Intel vs. AMD

Creative makes a good card and as you pointed out, you don't need the top end models for good sound on a 2.1 system. I noticed a board with the X-Fi chipset for sale on Newegg, $45.99.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102007
It won't break the bank and is better than the $20 base model. A lot cheaper than some of the $200 + X-Fi cards. What were you thinking about spending?

If I was putting a card in a high end PC, I'd lean more toward this one.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102005
Even at $94.99 it won't break the bank.

 

as little as possible. really i'm quit content with the onboard audio of my p5w dh deluxe but from what everybody keeps telling me, i'm missing out. i don't want or need anything too extravagent. i used to have a SB live and thought it sounded pretty good. the audigy's are better but used to be expensive. i can't believe how much the price has dropped on them.

an audigy would probably suffice but there's several models of them and i'm too dumb or lazy to know what the difference is between them and which would best suite my needs. btw, i'm not a gammer.

 

The Audigy SE was a good quality cheap card. Sound was fine, and the software had lots of features. Trouble is, they never really worked.

 

The second card I listed uses Creative's better chipset. It's good for both gaming and listening to your DVD movies and music. Both cards should be an improvement over onboard sound. However the onboard audio has improved a lot the last few years. With your upscale C2D system, I think I'd go for a middle of the road card like the last one I listed.

With good onboard audio, it may not be worth the investment for you.

 

Yeah, the reviews at newegg aren't good though are they? I mean I take most newegg reviews with a pinch of salt, but only half of the reviews are 4s or 5s. The card has the same connectors on the back as the Audigy SE, seems to use a similar processor and software, and even the SE has 96khz and 24-bit... So how are they different?

 

I was recommending The X-Fi ExtremeGamer and all you need to do is compare the spec sheets to see the difference. It also had good reviews.
Audigy SE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102012

X-Fi ExtremeGamer
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102005

It's more game oriented, but music audio is supposed to be good as well. Like you said, I take those reviews with a grain of salt. Some people wouldn't know good sound if it bit them on the arse and others expect too much. For a truly top end system you're still talking several hundred dollars for a highend card and speakers.

The cheap X-Fi isn't much better than the SE, but then it only costs about $10 or so more. It's supposed to be better for enhancing game sound. If music is the primary interest, the SE would be good for a cheap card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102007

 

the x-fi has eax 5 the sb a-se has eax 3.

p5n e sli news

new bios 0505 (or somthing) is only of any value to vista users,it fixes no known issues for anybody else. it has been taken down and put back up again since i was given this news but it also appears to remove the ability to change your cpu multi.

sam and mort

the next strap only seems to kick in after 424.

 

Im going to lose my nerves WTF do these gay computer stores sell besides old Radeon C'mon I have called 4 now
1)I asked if they sell a 7600GT no only GS how much? 180au ok what about the 7900 yes but none in stock how much normallly? I dont know bye
2nd store) Do you sell the 7600GT no do you sell the 7900 no whats your top card?, An X1900 ok.
3rd store)Do you sell the 7900 I have no idea Bye WTF!
4th store)Do you sell the Geforce 7600GT no what about the 7900 no what do you sell? Mainly 9550's and 9600's I was like dude are you still in 2002?.LOL
This really peed me off i will look into the first store and maybe the 2nd one but i'd rather want the 7900 the specs are higher then a X1900.

 

5th store are these prices okaish? LOL!

Geforce 7600GT 256MB PCI-E- 179au
Geforce 7900GS 512mb PCi-E- 359au
are they alright?

 

the jump from 76 to 79 looks too much to me in the uk you are talking 100 ish and 150 ish

 

dazila,
Have a look here:

http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/

Have a look under video cards.

 

Thanks for that.
The 7900GTO is 500au inculding GST which is over what i was thinking LOL! the 7600 GT is 220au but hey i have to think that i wont upgarde this or buy a new PC for another 1-1 1/2 or even 2 years so putting better stuff i guess but i think i still might go for the 7600GT well im happy if the 7600GT can run games like flight simulator X (Which is the hardest game to run to date) on high?
the 7600GT would go into a Pentium D 3.4ghz PC with 2gb DDR2.
do you think it would run games like that on high?
http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/index...uspcmarket.com.au/show_product_info.php?input[product_code]=VI-PVN73GE256KS&input[category_id]=

 

dazila,

I'm pretty sure it would(I'm not right up with all the latest cards),but there are more knowledgable folk here who should be able to give you an idea what to expect with that card/setup.

