recommend me a gaming pc that doens't cost to much

[Ryusiangel]

i want to play aion online so bad i wanted to get laptop/all in one pc but now i need a gaming pc that can play aion online or pefect world online and luna online

i know i need either a radeon graphic card or either geforce but no idea if luna online can take radeon graphic card any help =( i need a new pc so bad!

[hobbes_fan]

What's doesn't cost too much? Got to be a bit more specific than that. What are the specs of your current pc. Aion has pretty low minimum requirements. Forget all in one not powerful enough for the price, forget laptop not going to be cheap.

You can build your own and save hundreds of dollars. Brand of video card doesn't matter. It only matters if the video card is fast enough.

I'm not sure if you're ocmfortable doing DIY so here
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16883229061
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16883227161
Use the specs as a guide if you want to DIY

[Ryusiangel]

well my specs are horrible wont' play the game i ran a game checker and i don't have the required stuff
i do want a intel core my current one is pentium i was gonna upgrade it but it be like getting a new pc if i want to upgrade everything x_x

[chikorita157]

Cheap and gaming does not belong together since decent gaming laptops or desktops cost alot of money and budget machines have weak IGP which is not suitable for gaming.

Unless you are comfortable with building your own gaming machine, you might want to save more money so you can buy a decent machine for gaming.

What is your budget for your computer you want for gaming?

[Ryusiangel]

my budge is 600 bucks but if i have to wait 1 month or 2 i could go 800

[hobbes_fan]

Originally Posted by Ryusiangel

my budge is 600 bucks but if i have to wait 1 month or 2 i could go 800

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Mega_Special_I

From the sounds of it you're a student so just get Windows 7 for $30.

[Claies]

Originally Posted by Ryusiangel

my budge is 600 bucks but if i have to wait 1 month or 2 i could go 800

I'd wait. $600 to $800 is a considerable jump in quality. I wager those two months you wait should translate to your computer being relevant and able to reasonably play new games for at least half a year to a year longer.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Claies

I'd wait. $600 to $800 is a considerable jump in quality. I wager those two months you wait should translate to your computer being relevant and able to reasonably play new games for at least half a year to a year longer.

Two years ago I would have agreed without hesitation, but I'm wondering what sort of system $800 buys you. Around $565 US nowadays will net you a AMD quad core/HD4850 powered rig using quality components (Gigabyte mainboard, Antec PSU, etc.). Although I guess the OS would push that up to the $650-$700 range.

(I notice Newegg actually sells a Q8200/HD4850 rig for $700 including OS and everything... might be worth a look if he doesn't want to build his own.)

[Ryusiangel]

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/G...ity_8000_Dream do you guys think this is powerful enough and is that site really safe to buy from i never bought from them x_x

[0utf0xZer0]

Newegg (very reputable retailer) sells a much more powerful configuration from that company for $700:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...29061&Tpk=4850

This is one of those cases where I'd say the extra $80 definitely looks worth it.

[Dreamtale]

Strange, in Russia hardware is cheaper...

I think, if you don't know much about pc, most of the configuration mentioned here would fit perfectly to you Other way - build a system according to your requirements, but it's more difficult obviously...

[hobbes_fan]

Originally Posted by Ryusiangel

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/G...ity_8000_Dream do you guys think this is powerful enough and is that site really safe to buy from i never bought from them x_x

No

CPU = Good
Motherboards = Not too bad - could be better
Videocard = Bad - ridiculously bad value


You want

CPU = Intel E8400 or AMD X2 550
Motherboard = Intel P45 chipset or AMD 780 or 790 Chipset
Videocard = NVIDIA GTS250 or ATI 4850

Everything lower than these is on its last legs and not worth the time, money or effort.

[Claies]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

No

CPU = Good
Motherboards = Not too bad - could be better
Videocard = Bad - ridiculously bad value


You want

CPU = Intel E8400 or AMD X2 550
Motherboard = Intel P45 chipset or AMD 780 or 790 Chipset
Videocard = NVIDIA GTS250 or ATI 4850

Everything lower than these is on its last legs and not worth the time, money or effort.

Seconded. In fact, I believe that was the consensus $1000 build last summer. A lot of people asked on this forum for suggestions with that budget and ended up with exactly that configuration.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

No

CPU = Good
Motherboards = Not too bad - could be better
Videocard = Bad - ridiculously bad value


You want

CPU = Intel E8400 or AMD X2 550
Motherboard = Intel P45 chipset or AMD 780 or 790 Chipset
Videocard = NVIDIA GTS250 or ATI 4850

Everything lower than these is on its last legs and not worth the time, money or effort.

How does the X2 550 compare with the X4 620? With the 620, you'd basically be trading the L3 cache and 500 mhz for twice as many cores, but they're pretty much the same price, and I'm wondering if the the 620 might be more future-resistant (I'm not going to say proof).

