Graphic cards

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Intel has been real schizophrenic when it comes to sockets as of late. AMD has pretty much stuck to AM3... so yeah.

As I've noticed over the past year or so, unless you do a lot of processor-intensive tasks or are a hardcore gamer, you probably don't need something as expensive as an i7 or i5. The netbook/CULV revolution is showing people that unless you do some crazy computational shit, you just don't need to shell out $300 for a CPU alone.

Sadly these computers become obsolete after one year. It's pointless to use a netbook as a main computer not only because they are underpowered, hut clamped keyboards and small screens that you need to squint or go near the screen just to see what you are doing. Good luck trying to do programing on or any extended use, since it will eventually strain your eyes.

Netbooks are pointless IMO and not nearly as portable as Smartphones and wifi tablets. Most people would surf the Internet and listen to music and these devices can do it. The iPhone, IPod touch and Android devices can already do all these functions. Most will be better off with a regular laptop that can do more for a better experience, unless you really need portability and use of apps that don't run on a
smartphone.

[synaesthetic]

They're popular because they're cheap and have long battery life. Full-size laptops are expensive and most Joe Schmoe who does nothing on his computer but check his e-mail, update his MySpace page and watch stupid YouTube videos does not need a Core i7 Extreme. He can do all of that just fine on a Celeron SU2300 in a $400 laptop. Cheap full-size laptops typically have lol-tastic battery life.

People are starting to find this out. I know lots of people who aren't gamers and don't do anyt computationally-heavy work on their computers. Most of them have had the same computer for seven or more years. That's right, they're using computers from 2002 still.

Bottom line is when it comes to consumer use, unless you're a gamer, spending that much money on a processor you'll never, ever redline is silly.

Edit: And yes I totally agree with your assessment of netbook screens and keyboards. Financial circumstances leaving me with only my eeePC, I have come to hate the tiny screen and annoyingly small keyboard. Right now I would murder people for a laptop with a 13.3" 1280x800 display and an appropriate keyboard.

Still, there's a lot to be said for a computer that weighs less than 3 pounds and can be jammed into a purse. Trying to surf the internet on an iPhone is a lot worse on the eyes, but yeah. I'm disenfranchised with netbooks in general, and Intel doesn't show any interest in making Atom more powerful. I think Consumer Ultra-Low Voltage laptops are what netbooks should have been. Cheap and reasonably powerful ultraportables with excellent battery life.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Should I go for AMD or Intel? Hmmm...AMD is more affordable, which I need right now. I can't afford the high end i7s, but I could afford the PCs with the sockets for the lower end i7s...would that be a better investment than the AM3 route? Or should I be good with AMD for awhile? I mean, I could always buy a new motherboard down the road.


Again, thanks to so many for help here. Advice here has helped me to figure out what to get for a PC. I keep fine tuning what kind of PC to go for as I save up enough money to buy this PC. I want to be able to "comfortably" pay for this PC...save up enough money so that when I buy it, I can pay most of the credit card bill off right away.

To be honest, both my Athlon XP 2600+ and Athlon X2 4200+ gave me three years of pretty solid gaming until I upgraded. I suspect that either the Phenom II X4 955 or Core i5-750 will be the same, since they sell for around the same price point. And I wouldn't necessarily count on a 2009 motherboard design accepting a 2012 CPU regardless of socket.

I personally think that both the X4 955 Black Edition and the i5-750 are great choices. The 955 is a great base level quad core for a gamer, while the i5 provides a little bit of extra punch for about $60 extra ($25 extra for the mainboard and $35 extra for the CPU). I'd think about whether that $60 might be better invested in extras like a better monitor or media for a backup strategy though.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The netbook/CULV revolution is showing people that unless you do some crazy computational shit, you just don't need to shell out $300 for a CPU alone.

As a gamer and hardware geek, I would actually say even gamers don't need a $300 CPU, and I've known so for a while. I built rigs in 2003, 2006, and 2009, and the most I've spent on a CPU for any of them was something like $230 Canadian (probably around $200US at the time). The 2003 and 2006 rigs lasted me for three years and I see no reason to assume the 2009 one won't do the same.

