DaveyB Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I am looking to buy a new Desktop, I have been offered a system with a ATI Radeon HD 2400, would this be good enough for the game? Is there a difference bewteen the recommended ATI Radeon 9800 and the ATI Radeon HD 2400? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iboshow Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 your topic and question are different as long as the cpu speed and ram is good it should work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyB Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 your topic and question are different as long as the cpu speed and ram is good it should work Does it not need a specific graphics card for the 3D match engine? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter-evo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Both will work, though I think the 2400 is better. Could someone confirm this for me? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 ati 9800 is years old. 2400 is newer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko An. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 the second number in the four numbers states a class of the card... the 9 "8" 00 is a lot, lot better than 2 "4" 00... even if it was like 1"8"00, it would still be a lot better than the "4" in 2400... it goes like this: 4 and bellow - amateur graphics card 5 and 6 - decent graphics 7 - semi-pro graphics card 8 and 9 - professional graphics card. So, you better get the ATI 9800 if you play games that need good graphics, if it's only for FM... the 2400 will do it's work good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko An. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 pretty much as the match ratings in FM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter-evo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 the second number in the four numbers states a class of the card... the 9 "8" 00 is a lot, lot better than 2 "4" 00... even if it was like 1"8"00, it would still be a lot better than the "4" in 2400...it goes like this: 4 and bellow - amateur graphics card 5 and 6 - decent graphics 7 - semi-pro graphics card 8 and 9 - professional graphics card. So, you better get the ATI 9800 if you play games that need good graphics, if it's only for FM... the 2400 will do it's work good. Is today's proffesional card the same as one from years ago? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Brill Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The HD graphics cards are newer than the non HD graphics cards due to HD being a fairly new invention considering alot of other things, I'm running on the HD 2600 and my graphics are alot better than my mates who is running the 9800 so I think the HD 2400 will be better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 the second number in the four numbers states a class of the card... the 9 "8" 00 is a lot, lot better than 2 "4" 00... even if it was like 1"8"00, it would still be a lot better than the "4" in 2400...it goes like this: 4 and bellow - amateur graphics card 5 and 6 - decent graphics 7 - semi-pro graphics card 8 and 9 - professional graphics card. So, you better get the ATI 9800 if you play games that need good graphics, if it's only for FM... the 2400 will do it's work good. Don't listen to this, its garbage. The ATI 9800 is about 5/6 years old now, based on severely outdated technology. The HD range is much newer and up to date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortified Penguin Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Wakers is right, the 9800 is a very old card. I've got a Radeon 2600 card now and have no problems at all. The 2400 should be fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harryohh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 the second number in the four numbers states a class of the card... the 9 "8" 00 is a lot, lot better than 2 "4" 00... even if it was like 1"8"00, it would still be a lot better than the "4" in 2400...it goes like this: 4 and bellow - amateur graphics card 5 and 6 - decent graphics 7 - semi-pro graphics card 8 and 9 - professional graphics card. So, you better get the ATI 9800 if you play games that need good graphics, if it's only for FM... the 2400 will do it's work good. As stated above this is total rubbish. The 2400 is newer technology as is much better than the outdated 9800. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlaw640 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Yes, the reason the 9800 is minimum spec is that it is yonks old. Get the 2400. