Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Best Gaming PC Money Can Buy

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Jan 07, 2009 08:59 AM
from the don't-we-post-this-every-few-months dept.
SlappingOysters writes "Gameplayer has gone live with their best PC hardware configurations for Q1 2009. They've broken it into three tiers depending on the investor's budget. And while the prices are regional, it is comparative across the globe. The site has also detailed the 10 Hottest PC Games of 2009 to unveil the software on the horizon which may seduce gamers into an upgrade."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • What a crock... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FortKnox (169099) * on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:02AM (#26356843) Homepage Journal
    Budget machine has a quad core? And is almost a grand?

    Tom's Hardware does these, and the budget is usually closer to the $600 mark, with the mid range around $1200.

    And the fact that they put two optical BD burners on the extreme one (one on each page) makes me think that this article was slapped together instead of fully investigated. Where's the benchmarks? The proof that you built a good machine?

    Looks like a buncha kids opened up newegg and built themselves machines in their head...
    • by XPeter (1429763) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:09AM (#26356955) Homepage

      And the fact that they put two optical BD burners on the extreme one (one on each page) makes me think that this article was slapped together instead of fully investigated. Where's the benchmarks? The proof that you built a good machine?

      Looks like a buncha kids opened up newegg and built themselves machines in their head...

      Why the hell would you want to benchmark one of those beauties? It's like a wife. Your supposed to spend money on it, care for it and look but not touch.

    • Re:What a crock... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ZirbMonkey (999495) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:23AM (#26357161)

      Tom's is way better. If I want to upgrade my PC or video card, they actually do proper benchmarks and realistic budgets. I may never have triple SLI, but only because I don't feel like dropping another $500 on video cards for relatively minimal fps gains.

      I dropped a grand on a new i7 system last week. Primarily because I was tied of my old Opteron 170 rig, but a good deal because I'd been influenced by the Tom's hardware midprice build. A grand is not "budget."

    • by TheKidWho (705796) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:28AM (#26357213)
      When they talk about hot computers, they are referring to your gpu/cpu temperature of course.
    • by Fross (83754) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @10:08AM (#26357705) Homepage

      Yo dawg, I heard you like burning, so we put a burner in your burner so you can burn while you burn.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Sharky Extreme used to do these (not sure if they do it anymore), and it sounds like the budgets are similar (though I think they had 4 tiers - budget, mid, high, and extreme). The budget machine there was also $1000, but that includes some stuff like Monitor that isn't always included in other PC building guides. The extreme guide usually had the disclaimer that "if money was no object...," so I say "only 2 blue ray burners? Why not 4?" I can't tell if they're similar due to the slashdotting.

      I'd questi

      • Re:What a crock... (Score:4, Informative)

        by FortKnox (169099) * on Wednesday January 07 2009, @10:53AM (#26358305) Homepage Journal
        well, as the title of the article says, this is a gaming box. Quad isn't used in gaming, so you can get a duo with a higher clock speed at that price. They are spending like $200 on an AMD quad. With that price, you can get a top of the line intel at 2.4 or 2.6GHz that you can overclock the crap out of. For games, you need 2 cores and major clock speed, not a quad core and mediocre clock speed.
      • Re:What a crock... (Score:5, Informative)

        by El Capitaine (973850) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:41AM (#26357379)
        I agree, Blu-Ray is not really necessary for a gaming machine (are any PC games Blu-Ray yet?) And to have two BD burners...(going from first post - article is slashdotted)...this seems less like a gaming rig and more like a video production machine.

        Also, Blu-Ray is abbreviated to BD, for Blu-Ray Disc. All of the abbreviations for the format use BD, not BR, such as BD-J, BD+, BD-ROM, BD-R.

        "Blu-ray, also known as Blu-ray Disc (BD), is the name of a next-generation optical disc format jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA)"
        Taken from http://www.blu-ray.com/info/ [blu-ray.com]
      • Re:What a crock... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @11:41AM (#26358971)

        Alan Wake
        Bioshock
        Company of Heroes
        Crysis
        Far Cry 2
        Hellgate: London
        Lost Planet
        Microsft Flight Sim X
        Rainbow Six Vegas
        Source Engine
        Splinter Cell Double Agent
        STALKER
        Stranglehold
        Supreme Commander
        Unreal Engine 3
        Half-life2: Orange box engine games/mods

        Nowadays you've basically got a choice between a 3.4ghz quadcore and a 3.4-3.8ghz dualcore (4ghz is still a little out of range for the average overclocker). I'd rather have another 2 cores and a slower clockspeed than a slight boost in clockspeed. Then again maybe that's because I'm not an idiot that relies on the false logic that just because it's not immediately the absolute best thing out there that it won't be very useful to have for the next few years.

