Need help buying Gaming PC

[Cistron]

I'm sorry Cat, I disagree.

1) If you want a decently quiet PC, the stock-cooler with a fan spinning at 2-3000rpm is quite anothing.
2) Quad cores consume more power and therefore produce more heat. This makes the whole stock-cooler issue worse.
3) How many games benefiting from quad-cores can you list? From the back of my head I could only think of 'World in Conflict'. Unless you use software PhysX, the graphics card is most likely to be the limiting factor.
4) Dual GPU solution are slightly fishy. Many/some games won't scale with a second graphics card and often there are driver issues. Then you'll also have twice the heat to get out of your case. I'm doubtful about the cost effectiveness as well, as selling your used card and buying a newer faster card, is probably the better way (considering the problems with Crossfire or SLI).

Don't plan computers for likely future applications. Plan them for the present. I doesn't make sense trying to anticipate every possible development. The turnover cycles are simply too rapid.

[DanceswithUnix]

I'm sorry Cat, I disagree.

1) If you want a decently quiet PC, the stock-cooler with a fan spinning at 2-3000rpm is quite anothing.
2) Quad cores consume more power and therefore produce more heat. This makes the whole stock-cooler issue worse.
3) How many games benefiting from quad-cores can you list? From the back of my head I could only think of 'World in Conflict'. Unless you use software PhysX, the graphics card is most likely to be the limiting factor.
4) Dual GPU solution are slightly fishy. Many/some games won't scale with a second graphics card and often there are driver issues. Then you'll also have twice the heat to get out of your case. I'm doubtful about the cost effectiveness as well, as selling your used card and buying a newer faster card, is probably the better way (considering the problems with Crossfire or SLI).

Don't plan computers for likely future applications. Plan them for the present. I doesn't make sense trying to anticipate every possible development. The turnover cycles are simply too rapid.

I just don't get this anti quad core thing. If you want the smoothest and most pleasant computing experience then I don't see how you can ever have too many cores. 2 cores will be maxed with just World of Warcraft playing and Firefox doing something stupid in the background.

Dual core: Tomorrows budget platform, today!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm sorry Cat, I disagree.

1) If you want a decently quiet PC, the stock-cooler with a fan spinning at 2-3000rpm is quite anothing.

Unless you are into massive overclocking or low noise PCs the stock coolers for both Intel and AMD CPUs are good enough for the majority of people.

In fact the AMD stock coolers are not that bad TBH:

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/phenom-2-cnq-p1.html

2) Quad cores consume more power and therefore produce more heat. This makes the whole stock-cooler issue worse.

Tell that to the owners of Shuttles(like me for example) and other SFF gaming system owners who seem to have no issues with quads and higher end graphics cards in their builds.

The OP did not not state a low power consumption build did they?? The vast majority of people I know have desktops for apps which require more processing power like gaming,3D work or media editing. They don't really care about power consumption or heat production TBH and are more interested in the maximum processing power they can get for the money. No person I know even keeps their main computer on for more than 48 hours in one stretch. The only computers I know which most people keep on for long periods are servers and TBH you do not even need a dual core processor in many cases even for that.

Have you ever thought how much power large LCD displays suck up for example??

If you want low power stick with a notebook or use a low power processor like an Atom. Gaming is in fact a huge user of power.

3) How many games benefiting from quad-cores can you list? From the back of my head I could only think of 'World in Conflict'. Unless you use software PhysX, the graphics card is most likely to be the limiting factor.

Except you are being very short sighted TBH. If the OP wants to keep the computer as long as possible between upgrades a quad core does make sense. More and more games are cross platform. The processors in the XBOX360 and PS3 are designed not for raw mhz but to handle as many threads as possible.Hence PC versions of these games and the game engines behind them will make better use of multiple cores. Also the penetration of triple and quad cores into the lowe ends of the market is increasing rapidly too.

If you intend to upgrade every 6 to 12 months then you can get away with using a dual core ATM but if the OP wants to keep the computer longer before an upgrade then a quad core makes more sense TBH. Even then games like FarCry2 and GTA4 make use of quad cores.

4) Dual GPU solution are slightly fishy. Many/some games won't scale with a second graphics card and often there are driver issues. Then you'll also have twice the heat to get out of your case. I'm doubtful about the cost effectiveness as well, as selling your used card and buying a newer faster card, is probably the better way (considering the problems with Crossfire or SLI).

The OP wants this and TBH many people on these forums(not me) use crossfire and SLI setups and seem to have no issues.

Don't plan computers for likely future applications. Plan them for the present. I doesn't make sense trying to anticipate every possible development. The turnover cycles are simply too rapid.

[/QUOTE]

????????????? Except the fact is that is certain that in the next few years CPUs are going to gain more and more processing cores or at the very least have tech like multithreading being enabled on more and more CPUs.

[Terbinator]

3) How many games benefiting from quad-cores can you list? From the back of my head I could only think of 'World in Conflict'. Unless you use software PhysX, the graphics card is most likely to be the limiting factor.

See: Far Cry 2 & BioShock also, not to mention the larger caches present on quads in addition to the behind the scenes processes from the OS that can run on potentially redundant cores.

