|
|
Post by Zalis on Dec 20, 2006 14:36:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pass The Towel on Jan 18, 2007 4:20:13 GMT
Well what do you know, I stop playing Guild Wars and suddenly I have time to finish my PC spec  Anyway here is the (almost) final spec: komplett.co.uk/k/shoplist.asp?mode=receive&si=410903&su=A801C8D0-562F-4917-B43B-15E4C0689C63I switched from an AMD to Intel processor becuase all the tests show that the Core 2 Duos produce better results all round (so the motherboard had to get changed too). In the end I did what Zalis said, and decided to go all out on the GeForce 8800 GTX, which means a monitor upgrade is inevitable down the line... Jane: I think that power supply ought to do the trick  (it has a combined 12V rail of 40A if I remember correctly). Yozhura: I was going to go for the PSU you suggested, but this review put me off (apparently it has an unstable 12V rail). Well, I guess I will have to check back here soon to see if anyone's responded - hopefully I'll resist reading any other threads and getting tempted into logging on.  |
|
|
|
Post by Twisted Sister Jane on Jan 18, 2007 7:37:01 GMT
It makes me curious about your reviews indicating the Intel duo did better than the AMD. I looked at some test results on a link at Toms Hardware which were related to PC games only, not other computer tasks, and they showed that the duos were not above the AMD 3800 and the like in performance. But no matter, perhaps overall performance is better, and it is still a great choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pass The Towel on Jan 18, 2007 11:24:19 GMT
Hi Jane, I can't find the exact reviews I was looking at yesterday, but here are some good ones: www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014646,00.asp www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996932,00.asp uk.gamespot.com/features/6153900/p-3.html?sid=6153900&page=3&cpage=3I was comparing the E6600 with the X2 5200+, which are higher performers than the AMD 3800 you were reading about (if the 5200+ isn't in the review, it was designed to bridge the gap between the 5000+ and the AMD FX-62). |
|
|
|
Post by Zalis on Jan 18, 2007 16:21:11 GMT
Dual core CPUs have yet to really be utilized in PC games. A few titles have some things that take advantage of both cores, but you're mostly getting a small performance boost on top of multitasking power. (so games will minimize much easier etc) In the future, lots can be done w/ dual and quad cores, but it has yet to truly come about.
That being said, I recently upgraded from an AMD64 3000 to an AMD X2 4400. Great so far, though Oblivion is the game that I see the most improvement in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Radicc Tyranntt on Jan 18, 2007 19:31:38 GMT
Well I didn't see any actual proof of either of those processors being faster. The reviews Towel put up claim they are using the same right and are just using the different chip. That isn't even possible. In order to have a system with these two chips you have to use a different type of motherboard and depending on which mobo you use it changes the performance of your chip. So I wouldn't conclude anything from these reviews. I wasn't able to find any actual chip to chip comparisons(not that I looked that long). I'm also not inclined to ever believe people that try to rate performance the way these reviewers are because they don't know anything about actual performance to begin with. They just stick a bunch of pieces together and claim one is faster than the other. If you want a real performance guild line to go by try finding out which chip Hennessy and Patterson say is faster and why they say it is.
On a side note I don't know if anyone else noticed but all these pages I saw saying that the Intel core 2 duo is the fastest chip ever were also selling that chip. I bet if you go to some pages selling the AMD chip your reviews are gonna be different.
At any rate I'm pretty sure that no matter which chip you get your performance is gonna be better than whatever you had before. Personally I wouldn't be spending the money. Probably because I don't have the money. This really isn't the best time to be buying considering all the changes that are coming down the pipe so rapidly. So I recommend getting what you think is the best thing you can afford right now. Which is why it pissed me off to spend money to get my junk working. Lucky it was just the power supply.
