PDA

View Full Version : I miss having a gaming PC...


Pages : [1] 2

DansFace
03-07-08, 12:18 PM
Lately i've been really missing having a PC. Sure I love my Xbox 360 but starcraft II is coming.

How are intels new 45nm CPUs doing? I'd almost want to get one of those, a decent motherboard, some used ram, and a 9600GT or Radeon 3870.

What motherboard should I look into for some upgradeable to a quad core later on?

sorry I've been out of the PC hardware business for a couple years now

CaptNKILL
03-07-08, 12:20 PM
Core 2 Duo E8400, Intel P35 chipset board, 4Gb DDR2-800 and a 9600GT.

You'd be set.

:thumbsup:

DansFace
03-07-08, 12:29 PM
Core 2 Duo E8400, Intel P35 chipset board, 4Gb DDR2-800 and a 9600GT.

You'd be set.

:thumbsup:

how about 2 GB of ram...

or is 4GB the new standard now?!

Tr1cK
03-07-08, 12:31 PM
how about 2 GB of ram...

or is 4GB the new standard now?!
2gb still with XP. 4gb for Vista 64.

4gb is just so cheap now, it's crazy not to get it.

XP 32bit will recognize 3.25gb or so out of the 4.

jcrox
03-07-08, 12:34 PM
how about 2 GB of ram...

or is 4GB the new standard now?!

4GB is really the way to go... you can get 2 x 2GB packs for pretty cheap now. I would also suggest the 8800GT over the 9600GT.

CaptNKILL
03-07-08, 12:53 PM
4GB is really the way to go... you can get 2 x 2GB packs for pretty cheap now. I would also suggest the 8800GT over the 9600GT.
I don't know, the 9600GT is pretty close in performance to the 8800GT and its $60-$70 cheaper.

I guess if money isn't too tight then the 8800GT is probably worth it.

DansFace
03-07-08, 01:03 PM
I don't know, the 9600GT is pretty close in performance to the 8800GT and its $60-$70 cheaper.

I guess if money isn't too tight then the 8800GT is probably worth it.

we'll see...
hopefully I hear back from the union about my new job soon

that would mean a new PC very quickly

Shocky
03-07-08, 03:08 PM
2GB is vista is fine; the benefits of 4GB are exaggerated, the reason is price and nothing to do with performance.

crainger
03-07-08, 03:36 PM
2GB is vista is fine; the benefits of 4GB are exaggerated, the reason is price and nothing to do with performance.

That's really wrong there. The increase with general Vista browsing was huge for me. Any RAM hungry game like Crysis and The Witcher will benefit. A lot of the time removing stutters. This is with Vista64 though. 32 is a little lighter on the RAMs.

Shocky
03-07-08, 04:36 PM
That's really wrong there. The increase with general Vista browsing was huge for me. Any RAM hungry game like Crysis and The Witcher will benefit. A lot of the time removing stutters. This is with Vista64 though. 32 is a little lighter on the RAMs.

I also use Vista x64, I have tried with 2GB, 3GB, 4GB, I noticed no increase at all for general windows use or in games above 2GB.

Xion X2
03-07-08, 05:06 PM
Shocky is wrong (what a surprise... :rolleyes: ); Vista uses up more than 2GB for gaming if it's available. It scales according to the amount of RAM you have.

That's right dear friends! A fresh install of Windows Vista Ultimate will hog over 1GB of system memory - just to run. This screenshot was taken at first boot and from there, the memory usage only climbed until it stabilized at a mere 1.11GB - almost 28% of our system's memory. Granted there is still 2.89GB free, but out of the box Vista is a RAM pig.

We booted up with 2GB of memory installed, fearing that we would see results very similar to what we captured above. With less memory available, Vista stripped itself down to a mere 680MB of memory at first boot and leveled off somewhere around 784MB.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7203/vistarammn1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8227/bf2142rammh6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3324/cod2ramzd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3135&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=1

If older games like Call of Duty 2 and BF 2142 see a hit, then you know games like Crysis, Witcher and Call of Duty 4 would whip the s#!* out of 2GB by comparison.

Blacklash
03-07-08, 05:38 PM
Yep I was able to lose all stutter in the "Shivering Isles" outdoors by simply increasing the amount of ram the game was able to use. Also I don't get crashes playing "The Witcher" under Vista x64 and do under Vista. Yes, I applied KB940105 to Vista. Didn't help.

If you're going to use Vista I highly recommend HP x64 and a low cost 2x2Gb kit like below-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231122

I'm moving my other machine to HP x64 soon.

