How to buy a gaming box!!

[4W4K3]

I don't see how going from a $200 (or lower) 6600GT to a ~$600 6800GT is worth it??? That's like ~$400 difference, and definetly not worth it IMO. a 6600GT overclocked and tuned will play newer games GREAT at great quality settings.

512MB or RAM is usually sufficient for gaming, and 1GB can be even better (in some instances though it is worse, due to a hit on FSB, timings, and overall bandwidth). But if using the right RAM's adding another 512MB stick usually increases perofrmance.

Solid 1GB sticks are usually the Worst for overclocking, and right behind them are the 512MB's. Right now 256MB sticks are really the ones worth overclocking. Hopefullt this will change though...

 

[idiotec]

I don't see how going from a $200 (or lower) 6600GT to a ~$600 6800GT is worth it???

The 6800GT is more ~$400, not $600. Are you thinking Ultra?

Edit: Here is one for $370 link

BTW, when I was looking I saw this . They call it a GT but it has 128mb RAM clocked at 700

 

[4W4K3]

The 6800GT is more ~$400, not $600. Are you thinking Ultra?

Jeff Lawson said :

they're selling the Sparkle 6800GT{my brothers card} for $595

so either:

A) he overpayed ALOT
b) he has his #'s wrong...

even still...$200 6600GT or a $400 6800GT...i would choose the $200 card for what i need. IF it was maybe an ~$80 difference id go for the more expensive one...but i can save that $200 and get water cooling or something that i actually need for good temps and better overclocking, or maybe a better quality motherboard or a better monitor.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

Gentlemen

Even though there were a few replies to me, they nearly all spoke the same message, so I'll do one post to cover them all.

Longhorn may be released in late 2006, that's nearly 2 yrs away, I don't think it will run in 512 that well.
You guys must understand that I talk on behalf of gamers generally, whereby a gamer is someone who wants a decent combo of fps and IQ, and IMO, a 512 rammed 9600 doesn't deliver that, a 9800pro or these days a 6600GT is the minimum entry level GPU based on my criteria.

Don't forget that the modest settings a 512/9600 give someone will be diminshed with every passing month and the combo will be made redundant by a blockbuster, there's no headroom with a 512/9600, so how is that of any value?

The major difference in cost between what I recommend and what mnay people do is often only 300-$400 over 3 yrs, that's how long a properly specified gamers box "can" last....of course people can start with a 6600GT and get a more powerful card later, but that cost is still within a 3 yr period and needs to be factored in, as at some point you need a new system, rather than just more ram/CPU/GPU.

{SLI}...the incompatibilities relating to SLI are with the gaming profiles, and I'd hate to have to cool 2 ULTRA'S.

So once again here's my tips...a entry level gamers box should be a AMD 3000, I gig ram, 6600GT...you can later upgrade the 3 major parts, so be sure to get a fairly powerful PSU.
Another way would be AMD 3500, I gig, 6800GT/X800XL, you could then add a AMD 4400 later and another gig or ram, but you shouldn't need to change the GPU for about 3 yrs.

But as I've said, I would wait for the x800/x800xl's to come out and also for the R520 to force the issue so that you maximize the longevity of your system.
You can't keep upgrading the CPU and ram, at some point you'll need the whole shebang, mobo, PSU and the rest.

In closing, I don't recommend anyone buy anything less than a AMD 3000, I Gig ram, 6600GT for gaming....this system will last 2 yrs approx without any upgrading, but that'll be it's limit, whereas a 512/9600 combo is ancient, and has already bitten the dust.

 

[4W4K3]

In closing, I don't recommend anyone buy anything less than a AMD 3000, I Gig ram, 6600GT for gaming....this system will last 2 yrs approx without any upgrading, but that'll be it's limit, whereas a 512/9600 combo is ancient, and has already bitten the dust.

how will that computer last a max of 2 yrs.?!?! MY P3 computer is 6 years old and still plays games released after 2000. It is fully compatible with Windows XP SP2 and has 0 hardware problems. I would say the computer u spec'd out will last a VERY long time...its just you are incredibly picky with your computer's performance and anything other than absolute best quality in games is considered terrible/un-playable.

