is 9600 GT compatible with AMD sempron 3000+ biostar?

Im asking cause my graphics card is a ATI x1650 256 mb and it works well but now I wanna upgrad sence its so cheap

Ive serached the net and can't find a thing so how about it?

ur amd 3000+ is pretty weak as it is. new games would run better on a new cpu .deadmeat59

well I know that but to my question....

If your mobo has a pci-e slot it will work.

If your mobo has a pci-e slot it will work.

wklzip

pci-e x16. However you will be considerably bottlenecking your card if you don't upgrade your cpu eventually.

[QUOTE="wklzip"]

If your mobo has a pci-e slot it will work.

Baselerd

pci-e x16. However you will be considerably bottlenecking your card if you don't upgrade your cpu eventually.

What this means is that your CPU probably isn't powerful enough to keep the GPU busy with stuff to render. Therefore, you won't get the framerates that the GPU is capable of producing.

[QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="wklzip"]

If your mobo has a pci-e slot it will work.

fynne

pci-e x16. However you will be considerably bottlenecking your card if you don't upgrade your cpu eventually.

What this means is that your CPU probably isn't powerful enough to keep the GPU busy with stuff to render. Therefore, you won't get the framerates that the GPU is capable of producing.

I know what it means but idh the money to get a brand new computor so really

As long as you have a PCI-E x16 slot and a good enough PSU,you should run a 9600GT no problem,though honestly,i'd wait and save up for a better PC,Sempron CPU's are absolute garbage for gaming,if you have AM2,you can get a X2 4000+ for cheap and is a good deal better than Sempron.Indestructible2

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]As long as you have a PCI-E x16 slot and a good enough PSU,you should run a 9600GT no problem,though honestly,i'd wait and save up for a better PC,Sempron CPU's are absolute garbage for gaming,if you have AM2,you can get a X2 4000+ for cheap and is a good deal better than Sempron.yoyo462001

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"]As long as you have a PCI-E x16 slot and a good enough PSU,you should run a 9600GT no problem,though honestly,i'd wait and save up for a better PC,Sempron CPU's are absolute garbage for gaming,if you have AM2,you can get a X2 4000+ for cheap and is a good deal better than Sempron.Indestructible2

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"]As long as you have a PCI-E x16 slot and a good enough PSU,you should run a 9600GT no problem,though honestly,i'd wait and save up for a better PC,Sempron CPU's are absolute garbage for gaming,if you have AM2,you can get a X2 4000+ for cheap and is a good deal better than Sempron.yoyo462001

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"]As long as you have a PCI-E x16 slot and a good enough PSU,you should run a 9600GT no problem,though honestly,i'd wait and save up for a better PC,Sempron CPU's are absolute garbage for gaming,if you have AM2,you can get a X2 4000+ for cheap and is a good deal better than Sempron.Indestructible2

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

[QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

Baselerd

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

[QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

As long as you have a PCI-E x16 slot and a good enough PSU,you should run a 9600GT no problem,though honestly,i'd wait and save up for a better PC,Sempron CPU's are absolute garbage for gaming,if you have AM2,you can get a X2 4000+ for cheap and is a good deal better than Sempron.Indestructible2

actually at the time they weren't bad for their price. Some of the later 90nm ones overclocked like hell and kept up with its 64 bit brothers.

course now it's a bit weak, but it will work just fine. All depends on how picky you are with game settings. I mean hell I had a p3 and ran Far cry back when that came out, got 30fps to.

[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

yoyo462001

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

thats why i said nearly max. and i allways use a res of 1024x768 even on older games because they still look good.

yeah theres no doubt its not going to run the newer games or RTS games well at all, but saying it garbage for games is is being unfair as it will run most games alrite considering its age e.g. games like FEAR saying its garbage gives the impression its not gong to run any of his games on his library.yoyo462001

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

thats why i said nearly max. and i allways use a res of 1024x768 even on older games because they still look good.

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"]yeah theres no doubt its not going to run the newer games or RTS games well at all, but saying it garbage for games is is being unfair as it will run most games alrite considering its age e.g. games like FEAR saying its garbage gives the impression its not gong to run any of his games on his library.Indestructible2

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

thats why i said nearly max. and i allways use a res of 1024x768 even on older games because they still look good.

Lol i think thats a waist of video mem. 1280x1024 has practicly no jagges so whats the point of a higher res than that?

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="yoyo462001"]yeah theres no doubt its not going to run the newer games or RTS games well at all, but saying it garbage for games is is being unfair as it will run most games alrite considering its age e.g. games like FEAR saying its garbage gives the impression its not gong to run any of his games on his library.hofuldig

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

thats why i said nearly max. and i allways use a res of 1024x768 even on older games because they still look good.