[aeriolewinters]

I just want to say, that Intel should just go with one universal socket. they should stick with just the LGA-1156 platform. As nobody reelly needs triple-channel right now. This way it would be easy to upgrade from an i5 to an i9 in the future. I don't see why Intel needs to divide their platforms for different markets. It's just unfair for those who want to upgrade.

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

They're popular because they're cheap and have long battery life. Full-size laptops are expensive and most Joe Schmoe who does nothing on his computer but check his e-mail, update his MySpace page and watch stupid YouTube videos does not need a Core i7 Extreme. He can do all of that just fine on a Celeron SU2300 in a $400 laptop. Cheap full-size laptops typically have lol-tastic battery life.

People are starting to find this out. I know lots of people who aren't gamers and don't do anyt computationally-heavy work on their computers. Most of them have had the same computer for seven or more years. That's right, they're using computers from 2002 still.

Bottom line is when it comes to consumer use, unless you're a gamer, spending that much money on a processor you'll never, ever redline is silly.

Edit: And yes I totally agree with your assessment of netbook screens and keyboards. Financial circumstances leaving me with only my eeePC, I have come to hate the tiny screen and annoyingly small keyboard. Right now I would murder people for a laptop with a 13.3" 1280x800 display and an appropriate keyboard.

Still, there's a lot to be said for a computer that weighs less than 3 pounds and can be jammed into a purse. Trying to surf the internet on an iPhone is a lot worse on the eyes, but yeah. I'm disenfranchised with netbooks in general, and Intel doesn't show any interest in making Atom more powerful. I think Consumer Ultra-Low Voltage laptops are what netbooks should have been. Cheap and reasonably powerful ultraportables with excellent battery life.

The difference is that a smartphone is portable and you can instantly use it in your hands compared to a netbook. With a netbook, you need to lay it on your lap or on a flat surface. The problem is that for a few hundred dollars more ($200-300), you can already get a full size laptop. The reason netbooks are cheap is because they don't have that big of a HD, less RAM, slower CPU and no optical drive. Even if the Intel Atom runs okay for basic task, will it give the best end user experience? I think that even though a Intel Atom would be sufficient for a person like a grandmother to surf the web and check email, but I highly doubt it's a very smooth one. Netbooks are more of a compromise than so with a actual computer and most of these netbooks don't even leave the house. Most consumers are better off with a Desktop if they want affordable computing, which provides even more power than a netbook would.

I have experienced with a Intel Atom before since I have built a web server using the Intel Atom motherboard for the sole purpose to check on if my grandmother is behaving. Besides streaming the video from the webcam, everything else ran slow. Loading a PHP and MySQL Wordpress took longer than it would with a normal machine. Overall, the Intel Atom is not even powerful to host a simple website with PHP and MySQL. The problem is that consumers are expecting too much out of them when they can hardly keep up with what they want to do. This is the main reason why Netbooks and Nettops are a niche, they are too slow and too limited. Most of what a netbook can do a Smartphone can do with one device. Just note that a netbook can't do most of the things like a Smartphone can like SMS messaging, camera, 3G (unless you have a 3G modem), instant on, etc. Then again, Smartphone capabilities will probably increase in the near future.

With a smartphone, I can use it anywhere (like in a car or while I'm walking or standing). Actually, I use my iPhone more when I'm out than so with my laptop. A Netbook won't allow me to do those things since it's too clunky, although there are some that are a size of a smartphone. Most of the tasks I do on line besides gaming, watching HD subtitled anime (which the Atom will struggle without CoreAVC or nVidia's Ion), programing in RealBasic, web development, etc is just web browsing, Tweeting and listening to music. These following task can be easily done on a smartphone without any bulk, so why do I need a Netbook then.

For me... I prefer a full featured 15" laptop I have with the fastest processor and graphics...

Also, any CPU over $300 is overkill already. Unless there is a price drop on them or you planning to play games like Crysis at 30 fps with high quality and full resolution, you don't need such a high end CPU since most games are optimized and not like Cyrsis. Also, the current i5/i7 is eventually going to drop in price since the new ones will come out... Personally, I wouldn't spend that much and/or just wait if I wanted to build my own gaming machine.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

To be honest, both my Athlon XP 2600+ and Athlon X2 4200+ gave me three years of pretty solid gaming until I upgraded. I suspect that either the Phenom II X4 955 or Core i5-750 will be the same, since they sell for around the same price point. And I wouldn't necessarily count on a 2009 motherboard design accepting a 2012 CPU regardless of socket.