Maybe my whole computer will fit on a quarter next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tanin'iver BlindDragon on Jan 18, 2007 19:56:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hadus on Jan 18, 2007 23:24:20 GMT
Now this is what I call a real dedicated Scout... ...... They just stick a bunch of pieces together and claim one is faster than the other. If you want a real performance guild line to go by try finding out which chip Hennessy and Patterson say is faster and why they say it is...... Hehe....can you tell where his mind is? Hadus |
|
|
|
Post by Pass The Towel on Jan 19, 2007 0:02:34 GMT
Trust you to pick up on that one Hadus Well Radicc, I need a PC and I can't delay forever! I think there is always "the next best thing" that will make any hard-earned cash seem like pennies in a few months, but that's just life in the PC market. Anyway I need a PC as I can't live with this borrowed 430Mhz Laptop much longer!! I'm definitely getting the best I can afford - I just have to mute my conscience  whenever I see the price tag on the 8800 GTX  . Hopefully it'll be worth it in the long run just to have DirectX 10 there, even if they do release a better one for a quarter of the price in a couple of months. Thanks for the pointer taniniver. As this is the first time I'm building a PC, I'm going to go with stock ratings so will buy a couple of models up (and get twice the L2 cache out of it). That way I can get decent performance and not void the warranty if anything goes wrong. Once I've "worn it in" a bit, I might dabble in over-clocking, but I think getting it all ordered and put together will be a big enough feat in itself to start with! |
|
|
|
Post by Radicc Tyranntt on Jan 19, 2007 0:19:47 GMT
Now this is what I call a real dedicated Scout... ...... They just stick a bunch of pieces together and claim one is faster than the other. If you want a real performance guild line to go by try finding out which chip Hennessy and Patterson say is faster and why they say it is...... Hehe....can you tell where his mind is? Hadus Thats what happens when you are typing a book before leaving for work. |
|
|
|
Post by Radicc Tyranntt on Jan 19, 2007 0:24:07 GMT
Trust you to pick up on that one Hadus Well Radicc, I need a PC and I can't delay forever! I think there is always "the next best thing" that will make any hard-earned cash seem like pennies in a few months, but that's just life in the PC market. Anyway I need a PC as I can't live with this borrowed 430Mhz Laptop much longer!! I'm definitely getting the best I can afford - I just have to mute my conscience whenever I see the price tag on the 8800 GTX . Hopefully it'll be worth it in the long run just to have DirectX 10 there, even if they do release a better one for a quarter of the price in a couple of months. Do what you gotta do dude. As long as you are happy with what you are getting and what you are paying for it, who really cares what all the slashdot nerds think. I wouldn't care what dual core chip it was if somebody was gonna give it to me free. When some fool starts going on about how theres is better I'd just have to point out how free mine was.  Ah free parts, now theres a dream. |
|
|
|
Post by Twisted Sister Jane on Jan 19, 2007 7:34:57 GMT
I am sure your choice is grand, Towel, and grats! The computer parts jungle is rather thick these days, and as said above, whatever you buy is far better than what you had before.
It is perhaps true that the relatively "not so high" performance of the duo processors is because the games today do not take advantage of the technology. This is good and bad. Look at me, I have a perfectly good PC which does not yet need upgrading, except that I cannot play a game like Oblivion because that game makes use of technologies that are not supported in my otherwise fine graphic card (and to change the graphic card makes no sense because then I should switch to PCI-Express and that means changing the entire computer just about).
I myself look forward to a new PC one day, perhaps next year, and then I will also be looking at this jungle again, to see which AMD or Intel is the one for me. But one thing for sure, I would not buy the newest and the best because of the rapid decline in prices as newer things arise on the market. I would settle for something that was out there a bit already, like when I settled for the AMD 3800+ for Kara's new PC. That PC runs stinking fine and will do so for the next few years, so I didn't see any reason to spend more bucks for one of the newer technology processers.
