I owned a 9600GT run with a C2Q8200 last time and running on 1280x1024 lcd and then changed to 1920x1080. I would say the performance will have some noticable impact on some games even on 1680x1050. For me,t he 9600GT is meant for 1440x900 on most games. I suggest you don't change it unless you want to get a new GPU soon.

Of course it also depends how you defend your gameplay to be smooth or not smooth. Some people will consider around 20fps is smooth while some is 30fps or even 60fps.

If I am not wrong...
HD5770 > GTX260
HD5830 > GTX275
HD5850 > GTX285

For resolution of 1280x1024, I guess the HD5770 will run almost any game at max setting (Also Dependable on your other hardwares)

I see now that it is the cpu is causing the low benchmark results. The pc is still running good, I not planning to change the processor anytime soon.:)
Thanks for helping me to clear my doubt guys.

From looking at some results from similar systems on the Futuremark website, the score seems slightly low, but definitely in the right ballpark. Why are you both running 3gb of RAM in systems that support dual-channel RAM? I bet you would see a slight increase in score by switching to a dual-channel setup.

hartsickdiscipl

Thanks for the info. The reasons that we don't use dual channel is because I cannot feel the differences in real time performance which I tried last time with 1gb + 1gb compare to a single 2gb ram.

I had run a 3dmark06 benchmark test on my brother's pc but I was suprised that I seems to receive poor results which the total points are 14878 with the system listed below:
Core2Quad Q8200, OC to 2.8ghz
3gb of ram
Asus Radeon HD5850 1gb ddr5

While my own system receive a total benchmark points of 14442 with
Core2duo E8400 OC to 3.6ghz
3gb of ram
Zotac 9800gtx+ 512mb ddr3

The question is, why does the difference is so little (436 points difference) as the HD5850 is a gpu that kick 9800gtx+ ass? Is this normal for my brother's system to have such result? Besides, the other components/hardwares in both PCs are similar.

I'm running an old ass P4 2.8ghz, Radeon X800 XT Platinum AGP, and 1.5gb rig lol. I'm FINALLY doing a complete overhaul, and my card should be here by Friday. If this thread is still relevant then, which it probably won't lol, I'll post here. I'll most likely just send you a PM though.CJL182

ya, those are all huge cards. If size is an issue the gts 250 is basically a 9800 gtx+ -1.5 inches.

TerroRizing

[QUOTE="MRXwee"]

[QUOTE="CJL182"]

I believe the 275 and 285 are both 10.5" long. The physical size of video cards is the most annoying spec to look up lol. I really wish sites would start listing the physical specs of cards in reviews and benchmarks since some cards are starting to get pretty damn big.

CJL182

That's what I've read from multiple reviews, at least for the 275. The 275 better be 10.5" because I just ordered it and anything longer won't fit in my case lol. It seems that 10.5" is generally the longest that gaming/enthusiast vid cards get, with a few exceptions like the 4850x2 lol.

I believe the 275 and 285 are both 10.5" long. The physical size of video cards is the most annoying spec to look up lol. I really wish sites would start listing the physical specs of cards in reviews and benchmarks since some cards are starting to get pretty damn big.

CJL182

Darn... I have a Zotac 9800GTX+ and the distance between the gpu and the harddisk bay panel is around 0.5cm only, it means if I want to change gpu, I have to buy a new casing.