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyB Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yes, the reason the 9800 is minimum spec is that it is yonks old. Get the 2400. I apoligise in advance if this is a easy question, my knowledge on graphics cards is limited to what you guys can advise me. I have been offered a motherboard GA-MA78GM-S2H which says it has a Integrated ATI Radeon HD3200-based graphics (DX10) , would this be enough for FM2009? The whole offer is £314.90 inc VAT Black and Silver ATX Micro Tower Case 400 Watt Power Supply Unit Gigabyte GA-MA78GM AMD Athlon 4800+ X2 Dual Core 2.5GHz 1MB Cache Samsung 2GB DDR2 800MHz 160GB 7200RPM SATA II Samsung SH-S223 22x DVD RW Black SATA Built-in graphics Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Home Basic (32-bit) Logitech Cordless Desktop EX 110 Built-in audio 2 Year Return to Base Warranty with Free Collect & Return Any thoughts would be appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maooam Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Get 4GB of RAM. 2GB is enough for FM09 but 4GB is better. RAM is cheap today, but helps FM a lot. Also if you have the money buy a faster CPU. 4800+ will do the trick, but 5800+ would be better and is stil cheap. (Don`t buy the 6000+ as it has only half the cache size.) Graphics card is not very important for FM09. It is very important for other games, but the 3D match engine in FM09 is very, very basic so you won`t have any problems whichever new card you get. (The only reason 9800 is a requirement is probably got to do with support for a certain DirectX version, because in terms of its power even an older card could be an overkill for the punny 3D match engine.) So you will do fine with an integrated graphics card for FM, but if you want to play any other 3D game whatsover you really must get a standalone card, because an integrated card doesn`t have its own RAM but uses your main work RAM so it is much slower because so much time is lost in signals` transit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyB Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 The company only offers AMD Athlon 4400+ X2 Dual-Core 2.3GHz 1MB Cache AMD Athlon 4800+ X2 Dual Core 2.5GHz 1MB Cache (add £15) Athlon 6000+ X2 Dual Core 3.1GHz 1MB Cache (add £40) AMD Phenom™ 9500 Quad-Core 2.2GHz 4MB Cache (add £90) AMD Phenom™ 9950 Quad-Core 2.6GHz 4MB Cache (add £110) Is the 6000+ not worth the extra? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOriginalJez Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Depends what you want to do. Personally I'd say yes but I use a lot of relatively old software that doesn't neccesarily take advantage of both cores so the 6000+ would be better for me, it all really depends on what you want to do, for FM specifically you might not notice much difference between the 4800 and 9950 right now but you likely will in the future. IMO, a full graphics card would be a higher priority than improving on the CPU you have bundled, strictly for future gaming purposes but if you can afford both... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyB Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Depends what you want to do. Personally I'd say yes but I use a lot of relatively old software that doesn't neccesarily take advantage of both cores so the 6000+ would be better for me, it all really depends on what you want to do, for FM specifically you might not notice much difference between the 4800 and 9950 right now but you likely will in the future.IMO, a full graphics card would be a higher priority than improving on the CPU you have bundled, strictly for future gaming purposes but if you can afford both... So in a nutshell, the best options to improve would be higher processor(I`m thinking AMD Athlon 6000+ X2 Dual Core 3.1GHz 1MB Cache) , larger RAM (Samsung 2GB DDR2 800MHz) and a dedicated Graphics card(nVidia GeForce 8400GS 512MB)? With these options i`m getting pretty close to my budget. I only use it for FM2009, work, broadband. Nothing anymore demanding than FM2009. Suggested system : £324.90 inc VAT Black and Silver ATX Micro Tower Case 400 Watt Power Supply Unit ASUS M2N68-CM AMD Athlon 6000+ X2 Dual Core 3.1GHz 1MB Cache Samsung 2GB DDR2 800MHz 160GB 7200RPM SATA II DVD-ROM Drive 16x nVidia GeForce 8400GS 512MB Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Home Basic (32-bit) Logitech Cordless Desktop EX 110 Built-in audio 2 Year Return to Base Warranty with Free Collect & Return Does anyone have any further suggestions before I order this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george08 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Get yourself an 8800 GT u can pick these up for about £80, i have 8gb of ram, cost me about 150quid a year ago runs everything so well, and u can pick up a q6600 quad core for about £100 (cpu) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 the 6000+ has exactly the same cache size as the other processors there btw, they're all 1mb. Also, if you're thinking of upgrading the spec you have there, check what your motherboard can support - there's no point spending £80 on a gfx card if your motherboard can't support it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOriginalJez Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 i have 8gb of ram that's 4gb wasted on the 32bit windows in his list.