are the specs on this computer good??

What do you guys think?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229013


I might build something close to that, and if the price of building it is close to this price, I might just buy that. The video cards are around $250 a piece, so that's 500 just for that.

To help you understand, my old computer is a socket 479 2.8 pentium 4, with an AGP 7800GTS. It works great, except on the newer games. I figure if I get something like the above computer, I won't have to worry at least for a little while, yes? :serpico:

- C
 
Well, first question I guess would be, do you have a lot of experience with the Vista operating system - how comfortable are you with it? For DX 10 (or is it 11?) Vista is your best bet, and by the sounds of things this'll be primarily a gaming computer. I notice that its the 64 bit version of Vista - you might want to google that for potential problems you might run into. Otherwise, looks great.

Aside from that, you willing to sell your old machine? I've been looking to upgrade from this 2004 laptop for awhile. Bleeding edge at the time, painful these days.
 

Dirty Dog

Avatar by CnC ^^
The specs are pretty good. If you were to build the computer yourself, it would probably run you over $1300.

With a quad-core 64-bit processor, it'd be excellent for highly multithreaded applications (web/mysql/game servers, games targeted at high-end computer users). Since it's got Vista Ultimate it'll also probably have full hardware support for DirectX 10, making it great for games that support it. DirectX 10 is pretty much as good as hardware accelerated graphics get. :]

Also wondering if you're willing to sell your old machine. I'm in need of a computer for small web hosting, and yours would be suitable. It's probably better than mine (aside for CPU clock speed, mine's 3.0GHz), since mine is a minimalistic system that I've upgraded randomly over time. I could probably pull together ~$150 for it, but that's it until I get a job.
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Bekul said:
Well, first question I guess would be, do you have a lot of experience with the Vista operating system - how comfortable are you with it? For DX 10 (or is it 11?) Vista is your best bet, and by the sounds of things this'll be primarily a gaming computer. I notice that its the 64 bit version of Vista - you might want to google that for potential problems you might run into. Otherwise, looks great.

It's DirectX 10. You have a valid point though as it might behoove you to wait until the first service pack before getting a vista system, or do some research on possible incompatibilities with your favorite software.

Still, tho, I'm jealous. I need to upgrade my computer some time soon.
 
CyberpowerPC Gamer Infinity 9310 Core 2 Quad Q6600(2.40GHz) 4GB DDR2 500GB Dual NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit - Retail


Sound pretty good to me... However what is the 500GB you mention? HDD capacity? Also if would be more accurate if you also post the speed of ur DDR2 ram as well...


GeForce 8800GT is directX 10.c compatible, so games like Crysis and Hellgate london can be run at high/ultra setting...


Anyway I personally feel that your processor should be Dual core instead, Go for higher speed like E6850 instead of Quad core since most game currently still can't really utilised quad core... Unless of course you are buying it beside gaming purposes...



However if I am you, I would rather wait just a few months more for the new generation of Intel Penryn microprocessors, most likely going for Dual Core E8500 (3.16GHz, 6MB cache, 1.3GHz FSB)
 

Voyevoda

Breathe and Start
Smith said:
However if I am you, I would rather wait just a few months more for the new generation of Intel Penryn microprocessors, most likely going for Dual Core E8500 (3.16GHz, 6MB cache, 1.3GHz FSB)

Now, if you really want a Wolfdale on release; wouldn't the E8400 be the better deal as opposed to getting an E8500? It's over 80 (US release price) bucks less for a CPU with almost the same specs (same FSB, L2-Cache et.c... and only a marginally smaller multiplier at x9 instead of x9.5). Maybe you could even opt for an E8200/E8190 with a bit of overclocking?
 
Casan said:
Now, if you really want a Wolfdale on release; wouldn't the E8400 be the better deal as opposed to getting an E8500? It's over 80 (US release price) bucks less for a CPU with almost the same specs (same FSB, L2-Cache et.c... and only a marginally smaller multiplier at x9 instead of x9.5). Maybe you could even opt for an E8200/E8190 with a bit of overclocking?

Yes overclocking sound does like a good idea, but how much power (TDP) is it going to consume with that overclocking can be another issue...

Actually I am not sure how overclocking really work but its seem that somehow its increases the FSB for faster speed... I am not even sure if the multiper itself can be increased when overclocking...


However I do agree with you on the pricing between E8500 and E8400, with only 166MHz slower its around US$80 cheaper, E8400 could be a better choice in prices


Anyway I myself indeed badly to change my computer, mine is still the old prescott processor with all the low end component during that generation, yet i am struggle hard to survive on it till Nehalem is release...
 