Seriously, the old 'dual-cores are better for gaming' argument is not only old but wrong, and was nearly only ever limited to gaming anyway. How do you know what game engines are going to benefit from when the christmas games hit, or would you suggest he upgrades then rather than now and cost more in the long run.

I and presumably a lot of others cant believe we are reading this on a tech enthusiast site.

My suggestions:

AMD usually show better gains in gaming benchmarks but whether you consider a 2/3 FPS gain 'advantage' when you've already surpassed 60 FPS is up to your discretion.

Intel however usually hold the fort in every other area and a cheap P45 + C2Q combo can be picked up for the same price as a similair AMD system.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Phenom II X4 955 review:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16796/4

[Iron Sights]

im pretty much sure i want a quad core as im looking to buy for the future. The next thing to buy is a mobo which im stuck cos i want to get ddr3 but...
the advance from ddr2 to ddr3 isnt huge from what i hear, however with 4gb ddr3 ram at £53 makes it quite tempting

[Cistron]

I just don't get this anti quad core thing. If you want the smoothest and most pleasant computing experience then I don't see how you can ever have too many cores. 2 cores will be maxed with just World of Warcraft playing and Firefox doing something stupid in the background.

Impressive, I've never managed that so far.

Unless you are into massive overclocking or low noise PCs the stock coolers for both Intel and AMD CPUs are good enough for the majority of people.

In fact the AMD stock coolers are not that bad TBH:

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/phenom-2-cnq-p1.html

Do you really want to sit next to a fan that spins at 3000rpm? My idea of a quiet computer is far from low noise computing. I'm just thinking about a sensible noise level.

The OP did not not state a low power consumption build did they??

It doesn't hurt unfolding all possible options. Besides, my suggestion isn't a low power build, otherwise it wouldn't have a discrete graphics card.

The vast majority of people I know have desktops for apps which require more processing power like gaming, 3D work or media editing. They don't really care about power consumption or heat production TBH and are more interested in the maximum processing power they can get for the money. No person I know even keeps their main computer on for more than 48 hours in one stretch. The only computers I know which most people keep on for long periods are servers and TBH you do not even need a dual core processor in many cases even for that.

How old are you again?

Have you ever thought how much power large LCD displays suck up for example??

Sure, but there's no good in throwing the towel, just because other things consume energy. How's the Tesco advert? 'Every little helps'. Otherwise we might as well all commit sucide.

Except you are being very short sighted TBH. If the OP wants to keep the computer as long as possible between upgrades a quad core does make sense. More and more games are cross platform. The processors in the XBOX360 and PS3 are designed not for raw mhz but to handle as many threads as possible.Hence PC versions of these games and the game engines behind them will make better use of multiple cores. Also the penetration of triple and quad cores into the lowe ends of the market is increasing rapidly too.

If I remember this correctly, the XBOX360 depends on multiple threads, because the processor runs with an in-order-execution architecture.

If you intend to upgrade every 6 to 12 months then you can get away with using a dual core ATM but if the OP wants to keep the computer longer before an upgrade then a quad core makes more sense TBH.

Do you really believe that the CPU requirements of games will scale that massively?

????????????? Except the fact is that is certain that in the next few years CPUs are going to gain more and more processing cores or at the very least have tech like multithreading being enabled on more and more CPUs.

Only that in a few years your plattform will be outdated anyway and running future games will be a great pain.

im pretty much sure i want a quad core as im looking to buy for the future. The next thing to buy is a mobo which im stuck cos i want to get ddr3 but...
the advance from ddr2 to ddr3 isnt huge from what i hear, however with 4gb ddr3 ram at £53 makes it quite tempting

If you run software already that benefits from a quad-core by all means get one. I still believe that dual-cores deliver more than enough performance for games (*), whilst being cheaper and easier to cool than their bigger cusins.

(*) Have you recently seen a game falter due to lack of CPU power? And do you think this paradigm is going to change?

In the end, it's your money.



PS.

[Iron Sights]

just wanted to know what u guys think of OCZ psu range, it seems cheaper than cosair but is it reliable

the general advise i get is dont go for a cheap unbranded psu, however OCZ seems reputable

[staffsMike]

Very much so. My OCZ gamexstream has outlasted and actually replaced one of my corsairs. I do rate both very highly though

The modxstream would be my choice now

[shadowmaster]

just wanted to know what u guys think of OCZ psu range, it seems cheaper than cosair but is it reliable

the general advise i get is dont go for a cheap unbranded psu, however OCZ seems reputable

As mike said, the ocz range are very good. They are definitely up there with the other high quality psu's (Corsair, enermax, etc)

Also they seem to be very good value for money, currently you can get the OCZ ModXStream Pro 600w for £55.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

im pretty much sure i want a quad core as im looking to buy for the future. The next thing to buy is a mobo which im stuck cos i want to get ddr3 but...
the advance from ddr2 to ddr3 isnt huge from what i hear, however with 4gb ddr3 ram at £53 makes it quite tempting

The main advantages of going AM3 is a few percent performance increase and also potentially better upgrade options in the near future.