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 that's 4gb wasted on the 32bit windows in his list.... 5.5gb actually Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOriginalJez Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 5.5gb actually Not quite, while your realistic upper limit with 4GB is ~3.55gb because of "waste" use, reducing your amount of RAM will lower the amount of available RAM incrementally, althought not neccesarily directly, so installing 4GB should still get you more than installing 3.5GB. so there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 well no it won't, because 32-bit can never use more than 3.5gb, so there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOriginalJez Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 32 bit systems can use up to 4096MB of RAM... oh never mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 If you go for an 8800 got SLI, why not! Im looking at a new i7 based system atm, still pondering but the 6 gigs of 1600 DDR3 dominator ram are calling to me. Using that system will make the game run VERY fast! Just got to wait 3 more months then I can buy it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter-evo Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 How much are all these desktops and what changes can be made to a laptop ie. processor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 32 bit systems can use up to 4096MB of RAM... oh never mind no, they can recognise since a ms update a few months ago, but they cannot use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 How much are all these desktops and what changes can be made to a laptop ie. processor. For FM only I would suggest you avoid gaming PCs as they tend to have too much graphics power, ie your spending money on something you dont need. I have found anything with DDR3 ram to be £1000 or over. Go for a decent dual core system of 2.13GHz or more, the bigger the cache the better! Also dont go for ram under 800MHz, I would suggest 1066MHz or more! A decent home type system with limited graphics but decent ram and CPU will put you back about 300-600. You can ge a really nice quad core system for under 700 if you shop around and use the custom build sites or part builds (just motherboard, PSU and processor) where you can add decent ram and a cheapo Gcard for another 300 making it less than 500! A full gaming system like my next setup will be setting me back 1800 at least... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks FC Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 So, you better get the ATI 9800 if you play games that need good graphics, if it's only for FM... the 2400 will do it's work good. Either you're confused with a Geforce 9800GT (Which is only around 6 months old, and is quite a good card) or your stuck in a timewarp from 2002. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks FC Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Also dont go for ram under 800MHz, I would suggest 1066MHz or more! A decent home type system with limited graphics but decent ram and CPU will put you back about 300-600. Another peice of poor advice. 1066Mhz ram is honestly pointless unless you're overclocking and would like a 1:1 ram multiplier with a highly clocked CPU. For most uses 800 (or 667) is fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks FC Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Black and Silver ATX Micro Tower Case 400 Watt Power Supply Unit ASUS M2N68-CM AMD Athlon 6000+ X2 Dual Core 3.1GHz 1MB Cache Samsung 2GB DDR2 800MHz 160GB 7200RPM SATA II DVD-ROM Drive 16x nVidia GeForce 8400GS 512MB Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Home Basic (32-bit) Logitech Cordless Desktop EX 110 Built-in audio 2 Year Return to Base Warranty with Free Collect & Return Does anyone have any further suggestions before I order this? I've noticed Vista performs slightly better with 4Gb of ram, but overall for what you are intending to use it for (FM, work and Internet) the system looks fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine_iron Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Another peice of poor advice. 1066Mhz ram is honestly pointless unless you're overclocking and would like a 1:1 ram multiplier with a highly clocked CPU. For most uses 800 (or 667) is fine. Your comment hold true for someone not looking to futureproof, 667 is proving already to be below a minimum spec for any respectable gaming PC for this year. The rest of your post does not make sense to me. I am afraid that whatever you are talking about is beyond my knowledge. As for overclocking, its more the type of RAM you use, not the speed that is critical. You would need RAM with cooling rather than the basic. I am intreagued as to your thinking, please expand further so I can benefit from your knowledge! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks FC Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Your comment hold true for someone not looking to futureproof, 667 is proving already to be below a minimum spec for any respectable gaming PC for this year. The rest of your post does not make sense to me. I am afraid that whatever you are talking about is beyond my knowledge. As for overclocking, its more the type of RAM you use, not the speed that is critical. You would need RAM with cooling rather than the basic.I am intreagued as to your thinking, please expand further so I can benefit from your knowledge! You can't futureproof with DDR2 (With DDR3 already released), regardless of what speed you select. RAM only needs cooling if your overclocking it significantly. By increasing the voltage to the RAM, you can overclock the RAM more. When you do this more heat is generated, hence the need for cooling. Many RAM chips now come with heatspreaders which is more than adequate to do a light overclock. As for RAM speed and CPU overclocking I could explain it but it would be a long post and way off topic, there are some good guides on the net that could explain it better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.