Just had look at the minimum system specs for flight simulator x...

Minimum System Requirements

* Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista
* Processor: 1.0 Ghz
* RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB
* Hard Drive: 14GB
* Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible
* Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones
* Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play

I'm certain your system will be fine @ max settings.

 

mm. but alot of people are saying they've been tricked by microsoft saying that those are min when they ahve pc's much stronger and it lags.
but yeah i guess if i were to buy this pc then i should run it cause
Minimum System Requirements

* Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista -Id have XP pro
* Processor: 1.0 Ghz id have a dual core 3.4ghz
* RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB - id have 2gb ddr2
* Hard Drive:14GB -id have 300gb
* Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible -id have a 256mb GPU
* Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones -id have a 5.1 sound card with 5.1 speakers
* Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play -I have 9.9mbps Cable.

 

Games that only need a 32MB graphics minimum dudn't used to be too taxing, I mean Unreal 2004 needs a 64MB minimum GPU and even my old X800 Pro walked all over it at max settings. However, MS being MS, you'll want the fastest Graphics card you can get. As to whether you can run flightsim X at max detail (I haven't used it personally so I can't tell you how my PC performs in it) it depends what resolution you want to play at. If your monitor only allows 1024x768 you'll be fine with a 7600GT I'd expect, if 1280x1024 you may have to sacrifice a few settings or get the 7900GS. If it's more than that you'll need to either get a very meaty graphics card like a 7950GT or drop the resolution a bit.
if you want to see how the respective graphics cards compare, http://www.tomshardware.com offer the "VGA charts" which is pretty comprehensive.

As an example, in the game Prey, running at 1600x1200 max detail with image filtering on (this shows its a true test of the graphics card rather than anything else)
7600GT: 24fps (a bit jerky)
7900GS: 36fps (relatively smooth)
7900GT: 43fps (mostly smooth)
7950GT: 45fps (mostly smooth)
X1900XT (my card): 50fps (mostly smooth)
8800GTS: 67fps (smooth)
8800GTX: 93fps (absolutely smooth)

Now I don't know how different these numbers will be in Flightsim, but the relative differences should stay about the same.

 

1280x1024 is what im thinking of running it at if it jerks on high i would just put it down to 1024x760 i always like hgher detail over Resolution it all depends person to person funny thing in a game i dont mind resolutions like 800x600 in old games which that is the maxumin but i fell like throwing PC's out the window that have it as their Normal desktop resolution no matter what i dont go under 1024x760 about 11 years ago i had people laugh a the resolution i always used they were used to the then "640x480 or 800x600" i just hate big chunky text my way 15"= 1024x760, 17"=1280x1024 and so on LOL!.

 

Ive played Flight Sim X on a X1900XTX about 100 times but hey 7600GT and X1900XTX are 2 different things comparing to each other.

 

Well, how did it run on the X1900 and at what settings? It should run at around 45-50% of the speed that it did on the radeon.
I always prefer high detail over resolution, but that's usually when I can turn on Anti-Aliasing I don't necessarily mind dropping res (except for me it's typically 1680x1050 or 1280x800 from 2560x1600) but I don't like jagged edges. Unfortunately with Rainbow Six Vegas I have to suffer both! As a pretty crummy rip from an Xbox 360 game it's overly demanding and doesn't support Anti-Aliasing or Anisotropic filtering even if they're forced in hardware. Even at the stupid detail setting I have to play it at to run well on my GPU it looks good. I'm told its performance is improved by running ATi cards in Vista, so I'll have to try that.

 

Wow i never thought the X1900 was that ahead of a 7600GT LOL!
it ran on everything high,high texture,shadow detail,water,cloud rendering,world texture visibilty on 100% etc AA was on max,AF on etc and at 1680x1050 resolution it got about 59fps i tell people this on other places like gamespot and they say im lying how am i freakin lying LOL! some guys over there are desperate to get 20+fps on guy said he is happy with 10fps in the game LOL!

 

Lol owned!
if you can get 60fps with the X1900, then with similar other specs, a 7600GT should pull at least 25-30, which is acceptable. With a D950 and 2GB of RAM the other components shouldn't pull you down that much either. If you're only playing at 1280x1024, then chances are a 7600GT could managed up to 40fps, which isn't too shabby. This is with all the maximum detail shaders left on. I've seen far worse running games than that.