Graphic cards

[0utf0xZer0]

Personally, I'm thinking either an XFX Geforce 9800GT or Radeon HD4770, depending on whether the OP prefers ATI or Nvidia. They're $97 and $110 on Newegg respectively. Performance between the two chips seems pretty similar - sometimes one leads, sometimes the other.

The big question that needs to get resolved, however, is whether the OP's power supply can handle these sorts of boards. I suspect anything with a six pin PCI-E power connector can handle a 4770 since the power draw on those cards is quite low. The 9800GT's not exactly power hungry either but draws about 20 watts more under load according to an Anandtech review I read.

Edit: also, I'm kind of assuming you're running at a resolution or 1680X1050 or lower... please specify if this is not the case.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Kytherno

Tl;dr

Can you summarize for me?

Of'course

1) read this:

http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPU...chapter07.html

2) the technology used in the paper is future. Current games do not use these techniques. However, film makers use it (e.g. Gollum in Lord of the Rings... everything Pixar does...) but they use so called render farms that calculate the single images that are combined to film sequences and finally made into a movie on hundreds of PCs using the CPU (not GPU).

3) Therefore the following conclusion: Since games today use techniques that are less important in the future, the game-FPS is not a good argument for future provedness.

(at least the post itself is shorter )

[hobbes_fan]

x2 4400 is still ok but getting a bit on. Wouldn't buy anything more than a 4770/4830. There comes a point where a videocard is too fast and the CPU can't keep up. So no matter how good your videocard is it gets wasted because the cpu can't handle the data. I doubt you'll be able to overclock as it sounds like a pre assembled pc from somewhere like dell. And they cripple the BIOS so you won't be able to. Your best bet maybe splitting your budget and updating both your CPU and gfx card. If you can overclock look into it - I've had that processor before and have gotten it to 3ghz without too much fuss and on standard cooling. But do your research-understand the risks and understand what you need to do and how to test. But even then I wouldn't go any higher than a 4870. This isn't the place to go into too much detail but dedicated forums like tomshardware will be able to get you off to a good start. What I'd personally like to know is the rest of your system specs and what gfx is in there right now

GTAIV and Crysis suck as a benchmarks. GTAIV can barely crack 60fps avg on most overclocked quadcores with a high end single card config @1920x1200 (enthusiast level pc's), and Crysis is horrid compared to the newer Crysis Warhead which uses the same engine but is significantly better performing on the same hardware. Bad code is bad code. They simply can't be run without major graphical compromises.

Also Dell/off the shelf PC pricing for videocards is BS so their $150 videocard is pretty much a $50 everywhere else. Also here, use this link
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...card,2362.html

[Urzu 7]

I want a new computer for a cheap price. Under $800 cheap, I'm talking about (including OS).

How is the Radeon 3870? It released in 2007, but I looked up specs and it is a little better than a Geforce 8800 GTS. Would it need a better PSU than standard? What kind of PSU would I need, if so? Does it run hot? This card costs less than $100 and has pretty solid performance.

Should I go with a Radeon 4850 instead? Does that need a special PSU? Does that run hot?

I'm gonna get 2 GB of RAM with it. I'll upgrade to 4 GB of RAM or 6 GB of RAM in the future.

Will the newest games run good on 2 GB of RAM, or should I go with 4 GB of RAM?

Should I just spend the extra money and go for a Radeon 4850, or just upgrade to a card that is much better down the road? How much better is a Radeon 4850 compared to a Radeon 3870, anyway?

[0utf0xZer0]

Newegg actually sells a prebuilt desktop with a Core 2 Quad, 4GB of RAM, HD 4850, and Windows 7 for $700 US, so if you're building your own for $800 there should be no need to constrain yourself to 2GB of RAM or anything less than a 4850 unless you also want a new monitor included in the price.

(I will note that upgrading from a 17 inch CRT to my 22 inch LCD is one of my single favourite computer purchases...)

[chikorita157]

Radeon 3870 is 2 generations old and will probably not handle all the newer games at full quality. I suggest going for a Radeon 4850, but it shouldn't require a special PSU unless the PSU doesn't provide enough wattage. With higher end cards, you need to hook a special cord to the graphics card to provide extra power to the card.

