Somewhere on teh intarwebs kony wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:00:04 -0000, "The Dude"
> <sdfsdfsdf@asdfsdfsdf.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking to buy a graphics card mostly for gaming - it needs
>> D-sub and preferably s-video and hdtv out.
>
> What interface does your HDTV need?
>
> Most common is analog, DVI, and possible S-Video output.
>
>> Not willing to pay big money for one
>
> Big money is relative, the better it is at gaming the more
> it will cost. Having some idea of the budget range would
> help.
>
>> and
>> have read contrasting reviews. I've just got Far Cry 2 and wouldn't
>> mind playing that at decent resolution because at the moment the
>> built-in vga is a joke.
>
> What do you consider a decent resolution? To some that
> might mean 1024x768 on a CRT, but to others it might mean at
> least 1680x1050 on an LCD if not more. Without more info,
> to play Farcry with what I consider reasonable resolution, I
> suggest at least a 9600GSO. They've often been $50 after a
> rebate in the US, but I haven't checked prices or
> availability recently. That's a low-end suggestion, for
> reasonable performance you ought to aim higher. Like an
> nVidia GTX 260.
>
>> The minimum requirements on the game's box doesn't make any sense.
>
> It's not supposed to, nobody wants a new game that is played
> at the minimum requirements or it'll look like an old game
> without the modern eyecandy.
>
>
>> Also ideally I don't want a cooling fan on it - do better quality
>> cards need fans?
>
> Yes, higher performance gaming cards need either a fan or a
> much more expensive passive cooler, or to be water-cooled
> within an existing water-cooled system. A fan does not have
> to be loud, much progress has been made in recent years to
> lower fan noise and make fan RPM correspond to video card
> temperature. Mainly, choose a card with a double-height
> heatsink, and read user reviews about whether excessive
> noise is reported, and of course expect to pay more for a
> card that is quiet because it has a more costly heatsink on
> it.
>
>
>> Does the PC's CPU have a big effect on performance or does the GPU
>> handle most the load - so if you get a good card then the CPU
>> doesn't have to high spec? Cheers if anyone can help
>
> It depends on the specifics, you didn't mention your
> specific CPU. Generally speaking, if your system is fairly
> modern, like a dual core CPU at 2 GHz or more, the video
> card is usually a larger bottleneck. If it's a quad core or
>> 2.5GHz system, odds are you have enough CPU processing
> power to have a playable framerate from the CPU and need
> only be concerned about the video card... but one thing at a
> time, buying the right video card is the first step yet how
> long that upgrade suits your purposes has a lot to do with
> your expectations in the future. Each jump in video card
> performance will cost disproportionately more and more, we'd
> really need to know how long this upgrade needs to last or
> actually what the annual budget is for gaming related PC
> upgrades, and what your preferred monitor resolution is.
>
> The generic reply without more info is get an nVidia 260,
> I'm sure ATI has a good alternative too, web search
> benchmarks will find those, but I prefer nVidia and so
> that's the advice I'd take myself.

I'm betting he's got something like a P4 2.8GHz or even a Celeron.
--
Shaun.