Challenge: Build a computer for under $1000

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by KaimerasPain

OK rabb1t. I wont pester ya anymore on this!

Not counting that my access for tonight is coming to a close, it's not like I have a lot else to do at the moment.

THANKS a ton for the info.

I really liked my monitor too- it really looks good.

Considering it's resolution, one of those newer ones will look far better. LCD tech has rapidly improved over the past few years.

Didnt think that it was slowing me down any.

It actually is. The lower the resolution is, the more 'strain' there is on the CPU instead of the GPU. It's like lifting with your arms instead of your legs. (You know, like that 'lift with bla bla' saying.) Even an x1800 is going to be 'gimped' at that res in some ways.

It's more though that you 'aren't getting the big picture'. It's like you've always gone to this little tiny movie theater right across the street from you, because of the fact that it's right across the street. But, across the street the other way and around the corner is an IMAX theater for pretty much the same price, you just never knew it was there because you didn't look around.

lol I'll let ya know what I go with once I look over all the parts and $$.

Okees.

Thanks again! U, as always, ROCK!

[koji042]

Sorry, just thought I'd ask this.

Do you think I'd get any significant increase in performance if I upgraded from my ATI Radeon 3850 to another card for playing games at 1680x1050? Preferably a card in the $100-$200 range? I've been considering an upgrade to my graphics card, but I'm not sure how much it'll help.

My system is running on an Intel Core 2 Duo E7200@2.53GHz (plan to overclock at some point) with 4GB DDR2 RAM (not sure 'bout the speed, though it's denoted with an 800).

Thanks.

EDIT: Also, I have a pretty weak PSU at the moment, 600W or so.

[rabb1t]

Don't forget to peep Tom's chart for quick answers.

A 4830 would bump you up 2 ranks on that chart, so even as low as that would likely be a yes.

The 4850 would be a big gain for around $145 and is really the best price-to-performance point for ATi right now.

Of course the 4870 is uber, but at nearly $250 it's out of your price range, and it's really not necessary for 1680x1050.

Also, I have a pretty weak PSU at the moment, 600W or so.

Crazy talk. A "weak" PSU is around 350w. At 500w you should have plenty of power for any current generation GPU, even the high end ones. At 600w you are on the very low end of being dual GPU capable. Just be sure you have the amps to cover the card in question and you are good to go. (ATi cards are much more difficult to find out amp requirements than Nvidia.)

Although, are you sure you want to stay ATi? I don't want to push ya if you are a fan and all, but there is PhysX to consider on Nvidia's side now. There's a new GTS 250 coming out on the 10th (effectively a redesigned 9800 GTX/GTX+) which will be right in your range at $130 for the 512 meg version and $150 for the 1 gig, with OCed 1 gigs probably hitting the $175 range.

[KaimerasPain]

*walks into the room bringing a chilling air with her*

As always, your on top of it Rabb1t.

*smiles softly; turns and exits the room humming Kerli to herself.... Death trailing closely behind*

Kaimera-

[koji042]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

Although, are you sure you want to stay ATi? I don't want to push ya if you are a fan and all, but there is PhysX to consider on Nvidia's side now. There's a new GTS 250 coming out on the 10th (effectively a redesigned 9800 GTX/GTX+) which will be right in your range at $130 for the 512 meg version and $150 for the 1 gig, with OCed 1 gigs probably hitting the $175 range.

I actually wouldn't mind moving to nVidia; it's not like I've sworn allegiance to a company or anything. It's just that around the time I was building my computer, the cheaper 8800GTs weren't quite in stock and well... I'd heard various good things about the 3800 series, so yeah (almost all my computer shopping is done on Newegg)... xD

Though, does PhysX offer that much for future PC titles? Last I really heard of it was a few years back, and the game support was quite meager then.


Thanks. *imagines a world where Intel and AMD face off...*

[KaimerasPain]

*peeks into the room*

Intel would win. Without a doubt

*disappears around the corner, still humming Kerli to herself*

Kaimera-

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by KaimerasPain

*walks into the room bringing a chilling air with her*
As always, your on top of it Rabb1t.

*dances on chair*
la la la. I'm on top of it!

Originally Posted by koji042

Though, does PhysX offer that much for future PC titles? Last I really heard of it was a few years back, and the game support was quite meager then.

World of difference since the Nvidia buyout. Note that back in the day you had to buy a special Ageia PhysX card, which ran in the neighborhood of $125. The single and only thing it did was PhysX, and it only did so in 6.5 games. (I won't count Cell Factor as a full game.) Since the Nvidia buyout, any and every CUDA capable Nvidia card now does the exact same PhysX acceleration for teh free. While not everyone has a series 8, 9 or 2xx type card, this vastly increased the market saturation of cards capable of PhysX. By getting an Nvidia card you have graphics + PhysX for teh free.

As to developer adoption, that's still in question. Some like it some don't like it. I'm sure as time goes on more will adopt it, but yes, for now only a few still have any real benefit by having it.

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=530

But, now that market saturation is a real possibility it should be used at a higher level much more quickly. (I mean seriously, Ageia was talking crazy talk to have a card that cost ~$150 that only added 'eye candy' to less than half a dozen games when people weren't even spending ~$50 on a sound card which helped 100% of games, and made a few dozen really uber sounding.)

Originally Posted by koji042

Thanks. *imagines a world where Intel and AMD face off...*

The new Phenom 2 can actually hold it's own pretty well against the Core i7 in game FPS. However, architecturally it's still a bit behind Core i7 as the Core i7 has much greater memory bandwidth, the potential to dual, tri, or quad either manufacturer, and the Core i7 simply outperforms the Phenom 2 in non-gaming applications. (Not to mention the Core i7 is going to shrink and speed up a lot faster due to the amount of lead they have with said architecture.)

The only real benefit that Phenom 2 has over Core i7 is that you can get it for teh cheap.

[koji042]

I actually meant face off in the Star Warsy kind of way. xD

*bows to rabb1t's PC knowledge*

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by koji042

I actually meant face off in the Star Warsy kind of way. xD

You mean more like this?

Or more like a Caveman vs. an Astronaut?

I'd see it like...
Intel = 800 lb gorilla
AMD = rabid chiwawa on steroids

*bows to rabb1t's PC knowledge*

[rabb1t]

Or maybe more like this?