[0utf0xZer0]

The 4850 actually does need a direct connection to the power supply, but so does pretty much any other card I'd consider recommending to a gamer. The high end stuff often requires two connections to the PSU rather than one. For a 4850 he'll need to make sure to get a decent power supply, but that's good practice when building a PC anyway.

The reason I'd say go with the 4850 or maybe even the new 5750 is because the 4850 is like $115 now anyway. It's not just a matter of not skimping on GPU for a gaming rig... it's that there's not much point to doing so anyway.

[synaesthetic]

n'thing 4850.

It's just a damn good GPU for a damn good price.

Because game graphics are now determined by the current generation of game consoles as opposed to PCs, PC owners get the benefit of not having to constantly be on the bleeding edge anymore.

It's a really refreshing feeling. Pricey gaming rigs actually last a lot longer now. I remember the bad old days when PCs drove the high end of gaming and you had to upgrade like mad. Nowadays, you only have to make really big expensive upgrades every time a new console generation comes out.

[chikorita157]

Dual Core processors pretty much retain their performance considering that most programs have yet take full advantage of dual core or even quad core CPUs yet... and most games won't run well with a quad core compared to a dual score since most games are only optimized for dual core unless you are playing games like Crysis. Quad Core processors are really designed for multitasking and encoding files... If you can get a quad core for cheaper, well go for it... but the only worthwhile quad core processors are the Intel i5 and i7, but they cost slightly more than the regular Core2 Quad, but is alot faster and will last a bit longer.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

n'thing 4850.

It's just a damn good GPU for a damn good price.

Because game graphics are now determined by the current generation of game consoles as opposed to PCs, PC owners get the benefit of not having to constantly be on the bleeding edge anymore.

It's a really refreshing feeling. Pricey gaming rigs actually last a lot longer now. I remember the bad old days when PCs drove the high end of gaming and you had to upgrade like mad. Nowadays, you only have to make really big expensive upgrades every time a new console generation comes out.

True... technically, even the Radeon 3850 is like twice as fast as the graphics chip in the PS3 (very similar to the 7950GT) and the 4850 is probably twice again as fast as that. More than enough to make up for the fact that 1680X1050 (the res of a 22 inch PC monitor) is nearly twice the pixel count of the 720P console standard...

I'm actually getting kind of worried about what's going to drive new hardware sales in the future seeing as someone needs to pay R&D bills for ATI, nVidia, etc... I guess there still are a few PC exclusives or consoles with extra graphical features though.

Originally Posted by chikorita157

Dual Core processors pretty much retain their performance considering that most programs have yet take full advantage of dual core or even quad core CPUs yet... and most games won't run well with a quad core compared to a dual score since most games are only optimized for dual core unless you are playing games like Crysis. Quad Core processors are really designed for multitasking and encoding files... If you can get a quad core for cheaper, well go for it... but the only worthwhile quad core processors are the Intel i5 and i7, but they cost slightly more than the regular Core2 Quad, but is alot faster and will last a bit longer.

Actually, from what I've heard Crysis is pretty much GPU limited as opposed to CPU limited, and you don't get much benefit from more than two cores. That said, I tend to recommend quads for future proofing just because the price premium isn't too bad nowadays.

[Urzu 7]

I think I will get dual core processor. I can always upgrade to a quad core processor down the road. From the sounds of it, Quad core gaming isn't popular right now.

If I was to go quad core, though (still not totally decided on this as you can tell), are there any good AMD quad core processors? What is a good AMD quad core processor that is at a good price?

I'm thinking about getting a PC from www.ibuypower.com. Unless some people here know that it has a bad reputation or something, I really think I'll go with them. I can find the kind of system I want with the parts I want, Window 7, and cheap productivity software (including Word) for $850, and I'm about to look at AMD systems, which should be cheaper than the Intel system I configured.

So, what are some good quad core processors from AMD, and what are some good dual core processors from AMD?

And on the matter of HD widescreen panels...what brand is recommended by those with such monitors and like them?

[Alchemist007]

I've only heard good things about ibuypower from pals

[Urzu 7]

^^^

Well, that is good to hear. I like what I see from the site so far.


PSU...should I get a standard PSU...or a better one? The card I'm looking to get is the Radeon 4850.