Sure you will have lots of happy gaming hours on your new box Towel!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pass The Towel on Jan 19, 2007 10:01:42 GMT
Well after your post, Jane I've done a U-turn in thinking. It really stings to shell out for the nVidia 8800 series at the moment, and I don't even have a monitor or any games that can make use of the technology so I think I'm getting a bit out of my league . Why not get a cheaper card in the mean time, then upgrade later when the prices are cheaper and there are programmes ready to use it (not to mention it would have been tested more by users)? The ATI Radeon X1900 XT is supposed to be a really good performer, at 1/3 the price of the 8800 series. PC Format says: Also, tom's hardware have it as the "Best PCI-E Card For ~£190 / €260": So... I think I will get that one instead for the time being... at least that's the advice I'd give anyone else! ;D ... of course, those are just qualitative statements, I've get to look at some real numbered about it. |
|
Dana Hawkeye
Ally 
I have many leather-bound books
Posts: 390
|
Post by Dana Hawkeye on Jan 19, 2007 10:31:59 GMT
At the end of the day, its down to your budget. Whenever I have a new PC made for me, which is approximately every 3 years, I go to the company with my budget in mind. We then go through my 'rough idea' of specifications, swapping and changing bits here and there until we settle on the final product. I always try to make whatever new PC I buy as 'inflation-proof' as I possibly can. But .................. I am still limited by my budget. I have been 'caught' a few times by the price drop of hardware (ie: My Sony multi format DvD burner and my Acer 24'' flatscreen), but that is the PC world for you ........ the consumer is never going to win that one, unless you are clairvoyant. You just have to bite the bullet and get on with it. This is the company that make all my computers:- www.islandcomputers.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by Twisted Sister Jane on Jan 19, 2007 14:18:53 GMT
Its a tough call, Towel.
Bottom line is, newest of the new costs the most, a little older is vastly cheaper.
The difficulty only comes when there is a major technology or implementation change, which is basically what I got caught up with: newer cards are using PCI-Express technology. Sure I can upgrade my video card this year to a better, Oblivion-ready card which still uses AGP, but then, why bother, because when I come to upgrade the computer I would then move on to PCI-Express and need to chuck the new card (interim solutions that can handle both AGP and PCI-Express I am not considering).
If you have the bucks to burn, go for the biggy! If you haven't been farming so much in real life like a lot of us, then go for the slightly older cards that still can give excellant performance and support the new games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zalis on Jan 19, 2007 14:51:45 GMT
As much of an Nvidia fan as I am, I think the ATI card might be a better deal for now. If you're ok w/ upgrading when DX10 games become more popular. (like after Vista hits) Also, the first generation of DX9 cards weren't so hot... or at least nowhere near the 2nd generation DX9. So it might also be good to wait in that respect.
Then again, a lot of my Nvidia love come from the drivers. While I currently have issues w/ part of them, lots of folks seem to prefer them over ATI. But that's just preference. The X 1900XT runs everything in its generation pretty well so it can't be too bad of an idea for its price tag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Radicc Tyranntt on Jan 19, 2007 16:26:00 GMT
At the rate I'm going I probably won't be buying another computer for a long time. Since I don't intend to be buying Vista and they don't seem to have any plans to release dx10 for any of their other os's. The future looks like I'm probably gonna be giving up on video games. I might be able to get Vista for free through school if it rolls out while I'm still here, but somehow I doubt I'll be getting the monster computer required to run it for free.
I just happened to be reading some of the craziness for vista when I ordered my new liberty.
Vista:
Memory 512 minimum, 1GB recommended, and 2GB Ideal.
(In microsoft terms that would usually mean you need 2Gigs of memory for your system to not run like total crap.)
40Gigs of hard drive space just to install the Os.
(guess thats why zipzoom is pushing the 750gb seagate barracuda)
Video card compairable to an nvidia 7000 series card.
(unless you buy the home edition which doesnt have all the 3d widow management stuff)
I didn't get the processor specs but it seems that are pushing dual cores. So its probably runs like crap with less then two processors. Guess thats what the quad core is for.
I guess we can just call it a money sink for the gaming community. I can only imagine how long I would have to farm for ecto to be able to afford to be able to actually run vista on a computer.