And a 512/9600 computer has not "bittne the dust". That's better than the average computer user has, and overkill for alot of people. Even for an avid computer gamer a 9600NP video card will play just fine. remember NOT EVERYONE plays Doom3 and Half-Life2, i personally am not interested in either of them.

This is (as Nubius stated) a thread telling people that there computers are out-dated and obsolete...based upon YOUR opinion. As long as you realize that...then that's A-OK for me. But if you think that this kind of logic is actually true, then i would hate to be you upgrading all the time. i'd say 80% of all overclockers/gamers build computers on a BUDGET of less than $1200, and they don't want to be upgrading every couple of months.

 

[killians45]

your quote of 4 x 512 takes a performance hit compared to 2 x 1024 is, in face, incorrect. You would see better performance with smaller multiple modules. For example, having 1 x 1024 is not as fast as having 2 x 512. However, it is more logical to have a single 1024 module for upgrade purposes, but to say it is quicker is simply incorrect. As far a 1GB being a beginners system, I would venture to say 512, and the 9600 is a perfectly sound card for now. Reason being is that, although it is true in 2 years time it will be obsolete (due to some new engines like unreal 3), purchasing a $500 x800 card would be a mistake if looking forward to playing next gen games using the unreal 3 engine as it has already been stated that this current next gen card would run a unreal 3 engine at about 25 to 30 FPS at LOW DETAIL giving it mediocre performance. Yes. The precious x800 will give mediocre performance on LOW DETAIL!!!! So, that so called recommended card will now need to be upgraded for the new game engines. Well, I just have a wimpy 5200, however I play HL2 on med detail perfectly fine, and can even bump resolution up (of course, as long as not many enemies are on the screen at the same time, but alot of that has to do with my subpar 1.6GHz) because of the more advanced AI. Tell the truth, HL2 plays better than Doom3 (although HL2 is geared for ATI, weird... huh...) but I can still play them both. My system specs?? When I first played Doom3 only had a 5200 with 256DDR and 1.6, I then got another 256 or memory and got a good perf increase and that is what I currently run now. 128MB 5200, 1.6GHz and 512 DDR so the specs listed by you are a little ambitious....

 

[Jeff Lawson]

4W4K3

I explained that my criteria assumed a decent combo of fps and IQ, and this is my opinion.
Imo, playing the latest games with their glorious IQ at low settings is a waste of a good experience.

To each his own, but I hope people aren't dissappointed, anyway, having a powerful PC also helps with DVD burning/TV capture as well.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

[B I would venture to say 512, and the 9600 is a perfectly sound card for now.

That's crazy advice, and I'm talking about buying now, not what you have.

Reason being is that, although it is true in 2 years time it will be obsolete (due to some new engines like unreal 3),

No it won't be obsolete, you don't have to buy a game that is too demanding, you wait it out and use your PC for other activities until you've gotten some value out of it...+ you've immediately benefitted from the power of a X800/X800XL, and will do so for a few yrs.

 

[killians45]

like I stated, the latest and greatest vid card @ $500 will only be able to play the latest unreal3 engine at most subpar fps, and at low detail... so its best to wait for the newer GPU chipsets to come out, and SLI I believe is a waste because by the time you spend THAT much money, soon later a new GPU chipset comes out that increases performance enough to essentially do the job that SLI does in one card. Just spend major money on a needless thing when all you needed to do was wait for the next chipset. Dont believe me, look at the performance boosts between major chipset upgrades... like the big jump to the x800 in performance boosts (theoretical).

 

[4W4K3]

4W4K3

I explained that my criteria assumed a decent combo of fps and IQ, and this is my opinion.
Imo, playing the latest games with their glorious IQ at low settings is a waste of a good experience.

To each his own, but I hope people aren't dissappointed, anyway, having a powerful PC also helps with DVD burning/TV capture as well.

playing the newest games with the most expensive hardware seems to be a wate of time. IMO if i can still play perfectly good games on the computer i have now and not be broke, then screw spending $2000+ on a computer that will be 1/2 the price in less than 6 months.

i dunno actual specs, but not too many people burn DVD's and record the TV on there gaming computer. that is usually a multimedia center or something.