[0utf0xZer0]

I know this is probably a bit of work, but it would be helpful if you could give us a part by part listing of what you're thinking of.

The HD4850 isn't a power guzzler but you'll probably want something better than the base model. The one issue here is that iBuypower seems to charge a fairly sizeable premium for name brand power supplies...

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

True... technically, even the Radeon 3850 is like twice as fast as the graphics chip in the PS3 (very similar to the 7950GT) and the 4850 is probably twice again as fast as that. More than enough to make up for the fact that 1680X1050 (the res of a 22 inch PC monitor) is nearly twice the pixel count of the 720P console standard...

I'm actually getting kind of worried about what's going to drive new hardware sales in the future seeing as someone needs to pay R&D bills for ATI, nVidia, etc... I guess there still are a few PC exclusives or consoles with extra graphical features though.

I'm hoping this change in the hardware market changes the way games are made. I don't know about you, but I'm constantly tired of games that are all about pretty shiny pictures and have no depth of storytelling, memorable characters or gameplay that isn't boring as all hell.

I'm hoping that this insane graphics arms-race dies out. I'm hoping the netbook revolution will make enough people realize that they don't need super-powerful computers to do everyday tasks. I'm hoping that this forces game developers to focus more on story, gameplay and writing than the newest 3D rendering fuckery.

Planned obsolescence is no fun. Wouldn't it be nice to have a PC last a few years before it's obsolete? =P

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'm hoping this change in the hardware market changes the way games are made. I don't know about you, but I'm constantly tired of games that are all about pretty shiny pictures and have no depth of storytelling, memorable characters or gameplay that isn't boring as all hell.

I'm hoping that this insane graphics arms-race dies out. I'm hoping the netbook revolution will make enough people realize that they don't need super-powerful computers to do everyday tasks. I'm hoping that this forces game developers to focus more on story, gameplay and writing than the newest 3D rendering fuckery.

Planned obsolescence is no fun. Wouldn't it be nice to have a PC last a few years before it's obsolete? =P

I dislike spending money but I'm also a PC enthusiast who enjoys getting benefit from my gear. So while I'm glad you can actually get three years of solid performance out of a $800-$1000 gaming PC now - as opposed to how it used to be that you'd get 18-24 months of good performance before suffering through 12-18 months where you really felt the computer's age - I'm not especially inclined to see it slow much more than that. And I also happen to like games with very large environments, which seems to be one of those things that consistantly raises the bar.

tl;dr: I prefer a steady (not breakneck pace) advance in graphics to console style generational leaps.

(I'll also admit that I tend to prefer "designed for PC" games to "designed for console" ones, which perhaps makes me leery of too much cross platforming even if it is a necessary evil these days.)

Edit: I would also argue that the graphics arms race has slowed signficantly the last few years... however, the boom in LCD monitor sales pushed the common resolutions from like 800X600/1024X768/1280X1024 to 1280X1024/1680X1050/1920X1200. That ate up quite a bit of graphics power, and I get the impression that even some of the system crushers of recent years wouldn't have pushed the envelope that far if not for the fact they were launched during this changeover.

And one other point I'll grant you: I don't like the fact single player FPSes have gotten so much shorter over the years, which I often attribute to rising production costs. Five years ago even some of the technically impressive FPSes like Far Cry gave meaty campaigns, nowadays not so much.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

I dislike spending money but I'm also a PC enthusiast who enjoys getting benefit from my gear. So while I'm glad you can actually get three years of solid performance out of a $800-$1000 gaming PC now - as opposed to how it used to be that you'd get 18-24 months of good performance before suffering through 12-18 months where you really felt the computer's age - I'm not especially inclined to see it slow much more than that. And I also happen to like games with very large environments, which seems to be one of those things that consistantly raises the bar.

tl;dr: I prefer a steady (not breakneck pace) advance in graphics to console style generational leaps.

I'm not going to agree with this purely because I'm a cheap bitch. I'd like my stuff to last as long as possible; it's not cool to have to spend $1k or more every year or two on a new computer.

Mostly I avoided this by being more an RPG gamer, which means I avoid the bleeding-edge titles (they tend to be FPS games). My last gaming computer was over 3 years old when it died, and it did most everything I wanted it to do, at least right up until the end when the video card fried.

