|
Hello hello hello.
I'm finally gonna be getting a new computer...for the first time in like seven years or so. However, I haven't paid attention to computer hardware in like two years, so I have no idea what is good/bad/old/new anymore.
I tried to dig around a little bit, but I got confused as hell.
For video cards, I was looking at nvidia 9600s and 9800s. Is the difference in price between the GT and GTX versions worth it? Also, I read somewhere that having more memory on the card didn't necessarily make it run faster. Is it true? Which video card do you consider the most balanced in terms of price vs performance atm?
Also...how much of a performance difference is there between quadcore and dualcore? Is it worth it to go for the quadcore, or will dualcore still be around in a few years?
What I hate most, though, is that in three months, everything you guys tell me will be obsolete...T_T.
 
|
get dualcore for now, a lot of programs don't support using four cores.
memory doesn't really matter on cards as long as you have like 2 gigs of ram total.
the gt vs gtx isn't really that big... i'd go with a 9800 gt. i'm using one now and i love it.
|
9800gt LOL
get a phenom ii 920 and a 4830/50.
|
9800gt/8800gt (same card) very good price performance i don't like ati cards so i wont list it's equlivent
Dual core is great for games newer games can use Quadcore but it's not that imporant unless it's a high calculation high object game usually RTS benefit from powerful cpu's rest of the games just need a cpu that can handle sending off loading to the gpu.
The Graphics targetered ram on a graphics card more is better but doesn't mean is absolutly better 1gig on a 9800GT wont hold shit to a 9800GTX+ with 512mb on ram on it. High ram is more imporant with you get heavy amounts of objects for rendering meaning when you get a large screen size or plaing a RTS game. 512mb is just fine for 1280x1024 19" standard and will be fine until about 22" then more ram may be nessary depends on the game. Also depends on details needed etc. Really for price/performance look up guides many sites write up antech etc that benchmark gpu and cpu stats mean shit for gpu's mostly drivers with the stats = real performance, as poof by ATI ATI has always made nicer stats for their cards but when they are first released they play like shit because ATI suck dick and don't dedicate enough time optimizing the drivers for the gpu but they get better over time to a point.
|
summary
look up gpu performance at sites that benchmark just do a search benchmark and gpu or something
Graphics card ram is only imporant in large screen sizes or in RTS game screen size a bit more then a rts game or a high object game
dualcore is dam good for games, few games use quadcore even if use quadcore fps wont make a differnece unless your gpu is being underpowered by your cpu or if the game is an rts
|
I would go for the quad core, simply because I don't think dual cores will last too much longer before being completely elbowed aside by the quad cores. It's really not too much about now, but more about later, if you want the computer to last right?
I really would go for the 9800, since the 9600 really isn't too great...
The GTX will perform better than the GT, and for the most part, yes it is worth it. Especially if you plan on playing high-end RTS or have a large ass screen.
For the most part, I agree with Mahnini, if budget is a problem.
|
I'm not a fan of ATI...I've had a couple of ATI cards in the past, and they both failed horribly from overheating bullshit...I had a 9700 whatever when it was the shit...then it died, and it couldn't render shit without having a fucking web of artifacts all over. I know they've reformed and are considered competitive with nvidia now, but still...just one of those things, u know?
Anyway, as for quadcore vs dualcore...I really want this computer to last. I don't want to make another thread like this for another seven years or so again...haha. So quadcore then? Even if it's like you said, most games don't support quadcore, they can still run them just as, if not more, smoothly as/than a dualcore can, right?
I'm gonna be getting a 22" LCD with this comp too, btw.
|
Well, if you want the computer to last, what is happening right now should not be as important as what will be happening. Fact is that future games will support quadcore in the future, if they don't already.
|
Best choices imo :
High speed intel core 2 duo 45 nm.(3Ghz +)(unless you wanna overclock yourself)
Ati Raden 4850/70 512 MB ram
OR
Nvidia 260 (216 Shaders) _55nm_(they sell both 65nm and 55nm).
You'll be able to play all games currently on the market at a good framerate. Depending on what games you play, it could last around 3-5 years.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
ati cards are superior in this generation. you have to give it a second chance
|
Bah, ok...I'll take another look at Radeon...what are the equivalents at the moment?
|
On February 25 2009 13:16 PH wrote:
Anyway, as for quadcore vs dualcore...I really want this computer to last. I don't want to make another thread like this for another seven years or so again...haha. So quadcore then? Even if it's like you said, most games don't support quadcore, they can still run them just as, if not more, smoothly as/than a dualcore can, right?.
Most current games will perform best on a dual core, simply because they aren't threaded, meaning they will use 1 CPU core at most. A dual core is clocked higher than a quad core, so your game will either use 1 of 2 cores at 3 GHz or 1 of 4 cores at 2.4 GHz for example. I doubt this will change in the next few years, simply because coding games to take advantage of multiple cores is extremely difficult unless it's a heavy physics / AI calculation game like an RTS.
|
On February 26 2009 08:15 R1CH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2009 13:16 PH wrote:
Anyway, as for quadcore vs dualcore...I really want this computer to last. I don't want to make another thread like this for another seven years or so again...haha. So quadcore then? Even if it's like you said, most games don't support quadcore, they can still run them just as, if not more, smoothly as/than a dualcore can, right?. Most current games will perform best on a dual core, simply because they aren't threaded, meaning they will use 1 CPU core at most. A dual core is clocked higher than a quad core, so your game will either use 1 of 2 cores at 3 GHz or 1 of 4 cores at 2.4 GHz for example. I doubt this will change in the next few years, simply because coding games to take advantage of multiple cores is extremely difficult unless it's a heavy physics / AI calculation game like an RTS.
You heard it from the Wizard.
|
What are the chances SC2 is coded for multiple cores?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 26 2009 07:54 PH wrote:
Bah, ok...I'll take another look at Radeon...what are the equivalents at the moment?
the 4xxx line pretty much all beat nvidia at their price points. this card is probably the equivalent of what you are looking for. http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15752
you can also check out 4670, or even the 4850
|
On February 26 2009 11:00 Doctorasul wrote:
What are the chances SC2 is coded for multiple cores?
Very low. You might see the debris and other physics stuff and AI offloaded, but I bet the core of the game is still single threaded.
|
Hmm...Thanks, Rich. I think I'll stick with dualcore for then now. I'm actually not that heavy a gamer. SC is the only game I really play, and I don't see that changing even with a newer computer.
Purely for practical (price) reasons, dual core sounds better for now.
|
ok...bumping again.
My cousin and I are going to be building a computer together, but we can't decide whether to go for the Intel Q6600 and E8400...2.4ghz quadcore vs a 3.0ghz dualcore...T_T.
Now that we've more specifically nailed down components, I'd like to bump this and get further feedback.
Also, will we need to purchase a separate cooling unit for the CPU?
|
e8400 for games
q6600 for video rendering and crap that uses quads
or you could get a 2.8ghz amd phenom ii quad for less than the q6600 or 3.0ghz for a bit more
get a aftermaket cooler stock cooler is loud as something that's very loud for the intels at least i dont know about the amds
xigmatek, artic cooler, zalman are some good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