I personally think that both the X4 955 Black Edition and the i5-750 are great choices. The 955 is a great base level quad core for a gamer, while the i5 provides a little bit of extra punch for about $60 extra ($25 extra for the mainboard and $35 extra for the CPU). I'd think about whether that $60 might be better invested in extras like a better monitor or media for a backup strategy though.

It sounds like going AMD is a sound choice. I won't be a hardcore PC gamer. In three years to four years, I can upgrade the motherboard and CPU and such, or just get a new computer or something. But going AMD will give me a solid machine for at least 3 years.

I can always upgrade the AM3 processor, too. I might just get a dual core CPU, though. I've heard people here say go with quad core because quad core processor use is being more and more utilized. However, quad core optimization isn't prominent yet. I hear a high speed dual core CPU does better than quad cores for the most part, since quad cores aren't prominently optimized so far.

I have to check prices for the best Phenom II x4 and the best phenom II x2 again. If I find that the Phenom II x4 doesn't cost too much more, I might go for it.

Also, I plan to buy a PC from a site. I will have a Phenom II processor with a Radeon 5750 and two fans for the case/system. This system might be loud or kind of loud. The less system noise, the better. This site offers foam to reduce system noise for $50. Will it make a decent difference? Is it worth the money for less system noise?

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

Also, any CPU over $300 is overkill already. Unless there is a price drop on them or you planning to play games like Crysis at 30 fps with high quality and full resolution, you don't need such a high end CPU since most games are optimized and not like Cyrsis. Also, the current i5/i7 is eventually going to drop in price since the new ones will come out... Personally, I wouldn't spend that much and/or just wait if I wanted to build my own gaming machine.

Crysis ran just fine on my 2006 era, $200-ish Athlon X2 4200+ (a 2.2ghz dual core). The game is a GPU killer, but it's not much of a CPU killer, especially compared to some recent games.

(And even when it comes to GPU... the game really only deserves the title "GPU killer" on the grounds that it's more demanding than others. One of my friends played through the game on a 512MB 8800GTS - a cards that is outperformed by the GTS 250s Newegg currently sells for $110 - at 1680X1050 with most settings on high. He found the performance just fine.)

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I can always upgrade the AM3 processor, too. I might just get a dual core CPU, though. I've heard people here say go with quad core because quad core processor use is being more and more utilized. However, quad core optimization isn't prominent yet. I hear a high speed dual core CPU does better than quad cores for the most part, since quad cores aren't prominently optimized so far.

I have to check prices for the best Phenom II x4 and the best phenom II x2 again. If I find that the Phenom II x4 doesn't cost too much more, I might go for it.

Also, I plan to buy a PC from a site. I will have a Phenom II processor with a Radeon 5750 and two fans for the case/system. This system might be loud or kind of loud. The less system noise, the better. This site offers foam to reduce system noise for $50. Will it make a decent difference? Is it worth the money for less system noise?

I think the dual core to quad core transition is actually starting to take place. Certainly games like GTAIV and Resident Evil 5 get quite a boost from a quad core. From what I've seen the X4 955 Black Edition is the sweet spot for price and performance, and it costs about $66 more than the X2 550 on Newegg.

(I should just quickly point out that when I assume the X4 955 will last a few years, I'm assuming nobody is going to push out a game that's coded even worse than the PC version of GTA IV.)

If the case you're getting uses 120mm fans, I'm not sure how much value there would be to foam unless you're really sensitive to background noise. I mean, I can hear the CPU fan and such in my old Athlon X2 box, but I barely even noticed it most of the time.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Crysis ran just fine on my 2006 era, $200-ish Athlon X2 4200+ (a 2.2ghz dual core). The game is a GPU killer, but it's not much of a CPU killer, especially compared to some recent games.

