Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware Entertainment Games

The Best Gaming PC Money Can Buy 360

Posted by CmdrTaco
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Best Gaming PC Money Can Buy

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

    by FortKnox (169099) * on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:02AM (#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 syousef (465911) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:05AM (#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?

  • 6GB of ram? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wjh31 (1372867) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:06AM (#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
  • FFS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:09AM (#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:3, Insightful)

    by Masami Eiri (617825) <brain.wav@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:15AM (#26357027) Journal
    It is an investment, just not one with a monetary payout.
  • Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazztastic (814296) <spazztastic@gm a i l . c om> on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:15AM (#26357045)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:17AM (#26357075)

    Why not the best for the bucks?
    I usually never spend more than 800($CAN) for an upgrade... and I'm good for gaming for a few years with that... Why 4 cores? Currently games only use 1... so it's better to have 1 good core than 4 half-good...

    A good old P4 Prescott with watercooling (a littlebit overclocked) is still better than a quadcores!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:17AM (#26357087)

    Are graphics chipmakers making investments in the newer game development to "ensure" that the games require and/or perform better with the newest chips, or is it purely a result of the chips' improved performance on games that is naturally enticing upgrades?

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

    by ZirbMonkey (999495) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:23AM (#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."

  • Not worth it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Junks Jerzey (54586) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:27AM (#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.

  • Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:37AM (#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 GweeDo (127172) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:38AM (#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 DuckDodgers (541817) <keeper_of_the_wo ... m ['yah' in gap]> on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:40AM (#26357359)
    While I agree, the counterpoint is that you get a lot of diminishing returns for your PC investment. Depending upon what you get, maybe $800 well spent (not counting the monitor) will get you 80 fps.

    Bump your PC spending to $1800, and the extra $1000 gives you better graphics, maybe 120 fps, maybe 200, whatever. But unless you have money to burn, that extra grand wasn't well spent. Just put it into the bank, and buy another $800 machine in 3 years.
  • Re:Not worth it (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:46AM (#26357437)

    But the machines in the articles seems to be put together by idiots. You can get a very very nice gaming PC for around £400 (certainly better specced than any console). And the extra you spend, is quickly saved by the games being much cheaper.

    I'm not going to inject anything about which platform is better, but to say that developers are currently with Xbox 360 seems to exclude an awful lot of them. It seems more like a variation of the PC-gaming is dead meme, which is again and again proved at best ignorant.

  • by yoshi_mon (172895) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @10:49AM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @11:31AM (#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.

  • by skeeto (1138903) on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @01:52PM (#26360083)

    Holy frak. What sort of high-spec machine is our universe running on then?

    Remember that your perception of passage of time is determined within he universe machine itself, so the universe machine need not be powerful, just have the proper amounts of (real) time, memory, and energy.

    Actually, that assumes it's running in a universe like the one it's simulating.

  • by argent (18001) <peter@slashdot.2 ... m ['nga' in gap]> on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @03:28PM (#26361629) Homepage Journal

    Exactly: we don't know if real time is running at real time. If we're being simulated post-singularity using reversible computations (to provide an unbounded number of simulated frames by running the simulation slower as the energy density of the universe decreases) real time would be running asymptotically slower than real time over time, but we'd never be able to detect that even after we start running our own reversible computation engine to computationally extend our own apparent time into the apparent real time heat death of the simulated universe inside the real heat death of the real universe. You can apply a thought experiment similar to Cantor's diagonal proof to show that this system can be indefinitely nested, if the real universe is unbounded and uniform, even when you bring relativistic communication limits into play.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...