Post by: Liazon on December 25, 2007, 06:48:00 pm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103774
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116204
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128034
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211066
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102717
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171016
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119106
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106057
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822144701
~$650 w/ tax after the few rebates.
I just want to be able to play oblivion on decent settings actually ^^ old news ^^
Post by: Zera on December 25, 2007, 11:15:00 pm
My only recommendation would be to stay away from Vista. You're going to have too many software / hardware issues to do any kind of gaming. Stick with Windows XP for compatibility. Trust me, you will regret moving up to Vista.
Post by: JincS on December 26, 2007, 02:50:00 am
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on December 26, 2007, 04:28:00 am
Post by: nitacku on December 26, 2007, 05:40:00 am
Another reason for such bloated code is due to the market out there. Most people will purchase a "pretty" looking program over a more functional program because it has more eye candy. This combined with the short developing time (due to competition) is driving the software market.
It's a careful balance between aesthetics and quality.
Post by: TIfanx1999 on December 26, 2007, 06:56:00 am
*EDIT* So yea, stay away from Vista... It is a foul hungry beast that thrives on devouring system resources, and souls :P
Post by: Netham45 on December 26, 2007, 07:51:00 am
Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz
2GB DDR2 RAM
nVidia 7900GS 256MB OCed to 600MHz
nVidia nForce 650i motherboard
1.5TB of Disk(ok, ok, I only have enough ports to have 1TB online...)
This computer is perfectly able to handle Vista, everything is compatable, etc...
In this one, I have a Vista/XP Dualboot, but as everyone is saying, there are driver incompatabilities with Vista, and some software incompatabilities with older programs. For what I do, though, I find Vista to be perfectly suited to what I want. I like the eye candy too. ^.^
Also, if you need help assembling the computer, get on IRC. I and some other people can help you assemble it.
And at the Vista long load times, yes, XP on my 1.2GHz 512MB Laptop loads faster than Vista, but programs inside of my Vista PC load faster. It is really just the inital loading time.
Post by: dinhotheone on December 26, 2007, 07:56:00 am
Post by: Zera on December 26, 2007, 09:45:00 am
I would at least get a second opinion on what I just said, though. I'm not entirely savvy with video cards.
Post by: Netham45 on December 26, 2007, 01:17:00 pm
Edit: That motherboard has an integrated nvidia 6100, not sure if it'll be good for gaming, but it can't suck. Second Opinion?
Post by: Spellshaper on December 27, 2007, 02:50:00 am
| QUOTE (Netham45 @ 27 Dec, 2007, 1:17) |
| go for an nvidia 7900 gs or gx. It'll be better, I promise. Edit: That motherboard has an integrated nvidia 6100, not sure if it'll be good for gaming, but it can't suck. Second Opinion? |
6100? pure trash if you ask me ^^ It basically has all the possibilities of the 6xxx series, but lacks the raw power to get acceptable frame rates.
It's good for use with a second monitor, though ;)
QuoteBegin-grendel+
| QUOTE (grendel) |
| Oh, I just noticed you went with a Radeon card. While I really like Radeon, I think nVidia tends to have better gaming compatibility. Most of the video-related tech issues I've seen were with Radeon cards. But personally, I use Radeon. Then again, I have no desire to try to run games like Oblivion... |
That's because Nvidia bribes them to optimise for Geforce cards... Ever noticed all those Nvidia logos in game intros and loading screens? eww.
I got a Radeon 9800, works like a charm with Oblivion, even on high settings, no bugs :)
I personally think that the HD 2900 Pro is a good one to include in a ~ $650 system. Go for it.
I would maybe change that 250GB HD for 2x 120Gb (or 250Gb) in a raid system. Less loading time for everything!
Vista? Hands off! :alien:
Still too buggy for my taste. I'll change to Vista in 2-3 years at the earliest. And all that flashy eye candy makes the interface unclear and confusing, plus it soaks up a lot of resources. XP pro Sp2 (Sp3 is on the way!) is faster and more secure. Plus MS support for XP has been extended until 2014!Just my 2 cents...
Post by: Netham45 on December 27, 2007, 05:16:00 am
Post by: Zera on December 27, 2007, 05:24:00 am
When I said stick with XP, I specifically meant SP1. I probably should have elaborated on that.