If I were building today I'd go Q6600 G-0, P35, 4Gb kit, and a 8800GT or GTS. GTS 512Mb cards have had their prices fall nicely. Most of the time they have a better cooler and offer better performance than the GT under DX 10 and a edge in DX 9 titles as well.

BFG 8800GTS 512Mb cards are about 239usd with rebate now-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143119

I like this GT for 184usd with rebate too-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127329

660 out of the box and a nice dual slot cooler on it.

If you do want a 9600GT at a decent price try this XFX for 149usd with rebate-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150277

I'd admit the 9600GT is very attractive for that price.

If you want some lower priced Intel CPU alternatives get one of the below and OC it to 3.0GHz-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116036

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115030

As far as mobos go, If you don't raid and don't need more than 4 Sata ports try the IP35-E for 59usd with rebate. I love mine.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813127031

If you do want raid and more sata ports try the DFI Blood Iron for 129usd-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136038

Another decent board with Raid from MSI-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130098

crainger
03-07-08, 05:44 PM
U 64 is bettah! It has Dream scenes! ::bleh::

Shocky
03-07-08, 05:50 PM
"snip"

That article is from 10/10/06 using an early version of vista, nice try though. You should probably try reading links before you post them

crainger
03-07-08, 05:54 PM
:(omg):

Xion X2
03-07-08, 06:02 PM
That article is from 10/10/06 using an early version of vista, nice try though. You should probably try reading links before you post them
:lol: Well then show us these magical benchmarks you have where Windows patches boost 2GB RAM performance up to the level of 4GB.

Go ahead.. I'm sure there are plenty of them out there, Mr. Wizard.

Shocky
03-07-08, 06:11 PM
Ok, then. Find a recent article that proves your point that more RAM doesn't matter. Ignore hard data and the opinions of everyone in this thread who disagrees with you and go on being a dumb***.

Well first of all I never said there was no increase, only that people exaggerate and that I have never noticed any difference using more than 2GB , insulting me won’t change that.

Considering how bad the driver support was for vista at first and how many updates it's received since then I find it difficult to take those results that seriously.

Also mods alerted, this a blatant personal attack.

tjohn
03-07-08, 06:14 PM
If I were building today I'd go Q6600 G-0, P35


Why P35 over X38 ?

Xion X2
03-07-08, 06:22 PM
Also mods alerted, this a blatant personal attack.
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7510/tissuefh5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Oops, here's another. We're into 2007 now--

We opened 104 images in Adobe Photoshop CS3 from our recent trip to Las Vegas for CES 2007; with all 104 images opened and loaded, we then timed how long it would take for Microsoft Word to start. In Windows XP, despite some swapping, Microsoft Word 2007 started in just under 8 seconds. On our Vista test bed, starting Word took almost 20 seconds due to constant paging to disk. The only difference? Vista's heightened memory requirements took a stressful situation that worked reasonably well under XP and made it far more painful with the same amount of memory.

We then upgraded the Vista machine to 3GB and ran the test again; thanks to faster application load times and intelligent prefetching, Word started in 1.31 seconds. If you thought that 2GB was the sweet spot for Windows XP, chances are 3GB will be the new minimum for you under Vista.


http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=3

I'm sure they're full of it too, though.

Shocky
03-07-08, 06:28 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=3

I'm sure they're full of it too, though.

I have Office 2007 and on my machines with 2GB and vista it starts almost instantly and not almost 20 seconds, plus they didn't even run any benchmarks to confirm that :bleh:

That one's from 02/07, still over a year old.

Xion X2
03-07-08, 06:55 PM
I have Office 2007 and on my machines with 2GB and vista it starts almost instantly and not almost 20 seconds, plus they didn't even run any benchmarks to confirm that :bleh:


They were running Photoshop loaded up with images, too.

What was it about that "try to read links" bit you were mouthing off a few seconds ago?

Uh-huh.

G-Man
03-07-08, 06:56 PM
it comes down to this, your running XP, just get 2GB ram, if your running Vista 64-bit or XP 64-bit get 4GB ram :)

Shocky
03-07-08, 07:10 PM
They were running Photoshop loaded up with images, too.

What was it about that "try to read links" bit you were mouthing off a few seconds ago?

Uh-huh.

Ok but I’m kind of struggling to see your point, yes more memory in specific circumstances is of great benefit, nobody is going argue that there is no circumstance where more memory is needed but how often does the average gamer or even average user try and run word or any other application with 104 photos open in photoshop? Probably never.

How does this relate to the advantages of more than 2GB for general windows use and gaming?

CaptNKILL
03-07-08, 07:14 PM
Can we stop crapping all over DansFace's thread?

crainger
03-07-08, 07:21 PM
Good thing you have that torch built into your head.