Gaming PC's

Printable View

Apr 18th, 2004, 09:47 PM
Pc_Madness

Gaming PC's

http://www.cworld.com.au/nav/computers/amd_midrange.htm

I thinking something like this, but perhaps AMD 64 3200 or 3400 (with the larger cache) when ever it comes out. :)

Otherwise all good? Going to be for 3D games and so forth, and of course development. :)

Thanks inadvance. :)
Apr 19th, 2004, 01:25 AM
DiGiTaIErRoR

Pricey. :eek:
Apr 19th, 2004, 04:38 AM
Pc_Madness

Indeed, but price isn't really an issue. :) Good enough, or should I look into the Intel 3.2 (?) Extreme edition thingie. Apparently thats better. :confused:

I don't know all that much when it comes to hardware.
:D
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:05 AM
Lightning

Video-card is much more important as the CPU (for game-play only(
Apr 19th, 2004, 12:09 PM
NoteMe

Quote:

Originally posted by Lightning
Video-card is much more important as the CPU (for game-play only(

No way that is only for game play....I am more or less just programming graphics and games, and I need my GPU just for that....never even touch games at the moment....
Apr 19th, 2004, 12:10 PM
NoteMe

Re: Gaming PC's

Quote:

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
http://www.cworld.com.au/nav/computers/amd_midrange.htm

I thinking something like this, but perhaps AMD 64 3200 or 3400 (with the larger cache) when ever it comes out. :)

Otherwise all good? Going to be for 3D games and so forth, and of course development. :)

Thanks inadvance. :)

What about a better screen card and a bigger HDD?
Apr 19th, 2004, 12:10 PM
NoteMe

And why do you want a LCD screen..and only 17"..???
Apr 19th, 2004, 04:33 PM
DiGiTaIErRoR

I'd suggest the Radeon 9800.
Apr 19th, 2004, 04:40 PM
NoteMe

Quote:

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
I'd suggest the Radeon 9800.

I have a 9800PRO...it's a minimum for a gaming PC.
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:52 PM
DiGiTaIErRoR

Quote:

Originally posted by NoteMe
I have a 9800PRO...it's a minimum for a gaming PC.

I have a Radeon 9000 PRO. My system is perfectly capable of running any game. For instance, I can run GTA Vice City at 6x FSAA and 16x AF and I still get better performance with the frame limiter off.
Apr 19th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Pc_Madness

Quote:

Originally posted by NoteMe
And why do you want a LCD screen..and only 17"..???

I'm not to bothered about screen size, as I've been using a 14inch laptop for the past 2 years, and a small monitor would really help since I have limited space. :(

Harddrive is fine, my laptop has a 20gb drive and I just manage to avoid filling it up. Thats the highest of all my computers. :eek:

And what do you mean Screen card?
Apr 20th, 2004, 04:30 AM
NoteMe

I ment GPU....graphics card...9800PRo...;)
Apr 22nd, 2004, 05:29 AM
wossname

I'm waiting until the 256bit CPU chips come out. Sweeeeet.

About the year 2031 sounds about right.
Apr 22nd, 2004, 05:34 AM
VisionIT

1 Attachment(s)

9800XT would be nicer! :)

Ditch the motherboard, they are awful.
Upgrade the hard disk
Upgrade the gfx card

I wouldn't touch the P4EE's yet... they are still around £550 for just the CPU, and AMD 64's (FX-53's) are noticably quicker. Not that it really matters which you go for, as there aren't enough multi-threaded apps out to use P4EE's to their fullest potential and 64bit OS's are still only in the beta stage.

I would get more memory, as you'll see far more difference from an upgrade of memory than a few hundred Mhz's from a CPU.

If you're going to be spending that sort of money, you may aswel go for something which is going to blow everyone away. Get a Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 motherboard, cause as the attached piccy shows.. it's still winning awards.
Apr 22nd, 2004, 05:50 AM
Pc_Madness

http://www.cworld.com.au/

Theres a Custom build option if you guys wanna cook something up for me, as I'm not entirely sure as to what will go with what. :confused:
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:25 AM
DiGiTaIErRoR

Quote:

Originally posted by VisionIT
9800XT would be nicer! :)

Ditch the motherboard, they are awful.
Upgrade the hard disk
Upgrade the gfx card

I wouldn't touch the P4EE's yet... they are still around £550 for just the CPU, and AMD 64's (FX-53's) are noticably quicker. Not that it really matters which you go for, as there aren't enough multi-threaded apps out to use P4EE's to their fullest potential and 64bit OS's are still only in the beta stage.

I would get more memory, as you'll see far more difference from an upgrade of memory than a few hundred Mhz's from a CPU.

If you're going to be spending that sort of money, you may aswel go for something which is going to blow everyone away. Get a Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 motherboard, cause as the attached piccy shows.. it's still winning awards.

You also get faster response times while multi-tasking with the P4 HT technology.

1 GB+ of RAM is were performance increases are most noteable.

The ABIT KV8 is a good board. You can get it on newegg.com(read all the good reviews) for $104 w/free shipping(or the MAX3 version for $152).
Apr 22nd, 2004, 02:19 PM
VisionIT

I disagree with the faster response times comment m8...

HT technology only works if the application is coded to use multi threaded architecture. It relies on a logical CPU to process other data, which simulates a second CPU. Most software we use today doesn't (yet) support MT'ing, so HT proves virtually useless.

AMD 64's are imo, a more sensible choice. Not only are they cheaper, but they are more futureproof in comparison. When the retail version of XP 64bit or Longhorn arrives, we'll be able to perform tests to prove 64's are quicker.

I think you'll find any significant memory upgrade would be noticable, regardless of being over 1Gb. Very few people would really need more than 1Gb anyway...
Apr 22nd, 2004, 05:08 PM
DiGiTaIErRoR

Hyperthreading makes the single processor 2 logical processors. That is, to the operating system, they are seen as two physical processors. Since a system is constantly multi-processing, HT reduces execution waste time, thus executes threads faster. The OS feeds threads to the 2 logical processors as if they were indeed two physical processors.

Check it, yo:

http://www.arstechnica.com/paedia/h/...reading-2.html
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:43 PM
Ideas Man

This is my advice and i tell this to everybody, wait for PCI Express!!!! Wait for ATI's answer to the new NVIDIA card and if you can, wait for Intel's 64-bit Pentium 4.
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:45 PM
Ideas Man

Quote:

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Pricey. :eek:

Remember, that's AUD, everything is damned expensive here :p
Apr 23rd, 2004, 01:38 AM
DiGiTaIErRoR

Quote:

Originally posted by Ideas Man
This is my advice and i tell this to everybody, wait for PCI Express!!!! Wait for ATI's answer to the new NVIDIA card and if you can, wait for Intel's 64-bit Pentium 4.

Geforce manufacturers will be using a bridged adaptation(AGP -> PCI Express) for PCI express(this'll require two chips, the GPU and the bridge). ATI's R420 is planned to be native to PCI Express(no bridge is required, so no extra chip). So ATI's PCI express compliant cards should have an advantage performance, and price-wise since you won't have to pay for a bridge(or use it).

I wouldn't buy an Intel though. I like my AMD processor.