(And even when it comes to GPU... the game really only deserves the title "GPU killer" on the grounds that it's more demanding than others. One of my friends played through the game on a 512MB 8800GTS - a cards that is outperformed by the GTS 250s Newegg currently sells for $110 - at 1680X1050 with most settings on high. He found the performance just fine.)




I think the dual core to quad core transition is actually starting to take place. Certainly games like GTAIV and Resident Evil 5 get quite a boost from a quad core. From what I've seen the X4 955 Black Edition is the sweet spot for price and performance, and it costs about $66 more than the X2 550 on Newegg.

(I should just quickly point out that when I assume the X4 955 will last a few years, I'm assuming nobody is going to push out a game that's coded even worse than the PC version of GTA IV.)

If the case you're getting uses 120mm fans, I'm not sure how much value there would be to foam unless you're really sensitive to background noise. I mean, I can hear the CPU fan and such in my old Athlon X2 box, but I barely even noticed it most of the time.

I suppose it isn't worth that sort of money for reduced noise. It shouldn't be that bad. I'll just go for a 955 instead. Money better spent. A X4 955 is recommended for something that meets price and performance in good measures, eh? Sounds good.

Like I've said, I've had lots of time to look at all sorts of small details for this PC, as I've been looking for what to get while I save up money until I can comfortably buy a new PC. I might buy this weekend, now. In time, I want a wide screen HD monitor to go with the system. Probably 21-23 inches. I'll look for a good monitor with 3 ms for speed or 2 ms for speed. Most HD monitors have 5 ms for speed. Is that pretty good? I dunno if there is much of a difference between 5 ms for speed and 2 ms for speed.

If it makes any difference, I want to hook up my PS3 to the monitor for HD gaming (maybe 2 ms speed is best for PS3?).

[synaesthetic]

As much as I like smartphones (the Droid is fucking sexy), I refuse to use them. I will not sign a contract. I don't agree with cell phone company policies and how crooked they are. I will always use prepaid cell phones because I don't have to commit to anything, and yeah, that does leave me using throwaways, but at least I don't get screwed.

Until the mobile phone market changes significantly--no more contracts, flat fees, no more overages or early termination nonsense. Why can I pay $50 a month for unlimited internets at home, but to get GSM I have to pay $60 for x gigs then pay way too fucking much every 1MB above that amount?

Until the wireless world makes sense, smartphones are a non-starter.

Secondly, netbooks are more powerful than people give them credit for. I know lots of people over on eeeuser.com who have only a netbook, no other computer at all, and are perfectly happy with it.

Smartphones make sense if you have the money to spend on them and for their individual niche. It's not the same niche as a netbook or a CULV notebook. Remember the entire "netbook revolution" started with the OLPC--a cheap and small computer for children in developing countries. I doubt very seriously those kids could afford smartphones.

Yeah, my portable computing needs would much better be filled by a Thinkpad x200 as opposed to an eee PC, but they're still $1000. That's not so easy to part with, so for now I'm stuck with the Asus.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I suppose it isn't worth that sort of money for reduced noise. It shouldn't be that bad. I'll just go for a 955 instead. Money better spent. A X4 955 is recommended for something that meets price and performance in good measures, eh? Sounds good.

Like I've said, I've had lots of time to look at all sorts of small details for this PC, as I've been looking for what to get while I save up money until I can comfortably buy a new PC. I might buy this weekend, now. In time, I want a wide screen HD monitor to go with the system. Probably 21-23 inches. I'll look for a good monitor with 3 ms for speed or 2 ms for speed. Most HD monitors have 5 ms for speed. Is that pretty good? I dunno if there is much of a difference between 5 ms for speed and 2 ms for speed.

If it makes any difference, I want to hook up my PS3 to the monitor for HD gaming (maybe 2 ms speed is best for PS3?).

Choosing a monitor can almost be harder than choosing a PC

I just finished playing through the entirity of Crysis Warhead on a 5ms LCD, so I wouldn't worry too much about 5ms vs. 2ms. As for the PS3, make sure that you get something without input lag - I believe that monitors are less prone to this than HDTVs. (A lot of HDTVs use image processing techniques that require the TV to buffer a few frames before displaying them, which of course introduces lag - many TVs have a game mode that turns such features off.) You might want an HDMI input as well, just because it lessens the number of adaptors and such necessary.