[aeriolewinters]

Get the Athlon II X2, then unlock?

[hobbes_fan]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

How does the X2 550 compare with the X4 620? With the 620, you'd basically be trading the L3 cache and 500 mhz for twice as many cores, but they're pretty much the same price, and I'm wondering if the the 620 might be more future-resistant (I'm not going to say proof).

But remember 500mhz is approximately 25-30% clock speed difference and L3 cache is good for about 5%-10% improvement per clock cycle over the x4. So even at the same speeds I'd expect the x2 to come out ahead. Combine this with the fact that majority of apps currently are still not optimised for more than 2 cores (if that). In all reality I still expect the x2 to be at least 10% faster in the majority of apps in terms of real world performance. (plus the 550 has an unlocked multiplier so higher overclocks are easier ) Sure maybe in the 2-3yrs time we'll have software to take advantage of the quads and octo cores, but if he get a good motherboard he'll be able to at least pickup a quad quite cheaply in the future. They're both pretty good buys, but the x2 is better value right now IMO


I'm avoiding mentioning any overclocking or unlocking because its pretty clear the op isn't too comfortable or keen on something like that, and it's no guarantee that the unlocked cores will be fully functional.

[chikorita157]

Overclocking is not ideal for people who don't game that much and overclocking uses extra power and produces more heat. It will yield 10-20 fps with overclocking, but without the knowledge of proper cooling and monitoring the temperatures can lead to hardware damage... This is why I don't recommend overclocking to non-experienced people because of these factors and the performance difference besides from gaming is negligible.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

But remember 500mhz is approximately 25-30% clock speed difference and L3 cache is good for about 5%-10% improvement per clock cycle over the x4. So even at the same speeds I'd expect the x2 to come out ahead. Combine this with the fact that majority of apps currently are still not optimised for more than 2 cores (if that). In all reality I still expect the x2 to be at least 10% faster in the majority of apps in terms of real world performance. (plus the 550 has an unlocked multiplier so higher overclocks are easier ) Sure maybe in the 2-3yrs time we'll have software to take advantage of the quads and octo cores, but if he get a good motherboard he'll be able to at least pickup a quad quite cheaply in the future. They're both pretty good buys, but the x2 is better value right now IMO


I'm avoiding mentioning any overclocking or unlocking because its pretty clear the op isn't too comfortable or keen on something like that, and it's no guarantee that the unlocked cores will be fully functional.

I was under the impression that a few games such as GTAIV and ARMA II already ran much better with four cores than two... and those also happen to be some of the games that are most stressful on the CPU. Hence I'm a bit leery of saying a quad won't be better for 2-3 years.

[hobbes_fan]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

I was under the impression that a few games such as GTAIV and ARMA II already ran much better with four cores than two... and those also happen to be some of the games that are most stressful on the CPU. Hence I'm a bit leery of saying a quad won't be better for 2-3 years.

Still a rarity. Devs are not going to instantly assume quads are mainstream. Hell, the STEAM survey, biggest and possibly most accurate gaming survey I know of list 80% of cpu's as being 2 or less cores (20% single core). It'd be commercial suicide for devs to ignore the overwhelming majority of cpu's. The 12month adoption rate for quads is pretty low at around 6%. Devs are aware that the mainstream upgrades once every 3-4 years. I still think you pay a premium for little to no performance gain. If he gets a reasonably up to date motherboard quad cores will be available on that socket for a lot cheaper than they are now. Am2+ has a roadmap to 2011 last I checked.

Bear in mind that gta IV is a pretty piss poor coded game. I have a q6600 @ 3.4, a 4870, 8gb of ddr2 1066 ram on vista 64 and I'm struggling to crack 60fps at high to max settings. It still occasionally reached slide show levels. It was so bad at times that I uninstalled and sold it and bought the console version. There's other reasons I use a quad as I work with massive Excel spreadsheets and Access databases and the computational power is useful there and is significant

EDIT: Also in 2-3 time quads are obsolete, monolithic cPU's are obsolete. Intel Larrabee and AMD Fusion if released according to schedule will be available and if even 1/10th of the marketing spiel is true the performance gap will be significant

[jpwong]

I think the main problem with seeing all these dual cores is just with what stores have been selling the last few years. Everything's been dual core the last few years, yet now I'm seeing Quads as the standard processor on the mid-high range PCs (depends on config). Intel's releasing a Hex-Core processor on their extreme line next year and I think AMD's been releasing some sort of Tri-Core solution.

At some point, gaming development is going to have to look at coding with dynamic core numbers, or else optimize for the lowest denominator and allow use of the additional if available.

But in any case, getting a Quad core over a Dual core isn't going to gain all that much performance at this point in time. That could change tomorrow, but even if it does, dual cores are the majority of today's PCs, so you can bet that minimum requirements will remain in the dual processor specs for a while still.