Oh well as long as guild wars doesn't decide to force everyone to dx10 I can still play something.
|
|
|
|
Post by hadus on Jan 19, 2007 22:02:27 GMT
Fortunately GW doesn't require any of those cutting edge technologies to run smooth. In fact, I've been playing it on my laptop just fine since the beginning. Granted the laptop was brand new when GW came out and it designed with media in mind but I still think that's saying something.
I was on the GameSpot sight awhile back and saw how little GW actually requires to run in "medium-high" quality. It's really quite low....but I know you're not building a long term PC based on GW so that's not much help ....hehe.
I think with these online games I have more of an issue with the internet connection and crowded "zones" than I do with my hardware. Maybe I need to get out more and test drive games like ...what was it?....Oblivion. That's not an online game is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pass The Towel on Jan 19, 2007 23:35:19 GMT
Yeah I agree Hadus, it's nice to know that no matter what, I'll be able to get a great looking (and sounding!) Guild Wars going. I really do love the game - it might be the fantastical look but it just looks so much better visually (IMO) than other games, especially similar ones like WoW. I will be getting Oblivion when this is all over and I have a machine that can run it - I had a blast with Morrowind so should be quite good - although it feels kind of weird to play alone after a GW stint - so single player games usually get left until there's an internet connection fault or something for me . Anyway, here is the (dare I say again) final spec. I'll just put up the core components as nobody cares about extras like fans and surge protectors. | CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4Ghz | | GPU | Sapphire ATI X1950XT | | Motherboard | Asus P5B-Delux WiFi | | RAM | Corsair XMS2 DDR2 PC2-6400, 1 x 1GB | | Case | Silverstone SST TJ04 | | PSU | Corsair HX520W 120mm fan | | Sound Card | Creative X-Fi XtremeGamer | | HDD | Samsung Spinpoint P120, 7200 rpm, 250GB | | DVD-RW | Plextor PX-755A |
The plan is to get another stick of ram when the price drops, and once it starts to age a bit, I might have a go at overclocking - but not for now . |
|
|
|
Post by Twisted Sister Jane on Jan 20, 2007 7:42:03 GMT
Sounds like a good machine, Towel! Sure it will work fine. Keep us up to date on all pluses and minuses, though, so we can learn from your experiences.
Vista? I am still working with Windows2000 both here at home and at work. But I am going to be forced to migrate to XP at some point, because some things I need to do simply are not supported by Win2K. One is being able to remotely log in to my office PC and work from home. I do this all the time with Linux no sweat, but I have some work applications that are Windows programs.
This is the day and age of quick production at cheapest costs, sparked by global competition and just the speed of changes in technologies. One of the outcomes is that the software development philosophy today is to make things easy and quick to program reliably, through object oriented code and re-usable code, and to pay no attention to the efficiency or size of the resulting code. Object orientation is fantastic, it makes you really able to re-use code and to put software together quickly by assembling software modules as sort of black boxes. But it is very easy to produce bloated code this way, and very inefficient code, because you no longer are aware of what all your objects are doing internally. But the Microsoft-style philosophy today is that RAM and hardisk space and CPU power is cheap and available, so there is no need to waste time to limit code size and to minimize memory and CPU requirements. This scares me. This is also why I didn't migrate yet to XP and I certainly won't migrate to Vista for a long time to come. I don't want to have to upgrade my PC each year.
Yes, fortunately GW has no stiff requirements yet, I am playing with an "ancient" Ti4200 graphic card with excellant graphics, and fortunately so much of my interest and gaming time is spent with GW that I have no need for Oblivion and whatever else which would necessitate an upgrade.
|
|
(it has a combined 12V rail of 40A if I remember correctly).
whenever I see the price tag on the 8800 GTX 
. Hopefully it'll be worth it in the long run just to have DirectX 10 there, even if they do release a better one for a quarter of the price in a couple of months.
Ah free parts, now theres a dream.