StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am wanting to get a PC capable of playing current high end games, and have roughly $1,000- 1,500 (depending on how little I spend on food) set aside to spend on it.

I realize that building a rig myself would be cheaper, but what good off the shelf rigs are available.

And if I were to build my own computer, what parts should I get?

Graphic card wise, I'd recommend a AMD HD4850/4870. Depends on how much you want to spend.

Processor wise, a Core 2 Duo 8400 is a nice bet, or a Core 2 Quad 9300 depending again on your budget.

For chipset, go with Intel as well. P35 and whatever is newer should be fine

PSUs made by Seasonic and marketed by other companies are generally a good choice. Antec and Corsair use Seasonic, though Antec does drift to other companies occasionally. So does OCZ and PC Power & Cooling. You probably need 450-500W.

You probably can check out Newegg or Zipzoomfly for the prices available.

Graphics Card: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Brisbane 2.3GHz Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Yorkfield 2.5GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor

PSU: SeaSonic M12II SS-430GM 430W ATX12V 2.2 /EPS12V 2.91 Power Supply

Good or no?

Unless anyone can say otherwise, buying a quad-core processor is A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME for gaming.

Pulp Hero wrote:Graphics Card: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Brisbane 2.3GHz Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Yorkfield 2.5GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor

PSU: SeaSonic M12II SS-430GM 430W ATX12V 2.2 /EPS12V 2.91 Power Supply

Good or no?

Erm, you probably want something other than a CPU for a GPU....

And that Seasonic is great, assuming that you are willing to pay more for a Seasonic compared to one from say Corsair. The Corsair VX450 is pretty decent.

My list of computer parts:

AMD Athlon X2 3.0 Ghz
2 Gig RAM DDR2 800 (2 one gig sticks)
LAN Party DK 790FX
Seagate Barracuda 250 gig HDD with 32 meg cache
GeForce 8800GT
Thermaltake 750 Watt PSU (overkill, I admit, but it is nice to have easy ability to add on more parts if needed)
Antec Nine Hundred case
Windows XP
Logitech gaming mouse (one step below the G5, but still a damn nice mouse)

I need to get new optical drives, as the ones I currently have are from the old computer and are starting to act up from age. All said and done, it cost me roughly $1000 to get that off NewEgg. You can build a completely outrageous machine for under $1.5k. As in slapping a 1 gig graphics card in there and still being able to go apeshit on everything else.

Stark wrote:Unless anyone can say otherwise, buying a quad-core processor is A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME for gaming.

That's the nice way of putting it.







The mean way of putting it would be "How fucking stupid are you?"

Stark wrote:Unless anyone can say otherwise, buying a quad-core processor is A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME for gaming.

Supreme Commander gets a nice performance bonus for having a quad-core, especially in the late game where its calculating hundreds of shell trajectories and ai, buts thats about it from what I've seen. Most FPSs or other games don't have enough high-calculation threads to warrant a slower frequency quad core over a higher frequency dual.

Hey, if your going to get over 2GB of memory and a DX10 graphics card, just to cripple it with XP32bit, may as well get a quad core so it can be crippled by XP as well, for bragging rights *I'm a smarmy asshole*

atg wrote:Supreme Commander gets a nice performance bonus for having a quad-core, especially in the late game where its calculating hundreds of shell trajectories and ai, buts thats about it from what I've seen. Most FPSs or other games don't have enough high-calculation threads to warrant a slower frequency quad core over a higher frequency dual.

Not to mention the price difference; E8400s are really cheap, and many quad chips people buy are twice as expensive.

Dominus Atheos wrote:

Stark wrote:Unless anyone can say otherwise, buying a quad-core processor is A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME for gaming.

That's the nice way of putting it.

*snip product killing statistics*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hey look everyone, Crysis is getting worse performance on wanked out hardware! It could be because Quad Core processors are a tremendous waste of money, or it could be that Crysis and the engine it's programmed on was coded by lemurs! Or, the most obvious, that they BOTH vacuum clean dicks.

I mean, everyone sure liked to talk about Crysis would "run so much better" on advanced hardware not available at the time of its release.

I'm just building mine based on alienware specs. My reasoning is that if alienware sell it, it probably works in some stable manner, but I can build the same thing and save a shit-ton of money.

CaptHawkeye wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote:

Stark wrote:Unless anyone can say otherwise, buying a quad-core processor is A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME for gaming.

That's the nice way of putting it.

*snip product killing statistics*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hey look everyone, Crysis is getting worse performance on wanked out hardware! It could be because Quad Core processors are a tremendous waste of money, or it could be that Crysis and the engine it's programmed on was coded by lemurs! Or, the most obvious, that they BOTH vacuum clean dicks.

