I'm building a new computer. I want your opinions.

LittleTom · **Joined:** Nov 2006 **Posts:** 638 **Location:** Life

I've finnaly aquired the funding to build a new computer

. It's going to be my first computer I've built. I was wondering what your opinions are. Think i could get something better for a similar price? ($1242.90).

GIGABYTE LGA 775 Intel Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz

EVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB

[url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145590]Corsair 2 Gigs ddr2 800 RAM[url]

Western Digital Caviar 250 Gig Hard Drive
<---- Why does it show the url. I checked, then double checked the code but it still shows the url >.>

Antec 900 Midtower Case

Lite-On Dvd-Rom

Thermaltake modular 600 Watt PSU

Windows Vista Premium

Antec 120mm fan

Thermal paste

Thanks in advance

maxietheboss · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 1236 **Location:**

good choice, good system. i got an e6600+8800gts+12fans+2 HDs and 450 watt is way enough, but again better safe then sorry

Defyance™ · **Joined:** May 2007 **Posts:** 649 **Location:**

Windows Vista Premium

NO

i had that exact version

now it sits on my dvd shelf, with xp installed
not good for gaming

LittleTom · **Joined:** Nov 2006 **Posts:** 638 **Location:** Life

I thought that originally, but i heard it was only the 64 bit version of vista that was buggy. I thought most of the games out were compatible with vista.

woutR · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:35 pm

Yeah go ahead buy a Dx10 card and not use vista

If you can, wait a bit longer and intel is gonna launch new processors, you'll be able to get a quadcore for $200.

Nuklear · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 3272 **Location:**

If you use a screen resolution less than 1600x1200 you don't need the 640MB version of the GTS. It's power is really only useful for high-end settings w/1600x1200 and above. Otherwise, it looks like you did your homework.

ranger4life · **Joined:** Mar 2006 **Posts:** 2526 **Location:**

dont get windows vista premium.....its nto designed for games specially games that were made over 2 years ago, they wont work

Ollie · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 4 **Location:**

do get vista, games do work. Im using vista right now and have had no problems with it.

Firzenizer · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 196 **Location:**

woutR wrote:

Yeah go ahead buy a Dx10 card and not use vista

If you can, wait a bit longer and intel is gonna launch new processors, you'll be able to get a quadcore for $200.

Quad core Q6600 costs only 260€ atm and my pc will arrive soon and I will have it

check some reviews about it. It is awesome. People say that if u have 8800GTX and Q6600 u will get 30k+ points on 3D mark 05

John_Doe · **Joined:** Mar 2007 **Posts:** 2094 **Location:**

yup thats me not understanding any of this mumbo jumbo.

Nuklear · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 3272 **Location:**

Firzenizer wrote:

...u will get 30k+ points on 3D mark 05

Pretty sure that's a typo as.....just noticed you typed mark'05. People still use that? >_>

non ego man · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:52 pm

Nuklear wrote:

If you use a screen resolution less than 1600x1200 you don't need the 640MB version of the GTS.

And if you use screen resolution higher than that, it looks like the 2900 is outperforming the 8800 for the same price.

"The Radeon HD 2900 XT’s performance improves dramatically in comparison to the GeForce 8800 cards in FEAR, which is one of the more shader-intensive games that we test with. As you can see, the 2900 XT still falls behind the factory overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS card at lower screen resolutions, but once the resolution is increased and memory bandwidth becomes more of a factor, the Radeon 2900 XT is able to pull ahead thanks to its 512-bit memory interface. Keep in mind that this doesn’t occur until 2560x1600 though, which is a higher resolution than most users will game at."

Firzenizer · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 196 **Location:**

Nuklear wrote:

Firzenizer wrote:

...u will get 30k+ points on 3D mark 05

Pretty sure that's a typo as.....just noticed you typed mark'05. People still use that? >_>

Yeah, almost everybody use 05

Nuklear · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 3272 **Location:**

non ego man wrote:

And if you use screen resolution higher than that, it looks like the 2900 is outperforming the 8800 for the same price.

"The Radeon HD 2900 XT’s performance improves dramatically in comparison to the GeForce 8800 cards in FEAR, which is one of the more shader-intensive games that we test with. As you can see, the 2900 XT still falls behind the factory overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS card at lower screen resolutions, but once the resolution is increased and memory bandwidth becomes more of a factor, the Radeon 2900 XT is able to pull ahead thanks to its 512-bit memory interface. Keep in mind that this doesn’t occur until 2560x1600 though, which is a higher resolution than most users will game at."

You know you just negated yourself w/that quote, right? Look at any comparison of the two on reviews and you'll see only 2 games, max, that the 2900 over preforms on. 2900 XT = Fail

Firzenizer wrote:

Yeah, almost everybody use 05

Poll? Why would you use 05 over 06 anyways?

Firzenizer · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 196 **Location:**

06 is too heavy for most pcs so ppl use 05

dom · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:45 pm

TIP OF THE WEEK: #1, neons and LEDs will give your computer a performance boost.

Firzenizer · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 196 **Location:**

dom wrote:

TIP OF THE WEEK: #1, neons and LEDs will give your computer a performance boost.

ROFL, they are cool in dark, but the boost is not so great XD

non ego man · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:55 pm

Nuklear wrote:

You know you just negated yourself w/that quote, right? Look at any comparison of the two on reviews and you'll see only 2 games, max, that the 2900 over preforms on. 2900 XT = Fail

The quote says the 2900 is weaker at lower resolutions but better at higher resolutions. In a different review, PC Gamer had the 2900 clocking in above the 8800 GTS but below the GTX. PC Gamer generally has pretty solid hardware information and they recommended the 2900 over the 8800 at that price point.

Personally, I strongly prefer GeForce cards to Radeon cards so w/e. I get in plenty of flamewars on this forum but you can trust me on this: I ain't gonna argue with you about graphics cards.

Nuklear · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 3272 **Location:**

non ego man wrote:

The quote says the 2900 is weaker at lower resolutions but better at higher resolutions. In a different review, PC Gamer had the 2900 clocking in above the 8800 GTS but below the GTX. PC Gamer generally has pretty solid hardware information and they recommended the 2900 over the 8800 at that price point.

Personally, I strongly prefer GeForce cards to Radeon cards so w/e. I get in plenty of flamewars on this forum but you can trust me on this: I ain't gonna argue with you about graphics cards.

At least you're conversing civilly unlike most webnubs I come across. Like you quoted the res improvement is at such a ridiculously high res that it won't matter except for that 1% of power users of which none of them reside here.

Fir, might I recommend an upgrade then?

dom · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:10 pm

I've had both ATI and Nvidia. If you get a good deal on a card, it doesn't matter which brand it is; it will outperform anything in it's price range. However, from what i've experienced...driver support and such is much better with Nvidia, as is the ease of tweakability. But, for dual monitors I found it much more stable and easy to configure with an ATI.

Nuklear · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 3272 **Location:**

No fail there^.

Silkroad Online Forums

I'm building a new computer. I want your opinions.

Who is online