There's basically three man "families" of LCD types:
TN: cheap, fast, but viewing angles and colour saturation aren't that good
VA: medium to high prices, pretty good viewing angles and colours, but slower than other LCD types.
IPS: Good viewing angles and colours, medium speed, expensive. Even a 22 inch IPS will set you back $300.

Almost all cheap LCD monitors are TN panels.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Choosing a monitor can almost be harder than choosing a PC

I just finished playing through the entirity of Crysis Warhead on a 5ms LCD, so I wouldn't worry too much about 5ms vs. 2ms. As for the PS3, make sure that you get something without input lag - I believe that monitors are less prone to this than HDTVs. (A lot of HDTVs use image processing techniques that require the TV to buffer a few frames before displaying them, which of course introduces lag - many TVs have a game mode that turns such features off.) You might want an HDMI input as well, just because it lessens the number of adaptors and such necessary.

There's basically three man "families" of LCD types:
TN: cheap, fast, but viewing angles and colour saturation aren't that good
VA: medium to high prices, pretty good viewing angles and colours, but slower than other LCD types.
IPS: Good viewing angles and colours, medium speed, expensive. Even a 22 inch IPS will set you back $300.

Almost all cheap LCD monitors are TN panels.

Is your HD monitor IPS? How much did it cost? I thought most HD monitors were good for gaming. I don't mind spending $300 on an IPS monitor that is 22 inches big, though. Should serve me well. I'm just looking for something good; it doesn't have to be that big. I'll really care about screen size when I go for my first HDTV.

[0utf0xZer0]

I use a 2007 era LG W226WTX... a 22 inch TN panel with 1680X1050 resolution. IPS was too expensive at the time. Do note, however, that for the kind of price you can get a 22-23 inch IPS for, you can get a 25-28 inch TN panel. It's difficult for me to really make a judgement on which is the best option... IPS IS better, but a lot of people use TN without complaints.

Do you plan to use separate speakers for your PC and PS3, or do you need a monitor with built in speakers? The latter may limit selection of inputs a bit.

Your PC should be able to use almost any input, but something other than VGA is preferable. The PS3 should have HDMI out natively, and can send video to DVI and probably displayport with adaptors. I won't get into audio until you've answer my previous question.

IPS options:
Dell 2209WA: 22 inch, 1680X1050, 5ms. VGA and DVI inputs. $300 from Dell itself.
NEC EA231WMi. 23 inch, 1920X1080. Has Displayport, DVI, and VGA inputs, plus built in speakers. $340 from NEC itself. Response time is listed at 14ms but the one user review I've seen so far didn't find response time an issue... I can probably look into more user reviews if you're interested.

Your TN options are probably broader... looking at Newegg, you can get HP 25 and 27 inchers for $280 and $360, Samsung 24 and 26 inchers for $250 and $330 (although the prices for these two are specials), and an Asus 24 inch for $220. All 1920X1080 (1080P) with at least one HDMI input. The Asus and HP also have built in speakers.

Of course, there's always the "go all out" option... I've also heard of some people using 32 inch 1080P HDTVs as monitors and just sitting like four feet back. Newegg offers a LG 32 inch IPS HDTV for $510.

[synaesthetic]

How much would a smaller IPS panel cost, maybe 19", or do they even make those anymore?

[0utf0xZer0]

@Urzu7: Here's some info on using the Ultrasharp 2209wa with the PS3 via either an HDMI to DVI adaptor or a component to VGA adaptor:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1483

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

How much would a smaller IPS panel cost, maybe 19", or do they even make those anymore?

I don't think I've seen any 19 inch widescreen IPSes. NEC still appears to make some 5:4 aspect ratios 19 inch IPSes, but those are pricy since they're intended mainly for pro use. (They also appear to make a 19 inch 5:4 VA panel model with a 5ms response time, so I'm wondering if there is such a thing as fast VA technology now. That goes for $240.)

In general, IPS LCDs aren't cheap - that $300 Dell Ultrasharp 2209WA is basically the quintessential "budget" IPS LCD. You may be able to knock $20 or $30 off the price by using Dell coupon codes though, and those are easy to find using Google.

