My "Hope to Have" Computer -- PLEASE HELP!

[Qiranworms]

...if this turns into a flamewar, it's getting closed...and fast. Just calm down; if a post gives you even a partial urge to punch someone, perhaps it's better not to reply to it.


Just one quick comment as well ))...(note that this is an example of an argumentative post that does NOT make a personal attack to anybody)

I would recommend do not get the Audigy 2. the motherboard has onboard 7.1 sound.
the only advantage to the Audigy 2 is, well practically nothing. not unless you have superhuman ears.

Not entirely true. You don't need superhuman ears to tell the differences between soundcards, you need a high-end speaker system. I would never use an Audigy for recording of any kind, nor would I use it to power any setup designed for music. It's fine for your surround sound computer speaker gaming setups, but I wouldn't recommend a Creative soundcard for ANY professional audio setup, no matter what the specific function. That said, it probably won't make too much of a difference in this case and for this situation, Apokalipse is probably right .

 

[uzi9mm]

Rule of thumb.
Well, any dedicated periphial card beats the hell out of anything that is onboard.

 

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

I agree. My friend works at a school, and they recently stripped down some old PC's. They all had an all-around sound, video game controller card, and sound input. That thing sounds great compared to my onboard, and it's probably near 5-6 years old.

Ryan

 

[uzi9mm]

same here, i have an old 6 year old sound blaster, it it way better than my onboard

 

[DJ-CHRIS]

same here, i have an old 6 year old sound blaster, it it way better than my onboard

same here, but it still sounds like crap compared to better sound cards.

And i have like a 10 year old turtle beach, sounds better than the soundblaster, it just doesnt like my new PC

 

[uzi9mm]

yeah i knwo the audigy 2 platinum sounds really good,and it performs way better than my old 6y/o blaster.

 

[javascriptman]

No need for that kind of language buddy... Anyway... There's no reason at all to go with a Pentium. That's what these guys are trying to say. You'll be paying more for a processor that runs your game less efficiently. I know you can't usually tell the difference between a 5 FPS, but hey, why argue with it when a more than comparable processor costs less? I don't see how there's even a decision to make.

Ryan

P.S. If you're whining about getting A's and B's for TWO GRAND, you're a spoiled little crap. I got that under my own intiative, if you can call it that taking college courses. You have to be not doing a dang thing in class to get worse grades than that.

It's actually MY 2,000 dollars that they won't let me spend unless I get A's and B's.

 

[javascriptman]

this is going nowhere.

if you prefer Intel, then buy Intel.
I prefer AMD, because they do get better gaming performance. Intel gets better multimedia performance.


this is half true. higher clock speeds is not really "worse" than being more efficient, however just boosting clock speeds and nothing else is not how CPU's get better.

I would recommend do not get the Audigy 2. the motherboard has onboard 7.1 sound.
the only advantage to the Audigy 2 is, well practically nothing. not unless you have superhuman ears.

I would also recommend getting OCZ's RAM instead of Corsair's. you're paying more for a brand name if you go for Corsair. OCZ makes better RAM than Corsair

eVGA 7800 GTX $504
it's $55 less than the BFG

Sorry, but I happen to like BFG a lot.

 

[Trotter]

I'm locking this thread due to the immature actions of a participant.

i would advise that everyone please try to grow up.