NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › cant find any comparisons for this? my desktop card vs. 128MB x300
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

cant find any comparisons for this? my desktop card vs. 128MB x300

post #1 of 19
11/16/05 at 11:06pm
Thread Starter 
reason im asking is b/c im lookin to buy a 9300 but keep it in my budget for now... which makes me downgrade from the 6800 to the x300
-- eventually to upgrade to the 7800 when needed and its cheaper

my desktop card is pretty old its a 256mb radeon 9250 but its fine for gaming for me i'm a fairly light gamer the occassional cs:s and half life 2

anyway how would the x300 stack up against my desktop card?

also i just looked through dells website... and couldnt find where to buy like spare parts... for instance the 9300 im lookin at in the outlet only has the cd-rw drive but im gonna updgrade it to the one where it reads and burns both cds and dvds
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 19
11/16/05 at 11:16pm
If you don't care about low frames per second and shitty graphics, that card is for you

If you do decide to get the X300, at least get the 128M version.

The 9250 isn't robust card either and is quite old (is it even AGP?). Don't know how much faster or slower the X300 is compared to it.

You're better off getting the 6800Go.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 19
11/16/05 at 11:22pm
Thread Starter 
yep its AGP... pretty ancient as far as video cards go

maybe i can come up with a few extra bucks and get the 6800

thanks
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 19
11/17/05 at 12:04am
Just as a thought...

Save some money elsewhere and get the 6800 go. My old roomate had a X300 based notebook and there is an enormous gap. Plus, higher resolution does help you see things better/ aim for hs easier in CS:S. I would not have believed the gameplay difference if you had told me back then but I'm a believer up to the point I ordered the 7800 go gtx.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 19
11/17/05 at 12:19am
I think higher resolution makes games HARDER.. not easier. Games may look prettier but everything looks smaller, which in turn makes HS and aiming in general harder.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 19
11/17/05 at 12:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyr
I think higher resolution makes games HARDER.. not easier. Games may look prettier but everything looks smaller, which in turn makes HS and aiming in general harder.
Yeah, a lot of CS players say they prefer a lower resolution. But wouldn't a higher resolution make things in the game more detailed, not smaller?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 19
11/17/05 at 12:38am
Text is smaller but people arent any smaller, just sharper with high resolution.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 19
11/17/05 at 12:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBmanNC
Text is smaller but people arent any smaller, just sharper with high resolution.
So why does it make people harder to shoot?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 19
11/17/05 at 1:13am
Thread Starter 
well the 128MB x300 is definitely better than my desktop card... i d/l 3dmark05 and it wouldnt run it at all b/c its not a directx9 based card... so this anwers my previous question
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 19
11/17/05 at 6:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keane3
So why does it make people harder to shoot?

It does? Is that a fact? It makes no difference, everything just looks nicer at a higher res!
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 19
11/17/05 at 6:57am
People who say lower resolutions make people easier hit are just morons. Higher resolutions actually make people easier to hit, specifically you can aim more precisely because of the greater number of possible positions your crosshair can have, and the more detailed character models.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 19
11/17/05 at 7:20am
at low resolutions sometimes bushes look like people's heads.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 19
11/17/05 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blahman
People who say lower resolutions make people easier hit are just morons. Higher resolutions actually make people easier to hit, specifically you can aim more precisely because of the greater number of possible positions your crosshair can have, and the more detailed character models.
Well my friend says he likes to play CS at really low resolutions, like 800x600. I guess I'll have to ask him about it.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 19
11/17/05 at 2:39pm
Back in the day the only reason people played at low res was because it gave a slight advantage in frame rate. I knew Q3A players who wouldn't settle for anything less then an AVARAGE frame rate of 120 FPS. Mainly for reasons of reflex responce.

Does lower resolution equate to higher chances to hit? I doubt it. But any gamer whos convinced themselves that lower resulation is better normally can't be reasoned with.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 19
11/17/05 at 6:28pm
X300 is a lower clocked X600 basically. They are the same chip. Both are basically Radeon 9600, with the X600 being a 9600 Pro and the X300 being a 9550.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 19
11/17/05 at 7:22pm
CS players like lower resolution so that there is a guarantee that there will NEVER be a frame rate drop.
Even a TINY slowdown for .01 second can be the difference between killing or being killed.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 19
11/18/05 at 6:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davenow
CS players like lower resolution so that there is a guarantee that there will NEVER be a frame rate drop.
Even a TINY slowdown for .01 second can be the difference between killing or being killed.

I think hacking in CS:S is the best way to go! Then you dont have to think about your frame rate slowing down for that .01 second.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 19
11/18/05 at 8:43am
A slow-down in css? That game runs on anything, I can play it at 800mhz with bots. The people who worry about 10ms slowdowns need to leave their computer.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 19
11/20/05 at 3:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate2004
reason im asking is b/c im lookin to buy a 9300 but keep it in my budget for now... which makes me downgrade from the 6800 to the x300
-- eventually to upgrade to the 7800 when needed and its cheaper

my desktop card is pretty old its a 256mb radeon 9250 but its fine for gaming for me i'm a fairly light gamer the occassional cs:s and half life 2

anyway how would the x300 stack up against my desktop card?

also i just looked through dells website... and couldnt find where to buy like spare parts... for instance the 9300 im lookin at in the outlet only has the cd-rw drive but im gonna updgrade it to the one where it reads and burns both cds and dvds
If you buy a 9300 you should buy one with the 6800 card and here's why, first off you can buy a new 9300 wiht a 6800 go card for under 1500 dollars with a coupon. Mine was 1477 back in July, check my sig for my specs.
Second, the upgrade to the 6800 go card is only 100 to 150 dollars, if you cannot afford that you shouldnt be buying one at all. 100 to 150 dollars does not add more than a few dollars to a monthly payment.

IF you were to buy the 6800 go card after purchase as an upgrade, it will cost you over three hundred dollars, so here's a good example of penny wise, pound foolish, you end up paying twice the price only adding to the regrets.

I strongly urge you to buy one with the 6800 go card.

Laptops, unlike desktops, are very expensive to upgrade because they do not follow a standardized form factor like desktops do.
To give you an example, if you were to buy an external hard drive for a laptop, by that I mean a laptop sized hard drive, you could only get a max of 100 gigabytes on that drive and you would pay almost 200 dollars for it. The same price for a desktop external drive will get you over twice the gigabytes of space.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › cant find any comparisons for this? my desktop card vs. 128MB x300