Gaming PC

MonkeyBolt

Hi, i'm thinking of buying a Gaming PC for around £600 (£500 for pc and about £100 for the monitor). These are the specs for 1 i've found:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Quad Core Processor (2.4Ghz, 8MB Cache)
Memory: 3072MB DDR2 800Mhz (4096MB) 2 x DIMM
Hard Drive: 640GB (1x640GB) SATA300 Hard Drive (16MB Cache)
Optical Drive: 20 x Super multi DVDRW
Software
Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista Premium
Graphics: nVIDIA® GeForce 9500GT 512MB DDR2
Input Devices: Mouse and Keyboard
Networking: 10/100M LAN, Realtek® RTL8101E
Interfaces
1 set 5.1 channel Audio jacks (3 jacks)
1x PS/2 keyboard port
1x PS/2 mouse port
1x Parallel port
1x Serial port
6x USB 2.0 ports
1x RJ45 LAN port
1x VGA port
1 x DVI port
Warranty/Miscellaneous
1 Year Warranty
52in1 Flash Card Reader
£490

Monitor

Display
Screen size: 20"W
Brightness(Typical): 300cd/㎡
Contrast Ratio(Typical) 1000:1(Typ)
Resolution 1680x1050
Response Time(Typical) 5ms(Typ)
Viewing Angle(Horizontal/Vertical) 170˚/160˚(CR>10)
Color Supported: 16.7M
£110

Is this a good deal? any upgrades for the same price i might be able to get on it?

m.j.boylin

sounds good, hi spec for cheap price, what website is it from?

MonkeyBolt

Because i don't want too :P

tiersten

Looks okay. Price seems to be roughly what an equivalent Dell would cost. It'll be okay but nothing monster in performance.

HeroPsycho

For most games these days, a higher end dual core is better than a quad, but that could change in the future. Also, quadcore would be a better choice for other things like virtualization, media encoding.

I'd upgrade that gfx card. An 8800GT shouldn't cost you much, and would blow the barn doors off that 9500GT, which is easily your weakest link in that system. If you have to, chop the RAM down to 2GB if you have to for the better gfx card.

JDMurray

HeroPsycho wrote:

For most games these days, a higher end dual core is better than a quad, but that could change in the future. Also, quadcore would be a better choice for other things like virtualization, media encoding.

It's true that few games now can utilize a quad-core processor, but that will change in the future. If you are planning on keeping the machine for at least three years, pick a premium quad-core motherboard now that can be flash-upgraded for future multi-core processors. If you are building a new machine every 12-18 months then a dual-core will do you just fine for now.

Also, if you aren't married to nVidia, consider the better-performing Radeon HD 4670 instead: ATi Radeon HD 4670 vs. nVIDIA GeForce 9500GT.

amp2030

I second the graphics card upgrade suggestion. I'm using a 9600gt/512 right now and it's nothing to write home about. It's ok for me, but I don't consider this a gaming rig.

Lee H

You did not tell us what MOBO you chose?

I would change the following


Hard Drive: 640GB (1x640GB) SATA300 Hard Drive (16MB Cache)

2 X 300gig or 500gig, OS and storage, you have to build in some redundancy incase the drive fails

Graphics: nVIDIA® GeForce 9500GT 512MB DDR2

+ 1 8800GT would be a better choice


Screen size: 20"W

How about a 22" Widescreen for £117, these are always on special offer for just under £100


www.aria.co.uk cheapest on the net and very reliable

ally_uk

I would personally say wait and hang on until the Core I7 chips are unleashed that's what i'm going to do as hopefully we will see further reductions on current tech.

pLuhhmm

The i7 is beast, I cant remember atm but I believe the low budget one out performs extreme quad core processors.

Talic

I second upgrading the graphics card, it's your weak point when it comes to you gaming pc. I say go with a 4750 rather then Nvidia cards.

As for Core i7, I probably wont bother with it depending on what res you'll be playing at. Here's a article that could help you decide. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

And HardOCP if you want another point of view http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

gorebrush

The cheapest i7 is indeed faster than anything of the current CPU's.

Problem is, you will need an X58 motherboard (expensive) and DDR3 (expensive)

royal

ally_uk wrote:

I would personally say wait and hang on until the Core I7 chips are unleashed that's what i'm going to do as hopefully we will see further reductions on current tech.

They are already released. They cost $1,000+ though. They are amazing though. Thanks to Economy of Scale, it's only a matter of time they become affordable.

vCole

I built my own.



I spent roughly $700.

royal

I'll build a new one when Diablo 3 comes out if I notice that I can't run everything in high. I'm in no rush and I7 should be affordable by that time.

Daniel333

Q6600 is the way to go. How about some RAID 0 on there?

tiersten

Daniel333 wrote:

Q6600 is the way to go. How about some RAID 0 on there?

Ew. Not if you want to have a reliable system.

royal

tiersten wrote:

Daniel333 wrote:

Q6600 is the way to go. How about some RAID 0 on there?

Ew. Not if you want to have a reliable system.

I've had the same RAID 0 set with Raptors since they were released years ago and has been working excellent. I'd be curious to hear your bad experience.

Darthn3ss

go with the 8800GT and a 22" wide screen, you won't regret it.

tiersten

royal wrote:

tiersten wrote:

Daniel333 wrote:

Q6600 is the way to go. How about some RAID 0 on there?

Ew. Not if you want to have a reliable system.

I've had the same RAID 0 set with Raptors since they were released years ago and has been working excellent. I'd be curious to hear your bad experience.

You're just significantly increasing your chance of losing data.

skrpune

tiersten wrote:

Daniel333 wrote:

Q6600 is the way to go. How about some RAID 0 on there?

Ew. Not if you want to have a reliable system.

I'm using a Q6600 right now and no problems...what problems with reliability are you talking about?? the processor or raid?

dynamik

He's just talking about running RAID-0. If you lose one drive, all the data in the array is gone. The more drives you have in the array, the less reliable it is. It's just a trade-off between performance and reliability.

I'm actually going to move my VMs to a RAID-0 array later this week. I'm going to have them all backed up, and it's just for testing, so I couldn't care less if I lose them if a drive fails. Performance trumps reliability in my case. I'll have my OS and important data on RAID-1 though.

I wouldn't necessarily discourage RAID-0 outright, but you should definitely be aware of the trade-offs. If you're not worried about losing your data (or have a good backup system in place), and you want your games to have faster load times, go for it.

royal

dynamik wrote:

He's just talking about running RAID-0. If you lose one drive, all the data in the array is gone. The more drives you have in the array, the less reliable it is. It's just a trade-off between performance and reliability.

I don't understand, what is this RAID you speak of?

dynamik

Radioactive iguana diarrhea. It's what happens when you eat too many iguana-on-a-stick meals in Fallout 3. It's not pleasant

msteinhilber

I would consider something other than a 9500GT if you are using it for gaming and want to be able to play most games at a decent resolution smooth. Nvidia cards don't scale in terms of model number to performance, like stated an 8800GT will run circles around a 9500GT.

I recently had to upgrade my video card for a new game I've been messing with (Warhammer Online). Had an X850XT and upgraded to a GTX 260. Couldn't be happier with the GTX 260, fairly affordable and great performance.

MonkeyBolt

Thanks for the help and advise! i'll look into what you've said and see what i can find. Thanks again