I mean, everyone sure liked to talk about Crysis would "run so much better" on advanced hardware not available at the time of its release.

There's nothing especially bad about Crysis's performance considering the overall quality of the game-- if you want an example of something that both looks and runs like garbage, a good example would be Conan.

Crysis can benefit significantly from a quad-core, but only in situations with an especially high amount of physics processing that don't occur in the normal game. Much more than the houses being smashed in the benchmark, more on the level of nuking a village and having each piece of debris' trajectory calculated.

A quad-core is not a waste if there are specific applications you intend to use it for that you already know benefit from it, or if you believe that incoming games will be programmed to take advantage of it. That isn't an unreasonable assumption at all and I don't think anyone would be stupid to buy a quad-core over a dual. It's not like there's a huge cost advantage to the dual; a Q6600 and an E8400 are both the same at$180, and the newer quad Q9300 is at $260-- a substantial increase for sure, but not that much more when considered as a % increase to the total system cost.

A 45nm dual core such as the E8400 or even the cheap E7200 will certainly clock higher than the Q6600 and outperform it in most current games, and I recommend it for most people exclusively playing games. However, I can't agree that going for a quad-core instead would be a terribly bad idea.

If you already have a PC you can salvage part from, do it yourself, keep hard disks, case and optical drives, buy CPU, mother board, memory, video card and power supply.

If you're getting the whole deal, it might be cheaper to buy the whole thing pre built from the likes of ibuypower.com or something, you can get pretty much everything that has been quoted here for about $700-$800 from a builder, and since they are all standard parts you can swap them out and upgrade from that day on as you need it.

Check around for prices in newegg.com or some other part sellers and see what comes out lower. Last time i did do something like this for a friend I saved $200 by buying a pre built system over doing all of it myself (lower shipping fees, cheaper OS, and they only pay OEM prices to manufacturers, so they will always buy things lower than retail and usually pass some of the savings to you), and that was enough to buy him a nice LCD monitor.

If it does come out higher to build it yourself but you still want to do it, go ahead, it never hurts to learn new things.

Seggybop wrote:A 45nm dual core such as the E8400 or even the cheap E7200 will certainly clock higher than the Q6600 and outperform it in most current games, and I recommend it for most people exclusively playing games. However, I can't agree that going for a quad-core instead would be a terribly bad idea.

Why not? Games have barely started using multi-cores at all, let alone 4, and they cost more for a slower chip. Now, and for the near future, they're a complete waste of time. Physics in a few games = not worth the money and performance loss overall.

And PROPER quad CPUs (ie not the 6600) cost ~AU$100 more. That's 2gb of RAM, a 500Gb HDD, or 3" of monitor. Saying it might be useful one day is retarded - we should by this logic have bought Physx cards.

Stark wrote:Why not? Games have barely started using multi-cores at all,

Most new games make full use of at least two cores, and even those that aren't specifically designed for it will see a huge benefit because the OS/background tasks aren't interfering anymore. Leave Task Manager running next time you load a game and then check the CPU usage graphs.

let alone 4, and they cost more for a slower chip. Now, and for the near future, they're a complete waste of time. Physics in a few games = not worth the money and performance loss overall.

The cost and clock speed difference isn't huge and most games are GPU bound on any CPU beyond 3ghz, so the actual difference is going to be minimal.

And PROPER quad CPUs (ie not the 6600) cost ~AU$100 more.

A Q6600 isn't a proper quad-core CPU now? What is one then, a Phenom? roflcopter.

That's 2gb of RAM, a 500Gb HDD, or 3" of monitor. Saying it might be useful one day is retarded - we should by this logic have bought Physx cards.

Quad-core is becoming the standard even for low-end systems, as seen with Intel's Lynnfield Nehalem series. PhysX was never anything but an expensive add-on for a very limited audience. The difference ought to be obvious there.

Zuul wrote:I'm just building mine based on alienware specs. My reasoning is that if alienware sell it, it probably works in some stable manner, but I can build the same thing and save a shit-ton of money.

If you want somewhat garunteed stablity, look up Manufacturs charts and certified CPU, RAM combinations. Motherboard manufactors should have on their websites lists of CPU's marked to work with their machine. They should also have RAM that is certified to work with the machine. Graphics cards usually have a list of PSU's marked SLI or whatever certified. This is usually just glitter, but if you want to minimise even chances of interference, that's probably how to do it.

Can you wait to the end of the year? The new Intel CPUs look rather epic.

I tell people who aren't capable of upgrading their own computers to get a quad core if possible, because it probably will become important well before the computer is junked. But if you are building it yourself, then you are clearly capable of upgrading it, so get a cheap dual core now and put a quad core in later (likely just before Intel stops making them for your socket).