  • Pffft. (Score:5, Funny)

    by XPeter (1429763) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:02AM (#26356855) Homepage

    These PC's are low-end when compared to my overclocked Commodore 64.

  • by syousef (465911) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:05AM (#26356897) Journal

    On the Extreme 4 GB of Video RAM? Seriously?

    Someone please Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're mapping 4GB of video RAM you'll not be able to run a 32 bit OS. Given that this is a gaming PC, wouldn't this be a deal breaker? I mean even the uber gamers occassionally like to run older games right?

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:17AM (#26357089)

      Seriously, I'm honestly curious. I'm a huge PC gamer and I run Vista 64-bit. All 32-bit Windows apps, which accounts for most games made in the last 10 years or so, seem to run great natively. For older DOS games, well those don't run well in 32-bit Windows. You get no sound, video problems, etc. The NTVDM isn't really good fro games. So what you do is fire up DOSBox, which runs them great. However that runs just as well in 64-bit as it does in 32-bit.

      Thus far, I don't see any gaming problems with a 64-bit OS. So if you know of some, I'd be interested in what they are.

    • by Eudial (590661) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:20AM (#26357125)

      On the Extreme 4 GB of Video RAM? Seriously?

      Someone please Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're mapping 4GB of video RAM you'll not be able to run a 32 bit OS. Given that this is a gaming PC, wouldn't this be a deal breaker? I mean even the uber gamers occassionally like to run older games right?

      The kernel should deal with that. If you request some memory address, paging assigns a virtual address for the physical memory so that you can access -any- 4 Gb of data in some order.

      You can still only access 4 Gb at one specific time per process, but that should be enough for most purposes, no?

  • 6GB of ram? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wjh31 (1372867) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:06AM (#26356911) Homepage
    last time i checked, the i7 boards had 6 ram slots, for an easy 12GB. Also im pretty sure its possible to find boards with atleast 3 PCI-E slots, so they are missing an extra graphics card there. 6 SATA slots is also do-able, so with one to the BD burner, that leaves 5 for a raid 5 SSD config to give 1TB of SSD. And only one screen? 3 cards means 6 screens, i feel they missed some obvious extras
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      3 Cards in SLI does not mean 6 screens. It does mean 1 screen that runs games really fast (or so Nvidia wants us to think). For a gamer, I think faster FPS is better than more screens (which very very few games support).
  • FFS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:09AM (#26356947) Journal
    Seriously, can we please, please stop describing people who purchase dubiously durable consumer goods that will be obsolete within a few years as "investors"? And, obviously, stop describing those goods as "investments".

    There is nothing wrong, per se, with buying such things; but the notion that you are "investing" in them is patent nonsense.
    • Re:FFS (Score:5, Funny)

      by wisty (1335733) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:14AM (#26357001)

      In 1 years time, it will be worth 40% of what they paid for it. That's an investement, isn't it? Heck, it's not even a bad investement these days.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It is an investment, just not one with a monetary payout.
    • Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spazztastic (814296) <spazztastic@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:15AM (#26357045) Homepage

      There is nothing wrong, per se, with buying such things; but the notion that you are "investing" in them is patent nonsense.

      This. You put central air/heat into your house, you're investing it. You put money into a company, you're investing it. You fork out about $3000 to build a computer that is completely overkill, you're NOT investing it. An investment is when you'll see some sort of profit from it, so unless if you're a professional gamer and it will make your frag count increase by 23.2%, it's not an investment.

      • Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:37AM (#26357317) Homepage Journal

        An investment is when you'll see some sort of profit from it, so unless if you're a professional gamer and it will make your frag count increase by 23.2%, it's not an investment.

        So I take it you put a fairly low value on personal enjoyment and satisfaction? BACK TO THE SALT MINES WITH YOU, SLAVE!

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07 2009, @10:31AM (#26358019)

          If investing for you means exclusively monetary returns, then you forgot the reason you need money in the first place. You failed to invest in your life.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            "Investment" means "trying to grow your money."