Lol i think thats a waist of video mem. 1280x1024 has practicly no jagges so whats the point of a higher res than that?

[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="yoyo462001"]yeah theres no doubt its not going to run the newer games or RTS games well at all, but saying it garbage for games is is being unfair as it will run most games alrite considering its age e.g. games like FEAR saying its garbage gives the impression its not gong to run any of his games on his library.Indestructible2

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

thats why i said nearly max. and i allways use a res of 1024x768 even on older games because they still look good.

Lol i think thats a waist of video mem. 1280x1024 has practicly no jagges so whats the point of a higher res than that?

you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="yoyo462001"]yeah theres no doubt its not going to run the newer games or RTS games well at all, but saying it garbage for games is is being unfair as it will run most games alrite considering its age e.g. games like FEAR saying its garbage gives the impression its not gong to run any of his games on his library.hofuldig

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

thats why i said nearly max. and i allways use a res of 1024x768 even on older games because they still look good.

Lol i think thats a waist of video mem. 1280x1024 has practicly no jagges so whats the point of a higher res than that?

you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.

[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="yoyo462001"]yeah theres no doubt its not going to run the newer games or RTS games well at all, but saying it garbage for games is is being unfair as it will run most games alrite considering its age e.g. games like FEAR saying its garbage gives the impression its not gong to run any of his games on his library.Indestructible2

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="Baselerd"][QUOTE="hofuldig"]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I had an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ an X1600Pro and 1gb of ram and i ran Oblivion almost max with playible frames (20-30) you have no idea dude

hofuldig

I'm calling you out on that one. BS. Even a 7900gtx couldnt max out oblivion.

nearly max with no shadows at 1024x768 Grass was also of. (man that grass was usless anyway)

thats why i said nearly max. and i allways use a res of 1024x768 even on older games because they still look good.

Lol i think thats a waist of video mem. 1280x1024 has practicly no jagges so whats the point of a higher res than that?

you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.

lol maby not but this thing has perfect picture ( i mean every color is perfect)

I can run COD4 on pretty much max with my

sempron 3000+

ATI x1650

1.5gigs of ram

I have it at low res thoe and shadows and soften smoke edges are off

you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.hofuldig

The need for AA is less apparent on CRT than to LCD. This is due to the CRT displaying an image with a matrix of blurry phosphor pockets. An LCD on the other hand has hard-edged pixels. Jaggies are far more visible on an LCD monitor.

[QUOTE="hofuldig"]you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.kodex1717

The need for AA is less apparent on CRT than to LCD. This is due to the CRT displaying an image with a matrix of blurry phosphor pockets. An LCD on the other hand has hard-edged pixels. Jaggies are far more visible on an LCD monitor.

schweet! so thats why my picture is allways better

[QUOTE="kodex1717"]

[QUOTE="hofuldig"]you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.hofuldig

The need for AA is less apparent on CRT than to LCD. This is due to the CRT displaying an image with a matrix of blurry phosphor pockets. An LCD on the other hand has hard-edged pixels. Jaggies are far more visible on an LCD monitor.

schweet! so thats why my picture is allways better

[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="kodex1717"]

[QUOTE="hofuldig"]you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.TrooperManaic

The need for AA is less apparent on CRT than to LCD. This is due to the CRT displaying an image with a matrix of blurry phosphor pockets. An LCD on the other hand has hard-edged pixels. Jaggies are far more visible on an LCD monitor.

schweet! so thats why my picture is allways better

Well i know that phillips is no longer in business but i tell you that this monitor is great the picture the brightness i dont know what response time it has but iv never had any problems with it what so ever.

[QUOTE="TrooperManaic"][QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="kodex1717"]

[QUOTE="hofuldig"]you must have a terrible monitor then. I use a Phillips Flat Screen (CRT) it may be big and heavy but its got great picture.hofuldig

The need for AA is less apparent on CRT than to LCD. This is due to the CRT displaying an image with a matrix of blurry phosphor pockets. An LCD on the other hand has hard-edged pixels. Jaggies are far more visible on an LCD monitor.

schweet! so thats why my picture is allways better

Well i know that phillips is no longer in business but i tell you that this monitor is great the picture the brightness i dont know what response time it has but iv never had any problems with it what so ever.

the 'response time' as you put it is whatever you set it to. Refresh rate in your display properties of windows. Higher is better, but you can go too high.

you'll never see ghosting on a CRT monitor.

will Saboteur work for me?

my specs

Operating System: Microsoft windows XP Proffesional

Proccessor: AMD Sempron(TM) proccessor 3000+, mmx , 3Dnow, 1.8 GHz

Memory: 512 RAM

DirectX verison: DirectX 9.0c