Can you wait to the end of the year? The new Intel CPUs look rather epic.

The main reason to wait isn't so much the increase in CPU performance, but the fact that it's a new socket which will give your motherboard (and possibly memory, if you were otherwise going to use DDR2) a much longer upgrade lifetime. That said, only the expensive high-end stuff will be out this year, might be a stretch to build a decent computer with that for $1500. On the plus side all the obsolete Core 2 processors (or at least, the high end ones) should be discounted when the Nehalem chips arrive.

Starglider wrote:The main reason to wait isn't so much the increase in CPU performance, but the fact that it's a new socket which will give your motherboard (and possibly memory, if you were otherwise going to use DDR2) a much longer upgrade lifetime.

Exactly - I'd much rather buy into the bottom end of a new technology with potential for later upgrades, than into the mid-range of a soon to be obsolete one. I made that mistake a couple of years ago, and am now stuck with a single core 939 Althlon 3500+ which I don't have a hope of upgrading, short of a whole new PC.

It is true that only the higher end Nehalems are being release first, but an extra 6 months of saving should bring those into reasonable territory?

Processor aside, I'd grab 4GB of memory, and an 8800GT (which still gives incredible performance for price).

Starglider wrote:I tell people who aren't capable of upgrading their own computers to get a quad core if possible, because it probably will become important well before the computer is junked. But if you are building it yourself, then you are clearly capable of upgrading it, so get a cheap dual core now and put a quad core in later (likely just before Intel stops making them for your socket).

Interesting, I didn't even think of that when I built my new computer around an E7200 and a Gigabyte motherboard although it turned out that perhaps I made the first step. This isn't necessarily directed at you specifically, but how long do the hardware-savvy people think Intel will continue making LGA 775 (?) quad-cores? I had hoped to keep this motherboard for a long time.

Pezzoni wrote:I made that mistake a couple of years ago, and am now stuck with a single core 939 Althlon 3500+ which I don't have a hope of upgrading, short of a whole new PC.

You can still get dual core 939s cheaply on Ebay (new and boxed, even). They're getting rare now but there were tons of them for the first year or so after AMD stopped making 939s.

how long do the hardware-savvy people think Intel will continue making LGA 775 (?) quad-cores?

I'd guess 12 to 18 months.

Starglider wrote:

Pezzoni wrote:I made that mistake a couple of years ago, and am now stuck with a single core 939 Althlon 3500+ which I don't have a hope of upgrading, short of a whole new PC.

You can still get dual core 939s cheaply on Ebay (new and boxed, even). They're getting rare now but there were tons of them for the first year or so after AMD stopped making 939s.

It's about £100 for anything approaching decent unfortunately, and I'm not convinced that the gain in performance would be worth it.

It wouldn't. I had it good when I bought my current PC two years ago, when Core2Duo just came out. I got that and it's been giving me good performance so far. Just upgraded the graphics card to the new ATI HD4870 and it's great.

It's not like it's going to need any upgrading for my purposes, because when it comes down to it, when I need to do a significant upgrade, might as well buy a second computer. I don't plan on as great a gap for the next time though, that time I moved from P2 based Celeron 500 to the Core2Duo.

Seggybop wrote:Most new games make full use of at least two cores, and even those that aren't specifically designed for it will see a huge benefit because the OS/background tasks aren't interfering anymore. Leave Task Manager running next time you load a game and then check the CPU usage graphs.

How long did it take for games to start doing anything useful with the second core? Most STILL don't. Clearly I need more cores to sit idle (or run my dvd mastering or whatever the fuck you think my 'background tasks' are while gaming).

The cost and clock speed difference isn't huge and most games are GPU bound on any CPU beyond 3ghz, so the actual difference is going to be minimal.

Thank you for saying 'paying less for more speed is bad'. Do games need more cores, or are they GPU bottlenecked?

A Q6600 isn't a proper quad-core CPU now? What is one then, a Phenom? roflcopter.

Don't be retarded. The 6600 is the cheap end of the quad market, it clocks more than 20% behind a cheaper dual chip, and other quads (the 9400s and even the 6700s) are WAY more expensive.

Quad-core is becoming the standard even for low-end systems, as seen with Intel's Lynnfield Nehalem series. PhysX was never anything but an expensive add-on for a very limited audience. The difference ought to be obvious there.

Like what? You even just said quad cores were only beneficial for physics (ie shit the GPU can do) in like two games! If someone's talking about buying now, they're NOT talking about Nehalems, which as Starglider says are a good step simply for getting the new socket. 775 quads don't have this advantage, cost 50-100% more, and provide pretty much zero benefit right now. The only argument in favour of them would be that as 775 goes second-line they'll become even MORE expensive, so if you want to go wank-core I guess early is better.