            Maybe you should consider utilizing a dictionary occasionally. In particular, the American Heritage Dictionary defines sense three of the word as "Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit." Pleasure is a benefit. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    • Re:FFS (Score:5, Funny)

      by Greyfox (87712) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:23AM (#26357151) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps their belief that it's "investing" is an indication of why we're currently in the middle of an economic crisis.
  • by heitikender (655816) * on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:13AM (#26356997)
    ... best web-server hardware configurations money can buy, also 10 hottest server apps for 2009.
  • Not worth it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Junks Jerzey (54586) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:27AM (#26357207)

    Considering how few high-end PC games actually come out, getting a flashy PC just to play them isn't worth it.

    Hardware issues aside, serious gameplayers need to be where the developers are, which at the moment means the Xbox 360. A Nintendo Wii or DS is optional, for those people who want to see some of the more innovative designs. (PC gaming diehards can now interject the usual comments about FPS controls and real-time strategy games and mods.)

    And, yes, I'll point out that a 360 + Wii + DS + several years of Xbox Live is still cheaper than the PC mentioned in the article.

  • by yoshi_mon (172895) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:49AM (#26357481)

    That these machines would not run half as well as some system that would cost half as much but built by someone with a clue. Not just someone who went down line and picked out parts based on how much they cost.

    For anyone really interested in performance rigs spend some time on a overclocking site. Those guys and gals really will show what it's all about. I know I'm damn amazed at some of the stuff they pull off and have learned a bunch just browsing.

    • by Winckle (870180) <mwinckleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:28AM (#26357211) Homepage

      It's articles that really do pc gaming a disservice. All you need to get pc gaming at reasonable resolutions is a decent mid range card like a 9600 or 9800. I have an 8800 GTS 512 and even on the absolute newest games I still achieve great framerates on good looking settings.

    • The problem with just about every computer review is that the reviewers think that running a game at anything less than 1920Ã--1080 (1080p) is absolutely unacceptable.

      I game on my HD TV in the basement which can only do 720p, a single 4850 will get you about 30 fps in Warhead maxed out.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Graphics cards are cheap. You can get one that plays every single available game nicely for 130 dollars (the 8800GT/9800GT for example).

      Stop getting your ideas from stupid guides like this and check out a thread full of advice from people who aren't insane. [somethingawful.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Tell me about it, I built a new PC earlier this year having been playing mostly XBox 360 games for the past 2 and a half years.

      I spent £1,600 (equivalent to $3,200 US at the time) on my new machine. I bought high end named RAM (something I never usually do), I bought a high end gaming motherboard (again, I always used to just go for any old board) etc. etc. So imagine my display when as soon as it was built I fired up Crysis to find it would not run smoothly anywhere even close to highest detail at 19

    • by GweeDo (127172) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @09:38AM (#26357331) Homepage

      The Unreal 3 engine and others happy put two cores to use. On top of that you still have OS processes and services running while you are gaming (unless you are playing some hot old DOS games off a boot floppy!). While I agree that for a "budget" style PC quad core is way over kill, dual core is far from being a silly investment. Once you consider the cost of a AMD Athlon X2 or something it is a no brainer.

    • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday January 07 2009, @10:49AM (#26358245)

      Anyone who spends that kind of money on hardware to play last gen games is a fool.

      Plenty of current and next gen games when they arrive utilise 4 cores, it seems to make sense if you're spending money on a PC like that for it to be able to still play the games of tommorrow than to play the games of yesterday that can be run perfectly well even if using only 1 of 4 cores anyway.

      To create an example to make this point clear:

      Game A is out now
      - it can be run on a single core higher clock speed CPU at 150fps
      - or a lower clock speed quad core CPU utilising only one of them at 140fps

      The difference will be narrow (or may not even exist in fact) because the OS still utilises multiple cores to ensure the game has a core to itself whilst single core has to share the core with the OS and background processes so even if the game doesn't use 4 cores, the OS does. Then onto the next scenario, a new game:

      Game B comes out in a month
      - it can be run on a single core higher clock speed CPU at 20fps due to not supporting the latest SIMD extensions etc.
      - or it can be run on a quad core CPU utilising all cores, with the latest SIMD extensions and such at 200fps

      So tell me, if you're laying down this kind of cash for a PC that you'll probably want to last for a while, what makes the most sense to go for?

      Only a fool uses the "quad core is pointless, existing games don't use them all" argument when spending the amount of cash required for a high end gaming PC.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I'm a little surprised they haven't added macs to reviews like that. This one was apparently not too intelligent, they look like they went shopping to see how much money they could spend on a system, not really looking to make sure they got the best hardware configuration possible. Macs do tend to be more expensive on the average, and there's a lot more shiny expensive options available at their store, so this would have probably helped them with the direction they were headed.

      Lets play...

      - 8 core (dual qu