Thanks for the replies and new perspectives everyone! I might have a couple of drives in there and put Vista on one for games and XP on the other for my other software in case it won't roll with Vista. Thanks. :serpico:

- C
 
Anyway I just post a few interest notes about overclocking which I just found out just recently, and perhap C you should also consider should u try to overclock your system (Since its pretty harmless if you overclock using proper procedure, tools and do it with caution)


For that I take back my words regarding the difference between E8400 and E8500, although a difference in USD80 sound expensive, you have to take note that multipler deal a great impact in overclocking, because just increasing FSB alone might be bottleneck by other components if they arent the top end product... Also there is this FSB wall in modern CPUs which restricted the maximum FSB allowed for overclocking, which i realised the wall is set in same values across the same series (For eg, the E8X00 series), hence despite being more expensive, E8500 has more potential to overclock to higher frequency better as compare to E8400...


On top of that, most of the modern mainstream processor we talking here have their clock-multipler locked (Due to protection for consumes and also prevent fraudulent from some retailers), Only the highest end Quad core and Extreme Edition enjoy the benefit of unlocked multipler...


Yeah so... Hope it does help... :ganishka:
 
C said:
What do you guys think?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229013


I might build something close to that, and if the price of building it is close to this price, I might just buy that. The video cards are around $250 a piece, so that's 500 just for that.

Looks nice. I'm also due to upgrade properly this month for the first time in over 2 years, and finally get into some proper game pwnage. I'm also looking at buying the Q6600, 8800GT and 500GB

The Q6600 is the best choice at this point in time it seems. Intel were meant to be bringing out a new generation of processors (Q9300+ I think) but that is postponed for at least a few months. I read an article that said they were postponing quite simply because AMD haven't been worthy competition as of recent, so it wouldn't be in their interests to bring out a new generation yet.

And as for the 8800GT, well I think the ridiculous global shortage of them since they were released speaks for itself. Don't know the American prices of course, but no matter where the power you got for your dollar is meant to be brilliant. Global shortage though isn't overused in this context; I was calling cities quite literally all over Australia less than a month ago looking for one and with no luck, all saying "call back next week at the earliest..."

In Aus they were originally going for around $320-340, now that economic equilibrium has adjusted for the demand they can be found more easily, but for no less than $420AU that I've seen, still my preference though.
Still, buying two seems like overkill unless you're a hardcore gamer or have the money to throw around. But going by your previous auto purchases I'd say you're of the latter group. ;)

Smith said:
Anyway I personally feel that your processor should be Dual core instead, Go for higher speed like E6850 instead of Quad core since most game currently still can't really utilised quad core... Unless of course you are buying it beside gaming purposes...

The price difference between upper range Duo's though are almost as much as the Q6600 (at least over here) so I reckon it will be a worthy investment to get the Quad chips happening now. Besides, when programs become more power demanding they will likely be more efficient at utilising the Quad processors, so those of us who have one will get more longer lasting goodness out of it.


And regarding Vista, I don't know much about it but I've heard that the operating system is more made for utilising Quadcores as opposed to XP. If you were going to go for the Quadcore, Vista's probably the way to go.

Personally I don't like the feel of Vista, it seems like it was made to be more different for the sake of seeming newer, as opposed for productive reasons. And it needs a shitload more ram to run it to it's potential, but with 4GB ram I doubt that'd be a problem. Maybe I just need some time to get used to it.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Sparnage said:
Personally I don't like the feel of Vista, it seems like it was made to be more different for the sake of seeming newer, as opposed for productive reasons. And it needs a shitload more ram to run it to it's potential, but with 4GB ram I doubt that'd be a problem. Maybe I just need some time to get used to it.

The truth is that Vista is currently not an efficient OS. I wouldn't recommend anyone to use it unless they absolutely had to. And unfortunately, SP1 won't change that.
 
Aazealh said:
The truth is that Vista is currently not an efficient OS. I wouldn't recommend anyone to use it unless they absolutely had to. And unfortunately, SP1 won't change that.

Yeah I wouldn't object to waiting until SP2 for Vista came out. I don't like OS changes anyway, my XP install is set out to look like 2000 still. ;D
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
I'll be upgrading my PC over the next few months, thanks to a surprise present from a friend over New Year's, a GeForce 8600 GT. With this key ingredient, I can finally begin to shed my ancient computer parts and construct a machine capable of running such advanced and cutting edge games as DooM 3 :isidro:

Any tips since Im hoping to buy on a thiin budget? I'll need a new CPU, Motherboard and RAM. I suppose I'll stay with AMD, though my ancient problem with their CPUs is they tend to run hot, and require loud, obnoxiously huge fans to cool them properly. Is that an old problem they've fixed? If not, I'll likely go with Intel.
 
Sparnage said:
Looks nice. I'm also due to upgrade properly this month for the first time in over 2 years, and finally get into some proper game pwnage. I'm also looking at buying the Q6600, 8800GT and 500GB

2 years isn't really that long I suppose, Mine was even before the Prescott era but I am still able to play Crysis in a ridiculous tolerant mood though


Try overclocking, will probably extend its usage for another year (Unless you already had it O/C, 2 years would be the time to change as O/C component tend to ages faster than those in default setting)

Sparnage said:
The Q6600 is the best choice at this point in time it seems. Intel were meant to be bringing out a new generation of processors (Q9300+ I think) but that is postponed for at least a few months. I read an article that said they were postponing quite simply because AMD haven't been worthy competition as of recent, so it wouldn't be in their interests to bring out a new generation yet.

