusion: It's never a good idea to buy the very top of the line if you're on a budget.

 

[pelikan]

Originally posted by: Cadaver
LCD pixel response time has more to do with ghosting/blurring.
DVI LCDs update the screen at 60Hz, but since only pixels that change from frame to frame are updated, the image looks rock stable. VGA analog LCDs have to update all pixels, which is one reason VGA LCDs dont generally have as good of an image as a DVI LCD. The analog to digital conversion can also blur edges between light an dark colors, resulting in a picture thats less sharp.
A slow pixel response time simply means that some pixels will still be 'on' when the next frame is drawn, resulting in LCD ghosting. Faster response time means less ghosting.
Turning on vsync will prevent tearing in games, much the same way it will for CRTs. Turning off vsync will allow the video card to push as many FPS as possible, but there will be some/more ghosting. Vsyncing an LCD will prevent tearing, but ghosting will still exist. How much this ghosting bothers you is an individual preference. I have good LCDs on all my computers, and the ghosting doesn't bother me at all.
CRTs dont generally have this ghosting problem since pixel response times are so fast. Higher CRT refresh rates mean less frame tearing at higher FPS (up to 120Hz on some monitors/cards).
This is why hard-core gamers still prefer high refresh-rate CRTs to LCDs.

Good info., thanks.

 

[StormRider]

You most definitely need the most powerful graphics card you can afford if you want to play games on an LCD -- since most LCDs operate best at native resolution (1280 x 1024). It's not really a refresh rate thing (most LCDs operate best at 60 Hz) -- it's the massive amount of pixels you need to push around at 1280x1024 or higher.

 

[HardWired]

Originally posted by: gf4200isdabest
To be honest, you don't really need that 9800. The 9600 will run all the upcoming games just fine so, since you seem tight on the budget, I suggest you save yourself the money and get a 9600. You could save even more money by buying from a place like newegg.com or googlegear.com which both are much more reliable (not to mention cheaper!) than even your local BestBuy.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that a card like the 9600 will not have "acceptable" frame rates for doom3 and the like. I, for one, will be running these games on a gf4 4400 o/c'ed to 4600 speed. I am not expecting to be running the games at 1600x1200 with AA but I do expect at least 30 FPS at 1024x768 on normal detail. Maybe in a year or two I will buy a new video card but I'm gonna be fine until then.

My conclusion: It's never a good idea to buy the very top of the line if you're on a budget.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion. There's a lot of good info to consider.

How about this question... I can get a 9500 non-pro with red pcb and L-shaped memory that will soft mod to a 9700, and with a bios flash, it will o'c and perform almost on par with a 9700 Pro. And it only costs $150. Would that be more cost effect and performance effective than an overclocked 9600? which runs around $200?

 

[HardWired]

Well it turns out this might not be a bad deal after all.

At this link... NewEgg is selling the Sapphire 9500 Non-Pro with the red PCB and L-shaped memory for 149.99 shipped. It is not clock locked so a bios flash is not needed to o'c it, and with a software driver mod, people have been having great success getting 9700 Pro type performance out of it.

I may go for it and see how she runs before getting a refund for my 9800 Pro. I know it's not 100% guaranteed, but the odds look good, and If it works as the reviews at NewEgg are giving it, I may just save the $279 (which includes the local tax I paid) and put that towards the new LCD.

Again, thanks for the discussion back and forth. It's been helpful

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: gf4200isdabest
To be honest, you don't really need that 9800. The 9600 will run all the upcoming games just fine so, since you seem tight on the budget, I suggest you save yourself the money and get a 9600. You could save even more money by buying from a place like newegg.com or googlegear.com which both are much more reliable (not to mention cheaper!) than even your local BestBuy.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that a card like the 9600 will not have "acceptable" frame rates for doom3 and the like. I, for one, will be running these games on a gf4 4400 o/c'ed to 4600 speed. I am not expecting to be running the games at 1600x1200 with AA but I do expect at least 30 FPS at 1024x768 on normal detail. Maybe in a year or two I will buy a new video card but I'm gonna be fine until then.

My conclusion: It's never a good idea to buy the very top of the line if you're on a budget.

i must agree with you, there is not way software companies are going to release games that requires 9700 pro or better to run. the lesser the requirements, the more they sell