Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

  I should not have shared video and really you must have much more RAM.

You can rest easy that you are not the only one to fall into this trap. If you're not a geek, it's easy to shop by the price tag and overlook the specs.

It's a huge disservice to their customers for computers retailers(and manufactures) to
sell a low-priced computer with shared video RAM and inadequate system RAM. In the end they end up with a dissatisfied customer, which could have easily been prevented with a little more honesty and realistic system specs before the purchase.

Vyper, if you'd like to take this conversation offline, I'd be happy to work with you on picking out parts on a PC that will fit your budget and your needs. Please PM me if you're interested.

IMHO, discussing this online, helps all the nontech people to learn and make more informed decisions. I for one am enjoying reading this thread and learning quite a bit to boot. (pun intended)

My suggestion is nVidia.
 
Only because on wargame forums, those with nVidia seem to have fewer problems.
-
 

ORIGINAL: sabre1

IMHO, discussing this online, helps all the nontech people to learn and make more informed decisions. I for one am enjoying reading this thread and learning quite a bit to boot. (pun intended)

Sabre, if you have any specific questions in mind, please ask. I just offered to go offline with Vyper because I thought that maybe he wouldn't want everyone to know what his budget for his new PC was.

And then you could go AMD CPU and ATI graphics just to help keep some competition alive in the industry. I love to see the interplay between Intel and AMD / ATI and Nvidea as they constantly try to "one up" each other while slashing prices to compete.

We would all be the losers if we ever end up with a complete Intel monopoly.

Just a thought. [;)]

I agree with you Rhondabrwn, and I have owned an AMD system, but the current chips when compaing performance for gaming just don't hold up well to the Intel chips at "this point in time".

I like AMD and my current video card is an ATI 4870 2 GB.

Thanks Slick Wilhelm! Your point is valid and very genteel.

ORIGINAL: sabre1

I agree with you Rhondabrwn, and I have owned an AMD system, but the current chips when compaing performance for gaming just don't hold up well to the Intel chips at "this point in time".

I like AMD and my current video card is an ATI 4870 2 GB.

Thanks Slick Wilhelm! Your point is valid and very genteel.

Ah, but AMD is holding it's own on the pricing and as has been pointed out above the noticeable performance difference between CPU's isn't always that great. My two latest builds (one of which was a budget build) are using AMD Phenom and Phenom II CPU's and I rarely get above 20% CPU utilization even when running something like MS Flight Simulator X on highest settings. I'm not in to "shooters" but the free demos run equally well with frame rates between 40 and 70+. I might mention that I have an ATI HD4850 graphics card in one and a low end HD4670 in the other and they both run quite acceptably.

I think one could make a credible argument that at the moment hardware has really outrun the capability of programmers to create new games that can even begin to keep up with the potential (at least while producing a marketable product that runs on enough installed systems). There is a point where "eye candy" really can't be improved further when you are already up to photorealism levels. Then a great game is going to be about design and gameplay, not frame rates and graphics. That, IMHO, is a very good thing.

You'll save money going AMD and won't notice the difference if you're buying high end stuff. 

I guess if you have extra money you feel like burning, then go all out but you don't really need the higher priced Intel stuff over the more reasonable AMDs.  I tend to build a new one when I can afford it and when it costs less, I can afford a new one more often. [;)]

THere is i7 with dual channel and tri channel. Latest version is dual channel. i7 920 may be a tad faster but it is far from the best bang for buck cpu to be had. That crown goes to i5 750. Same speed as i7 860 but no hyperthreading (woop-dee-doo) and was $100.00 less. These CPUs overclock quite well and that is where the real bang-for-buck comes into play. I have my i5 750 OC to 4.0gh but have set power management to balanced so it downclocks to 1.7ghz during web web browsing etc. and OC to 4.0ghz when gaming etc. That's the way to use these new CPUs and don't force them to OC all the time. I was playing chess and running CPUZ and could see my i5 750 OC when it was the computers turn and auto downclock when it was my turn. They don't just handle the OC automatically but the CPU and Ram volatages too, with correct bios settings and balanced power mangement in Vista/Win7. More volts when in OC mode and less when in downclock mode. The cpu will use various sppeds depending on the task at hand but for intensive 3D games it is always OC to 4.0ghz.

BTW, i7 920 motherboards cost quite a bit more than the dual channel i7/i5 motherboards. You want fast and cheap? Then buy i5 750, Asus P7P55D LE motherboard and 2x2GB DDR3 1600 ram and then OC it. If you feel you need to pay more for marginal benefit then feel free to waste your money on i7 920.

sorry, double post