Personally, *I* would use 2000. I doubt many people are willing to go that far back, but it's the best way to avoid your OS being a complete resource hog. I just want a system that gets the job done. It doesn't have to look like a paragon of aesthetic perfection in the process. ;)
Post by: Spellshaper on December 27, 2007, 06:13:00 am
| QUOTE (Netham45 @ 27 Dec, 2007, 17:16) |
| well, on my laptop I have XP SP3, and on my desktop I have Vista. My laptop has a Radeon Mobility, and my desktop has a 7900 GS. On my laptop I notice games randomally quitting(sp3?), on my desktop, the only thing I really notice is long boot times(sometmes upwards 5 minutes) but I have a pretty good desktop. |
Well you got to compare Vista and XP performance on equivalent systems, preferably on the same machine with dualboot.
Even on the newer "made for Vista" systems, XP still outranks Vista in terms of application and gaming performance.
Post by: Liazon on December 27, 2007, 06:15:00 am
i'll take the advice into consideration for future reference so thanks everyone.
edit:
generally speaking though, if you buy a comp from a store (like a Dell, HP, etc comp) do they come w/ weak power supplies? Like my current comp is an hp w/ 250W max PSU. not many good options for upgrade since my integrated was pretty sick.
like, if I want a game machine, I should build myself and get a massive PSU?
Post by: Spellshaper on December 27, 2007, 06:42:00 am
The watts are not the important thing, but the power conversion efficiency. Example:
600W PSU, 60% PCE -> effectively 360W, 240W heat generation
500W PSU, 80% PCE -> effectively 400W, 100W heat generation
see the difference? ^^
I'd rather buy a PSU with lower power input and a high certified PCE, as it will generate less heat, use up less power (the bills!) and generate more output power per input.
Plus, less heat also means your system will be more stable.
add up the estimated power your components will need, and get a PSU which has an output of about 11-120% of your estimated needs. Also make sure the power supply can supply enough power on each seperate power line.
Heh, we just covered power supplies in my computer engineering course. :D
Post by: Zera on December 27, 2007, 06:44:00 am
As a general rule, never buy a power supply with output ratings that are lower than your estimates. Neither should you buy those that have too high a power rating, as most of this power would simply be wasted."
Generally, it just depends on the hardware you're running. You can very well build a "green computer" (one with low power demands) and do heavy amounts of gaming and multi-tasking on it no problem.
EDIT: Spellshaper is right. Most default supplies will work around your needs. If you do get around to figuring up your hardware requirements, though, just keep in mind that you may want to add new hardware later, so don't use an exact figure. Like if you only need 250 W, it may be okay to go up to 300> in case new hardware is added in the future. Some devices can be total power hogs, too. I think DVD burners are one of the biggest offenders.
Post by: dinhotheone on December 27, 2007, 11:28:00 am
| QUOTE (grendel @ 27 Dec, 2007, 11:24) |
| Probably the service pack. Anything post SP1 seems to cause problems. I never found a way to get Alcohol installed on an SP2 system because of the dreaded "Blue Screen of Death." When I said stick with XP, I specifically meant SP1. I probably should have elaborated on that. Personally, *I* would use 2000. I doubt many people are willing to go that far back, but it's the best way to avoid your OS being a complete resource hog. I just want a system that gets the job done. It doesn't have to look like a paragon of aesthetic perfection in the process. ;) |
wait what? i have sp2 and i use alchohol all the time, i doubt its your operating system. besides alchohol
Post by: Zera on December 27, 2007, 12:08:00 pm
| QUOTE (dinhotheone @ 27 Dec, 2007, 17:28) |
| wait what? i have sp2 and i use alchohol all the time, i doubt its your operating system. besides alchohol |
This was a couple of years back, so it may only apply to that specific version. They've probably patched it with the newer releases.
Post by: Netham45 on December 27, 2007, 12:44:00 pm
| QUOTE (Spellshaper @ 27 Dec, 2007, 10:13) | ||
QuoteBegin-Netham45+27 Dec, 2007, 17:16-->
Well you got to compare Vista and XP performance on equivalent systems, preferably on the same machine with dualboot. Even on the newer "made for Vista" systems, XP still outranks Vista in terms of application and gaming performance. |
the only difference I can tell between XP SP2 and Vista(with aero transperancy, etc... on) is vista takes longer to boot.
Post by: TIfanx1999 on December 28, 2007, 05:55:00 am
Post by: Spellshaper on December 28, 2007, 06:15:00 am
I think what annoys me the most on vista is the UAC.
It's ok for people who don't know what they're working with on their comp, everyone else should just disable it...
That said, I tried Vista, and most definitely don't like it. It may finally become usable (gosh was it buggy at the release date), but I'll stick with XP pro, stable, fast, functional, less bling-bling.
Post by: Netham45 on December 28, 2007, 09:29:00 am
Post by: dinhotheone on December 28, 2007, 11:28:00 am