The postponed date released in January 12 I think (Penryn Q9650EE was out last November), its wouldn't be that long before it reaches Australia. So now why wait just a while more, New 45 nm fabrication promises a lot of potential and surprises as compares to its predecessor

Walter said:
such advanced and cutting edge games as Doom 3 :isidro:

I wouldn't call that cutting edge games nowadays, that was in the Nvidia 6X00 generation... :ganishka:
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Walter said:
Any tips since Im hoping to buy on a thiin budget? I'll need a new CPU, Motherboard and RAM. I suppose I'll stay with AMD, though my ancient problem with their CPUs is they tend to run hot, and require loud, obnoxiously huge fans to cool them properly. Is that an old problem they've fixed? If not, I'll likely go with Intel.

Go with Intel. AMD isn't looking too good these days.
 
Aazealh said:
Go with Intel. AMD isn't looking too good these days.

They used to be, until Intel got a leap in their CPU architecture... I heard it was done with the help of some Israelis expert..


New intel processors has proven themselves to be a powerful and efficient o/c devices... giving them a new level ahead of their rival
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Yea I'm going to 3rd the opinion to go with Intel. AMD just isn't as good anymore.

I've actually got an AMD dual core, which I got just before Intel started getting badass again. I still have a soft spot for AMD (indy cred). :judo:

Smith said:
I wouldn't call that cutting edge games nowadays, that was in the Nvidia 6X00 generation... :ganishka:

pretty sure he was being sarcastic :schierke:

Anyway Duke Nukem Forever will use the Doom 3 engine! So that's... something.
I'm probably going to upgrade my computer once Starcraft 2 gets a release date :guts: ...as it's the only thing on PC that I'm really hyped for.
 
CnC said:
Yea I'm going to 3rd the opinion to go with Intel. AMD just isn't as good anymore.


Not a fair statement, AMD is still as good, but they can't catch up (Give them some credits come on)


SC2 is little improvement in their graphic setting compare to SC, hence I do believe upgrading a PC wouldn't be that much of a necessity...
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Smith said:
Not a fair statement, AMD is still as good, but they can't catch up (Give them some credits come on)

They were once in the lead and now even by your admission they "can't catch up". "isn't as good" IS a fair statement. :void:

Smith said:
SC2 is little improvement in their graphic setting compare to SC, hence I do believe upgrading a PC wouldn't be that much of a necessity...

While I agree that blizzard will likely make the number of machines that can play SC2 as large as possible, let's just wait for the system specs, shall we?
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Smith said:
They used to be, until Intel got a leap in their CPU architecture... I heard it was done with the help of some Israelis expert..

Well it's not like Intel wasn't in a position of superiority before that... It's been some years since AMD lost the lead. Not that they ever really threatened Santa Clara's giant anyway.

Smith said:
New intel processors has proven themselves to be a powerful and efficient o/c devices... giving them a new level ahead of their rival

Weren't you saying you didn't know about overclocking just a few posts ago? Why do you now keep talking about it like it's the end-all and be-all of component features? The thing is, Intel processors have been handling heat better than AMD's for quite a while. But even without that, the quality/cost ratio is just better.
 
Aazealh said:
Weren't you saying you didn't know about overclocking just a few posts ago? Why do you now keep talking about it like it's the end-all and be-all of component features? The thing is, Intel processors have been handling heat better than AMD's for quite a while. But even without that, the quality/cost ratio is just better.


Haha... yes, For the past 2-3 days I have been busy surfing for reviews/article and even rampage all the pages wikipedia can offer regarding O/C (including all the profound keyword and term used in computer)..


Searching through forums and even replies from my own friends who repair and fixed computer, all gave that common answer...
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
I'll just append this to this thread, if that's alright:

I'm also going to be upgrading my PC (couple of interesting prospects on the horizon, freelance-wise so I might as well upgrade now). I've already got some decent parts that should carry over from my nearing-2-year-old setup (PSU, case, one HD).

My budget for this hovers around 1k. I have a little room to go over budget (as I'm selling some other stuff that might ease the burden).
Anyways here's what I've spec'ed out so far:

Mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813128059

Processor:
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16819115017

Memory:
2 * http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16820148069

HD:
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16822148140

GPU:
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16814150252
currently out of stock, I know.

I've also got Windows Vista Home Premium on the list (109$), as well a CPU fan, thermal paste, etc.

Obviously one of my biggest concerns asides from any possible incompatibilities on this list (which I hope one of you guys would help me find :) ), is Vista. I'm really apprehensive about moving things over from XP and one of the main reasons I'm adding a new HD to the list is so I can dual boot should shit hit the fan. From what I read, XP either doesn't recognize or doesn't utilize memory over 3.5gigs, but Vista might just hog more than it gives.

Anyway I'm curious as to what you guys think.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
That's one beefy processor :isidro: But that's the same motherboard Im planning to get for my future rig. Lookin good, CnC.
 
Top Bottom