[Urzu 7]

Are you happy with the TN display? Even if IPS is better, do you think TN is more than good enough? I might just go for a TN display. I won't rule out IPS yet, though.

As for audio...I'd like a monitor that has HDMI and speakers built-in.

I might get an XBox 360 one day, too. Is there an adapter that can hook up X360s to VGA ports? Well, in that link you sent me (Outf0xZero), it shows how a certain output can be compatible with component cables via an adapter. I dunno about the X360, though. I may or may not get one.

Oh, right, I ordered a computer. I went with what would be best performance to meet my budget.

The computer I ordered has these following specs: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition CPU, Radeon HD 5750 1 GB, 4 GB of DDR3 RAM (1600), 750 GB hard drive, 22x dual layer DVD reader and writer, 700 watt PSU, 12-in-1 card reader.

I didn't spend extra money on the DDR3 1600 RAM. It was a free upgrade from 1333 DDR3 RAM. I wanted a computer with an i5 processor, but that drove the price over $1000; about $150 more than what I ended up buying.

[synaesthetic]

solid state boot/OS drive gogogogogogo

[chikorita157]

I might get an XBox 360 one day, too. Is there an adapter that can hook up X360s to VGA ports? Well, in that link you sent me (Outf0xZero), it shows how a certain output can be compatible with component cables via an adapter. I dunno about the X360, though. I may or may not get one.

Most XBox 360s have HDMI and most monitors have HDCP protection built in. All you need is a DVI to HDMI cable to plug into the monitor to play XBox 360 since HDMI is DVI compatible after all.

[0utf0xZer0]

I'm sort of happy with my TN panel monitor. Compared to the old 17 inch CRT I was using it's great, but the colours are washed out compared to other LCD types, and since TN panels look darker when looked at from below (in extreme cases this can actually cause severe loss of detail in dark scenes, but you don't tend to encounter this with a normal seating position) the top of the screen tends to look a bit darker than the bottom.

Chikorita is right that HDMI can be converted to DVI rather easily, however, if you're planning to use built in speakers (I assume you're comfortable with the sound quality of this) you need to be aware that you'll need a separate analog audio output as well. A PC can do this with a simple cable, and I'm pretty sure the PS3 and 360 can too although you might need an inexpensive adaptor.

Microsoft sells an official VGA cable for the 360 for something like $40, but I'm not sure it's worth much since new 360s all have HDMI out.

Some monitors have dual HDMI inputs (certain Asus and HP TN panel designs IIRC), which might also simplify cabling somewhat.

[Urzu 7]

I might save up for an IPS monitor. A 22 inch screen is plenty big for a computer monitor, and I'll play my PS3 at my computer desk. It'll be my first taste of HD gaming. I'm sure I'll be happy with it. Well, first taste of extensive play with HD gaming.

I suppose a 5 ms response time is pretty good. Seems to be the average time for monitors currently.

I have bought the computer, so I'll wait to buy the new monitor. I'll wait until around March and April for the new monitor. I will want HD resolutions for FF XIII and Red Dead Redemption. I'm also waiting on playing Uncharted 2 (haven't bought it yet) for when I have an HD monitor.

[0utf0xZer0]

I take it you're looking at the Dell then?

I actually really like the Ultrasharp 2009WA, but do bare in mind that unlike the other monitors mentioned, it doesn't include speakers. Also, I forgot to mention that the component video input trick mentioned earlier isn't HDCP compliant. While nobody has done so yet, the Bluray spec does allow disc manufacturers to limit non-HDCP compliant outputs to 960X540 resolution using an image constrain token or ICT. I remember hearing back when Bluray shipped that studios weren't planning to start using ICTs until 2012, but that's not so far off now. The DVI input on the monitor is HDCP compliant but that's going to require you to swap inputs between your PC and PS3.

There's also two minor issues when using the monitor with a PS3: one, that the monitor uses a 16:10 aspect ratio (16 pixels of width for every 10 pixels of height) versus 16:9 for TV sets, so the image will be stretched vertically about 11% to fit. Two, that the monitor overscans about 1.5% when using component input - although many TVs - even HD ones - overscan more than this so I wouldn't consider that a huge deal.