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

(I'll also admit that I tend to prefer "designed for PC" games to "designed for console" ones, which perhaps makes me leery of too much cross platforming even if it is a necessary evil these days.)

Well there's not much we can do about it. There's more money in consoles, the companies follow the money.

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Edit: I would also argue that the graphics arms race has slowed signficantly the last few years... however, the boom in LCD monitor sales pushed the common resolutions from like 800X600/1024X768/1280X1024 to 1280X1024/1680X1050/1920X1200. That ate up quite a bit of graphics power, and I get the impression that even some of the system crushers of recent years wouldn't have pushed the envelope that far if not for the fact they were launched during this changeover.

I agree with this and it is somewhat troublesome, though 16:10 widescreen is win now and I'd never go back to a 4:3 aspect ratio. I love having such an enormous workspace. Plus small/no black bars is also win.

And one other point I'll grant you: I don't like the fact single player FPSes have gotten so much shorter over the years, which I often attribute to rising production costs. Five years ago even some of the technically impressive FPSes like Far Cry gave meaty campaigns, nowadays not so much.

Half-Life 2 was the last great FPS. =/

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'm not going to agree with this purely because I'm a cheap bitch. I'd like my stuff to last as long as possible; it's not cool to have to spend $1k or more every year or two on a new computer.

I never said I wanted to be replacing my gear every one or two years. Games should run on a three year old PC - maybe with a $100-$200 GPU if you want to push the envelope a bit. But I don't want technical progress to stop completely.

As to RPGs... I guess Oblivion's ability to crush systems was a bit unusual. Although I do hear that it's become quite difficult to make big RPGs these days due to people having high standards for production values - compare the number of voiced lines in old Bioware games to the current ones.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Well there's not much we can do about it. There's more money in consoles, the companies follow the money.

True, but I'm glad that some developers still do exclusives - mainly central and eastern European devs since those are still PC oriented markets. Stalker and The Witcher are both examples of this.

(Interestingly, I believe the next Stalker is supposed to have separate code paths for Direct X 8 through 11... will be interesting to see how that scales.)

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I agree with this and it is somewhat troublesome, though 16:10 widescreen is win now and I'd never go back to a 4:3 aspect ratio. I love having such an enormous workspace. Plus small/no black bars is also win.

I love my 22 inch LCD.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Half-Life 2 was the last great FPS. =/

I would actual classify the original Far Cry as one of the great FPSes as well, but I guess that predates Half Life 2 by a few months. I will admit I'm having trouble thinking of a more recent game that really had the same "generational leap forward" feel that those two did.
I take it we're talking great in the sense that it felt like a generational leap over prior games? I guess there's some merit to that position. I will say, however

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

I know this is probably a bit of work, but it would be helpful if you could give us a part by part listing of what you're thinking of.

The HD4850 isn't a power guzzler but you'll probably want something better than the base model. The one issue here is that iBuypower seems to charge a fairly sizeable premium for name brand power supplies...

I could do that. I just don't know what processor to get yet. I guess I'll go with quad core. I've read some where on this board that Intel i5s and i7s are good. What are good AMD quad core processors? Anyone know?


When I figure out what processor I want, I'll post what parts I want in my PC.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I could do that. I just don't know what processor to get yet. I guess I'll go with quad core. I've read some where on this board that Intel i5s and i7s are good. What are good AMD quad core processors? Anyone know?


When I figure out what processor I want, I'll post what parts I want in my PC.

The i7 might be a little expensive - think $280, $290 range. The i5-750 sells for $200 and is probably worse a look. On the AMD side, you have the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition for $175-ish. Also bank on i5 mainboards being at least $25 more than Phenom II boards.

If you leave your computer on a lot, the i5 might earn back it's cost in the long run since it draws about 35 watts less at idle than a Phenom II 955/790GX combo according to Anandtech. Although it's possible 790GX mainboards draw more power than 770 based ones too.

On the low end, there's the Athlon X4 620 for $100. Tends to get some flak around here since only a few games take advantage of quads and it's a bit light on the MHZs and L2 cache compared to similar priced dual cores. I personally think it's the more future resistant (never say "future proof" when it comes to PCs...) bet though.