Build an $800 Gaming PC 296
ThinSkin writes "Building a computer that can handle today's games doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg. In fact, you can build one for less than $800, especially given that many hardware manufacturers have cut costs considerably. Loyd Case over at ExtremeTech shows gamers how to build an $800 gaming PC, one that features an overclockable Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 and a graphics-crunching EVGA 260 GTX Core 216. The computer exceeded expectations in gaming and synthetic tests, and was even overclocked well over spec at 3.01GHz."
Ars Technica System Guide (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oversucking (Score:2, Informative)
My original 485DX33 box had the old 'turbo' button on the front to switch between 8 and 33 Mhz. The thing would never boot if it was set to 33Mhz, always froze after POST, but once booted in 8Mhz 'mode', you could happily press that button and feel that 33Mhz power blowing your hair...
Never did work out what the problem was.
Short list of websites with similar guides (Score:5, Informative)
anandtech.com
tomshardware.com
maximumpc.com
pcmag.com (hard to find, though)
arstechnica.com
sharkyextreme.com
I mean, really....does anyone think it's hard to find this stuff?
You can even find sample builds on amazon.com and on newegg.com if you look around a bit.
Why Quad Core? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Didn't we already have this story? (Score:3, Informative)
I am sure we had a story like this the other week. I am pretty sure we have it every couple of weeks.
Yeah, but the last article I remember [maximumpc.com] was $500. So this is new news because they're spending $300 more and not promising to run crysis. In the summary anyway. Oh, it's overclocked too.
Re:Yay, overclocking! (Score:4, Informative)
First, most of the overclocking taboo today is just marketing gimic.
Yea, you can fry out your processor being stupid with it, but the vast majority of people will be able to OC their processors in a very stable way for long periods with no problems. Chances are unless they are doing really crazy crap, the processor will be outdated (like by the time it got out of the box) before it looses any life from an OC.
The AMD black edition for example. Yea, AMD does not endorse it but they are actively marketing a processor for overclocking. The MB makers are providing all the tools including on many motherboards the auto features that stop newbies from burning it out. point and click over clocking, with an edge of danger to get people to do it without really doing it.
I even buy my low end workstations at my office with the intent of overclocking them when they start to reach their end of life. Gives me another year out of them, when I would have replaced them anyway. At that point I got nothing to loose. Well, at least it gives me something cool to do with them before retiring them to spare parts.
In India... (Score:5, Informative)
You can build it a lot cheaper with branded components that cost way less: Here's my rig and prices translated into USD at INR47:$1
M2N-E-SLI mobo: 189
AMD Athlon X2-63 bit dual core 4200+: 96
9800GTX+ AND 8600GT (yeah two): 189
LG 17" monitor LCD: 93
Case: 20
OCZ Vanquisher cooler: 35
Point of View PSU: 170
Total: 792
Hell, the shops here will fix it up, assemble and home deliver free if you spend this much amount at one shop.
I got a free MS Natural keyboard, Microsoft Mouse and a 8GB JetFlash card free
Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted? (Score:3, Informative)
But then, it really depends how much money you want to spend on your games.
I pick all my games up on Steam when those 75% off sales come around.
TF2 - $10
Left4Dead - $20
Assassin's Creed - $10
Universe at War - $5
I imagine by the time I've bought 20 games, I've saved money by spending more money on a gaming PC.
But y'know, if you have no morals(or are a college student), PC games cost nothing! :P
most i can get on my console and not have to worry about compatibility, framerates etc.
Plus, you know, it's a PC, so you never have to worry about framerates like you do on a console. Have you seen the shit FPS a lot of those games get? I sure can tell when they drop below 60! At least with 25% of my computer's budget being spent on the GPU, I know it'll never lag for this generation of games.
And besides, I couldn't live without my mouse and keyboard. :) I imagine if I played Left4Dead on XBoxlive, I'd sorely miss all the accusations of aim hax.
Re:Sure will (Score:5, Informative)
Of course not. It's called dividing up the market (I'm sure there's a technical term for it), and it's completely legitimate. If someone can't afford your top product, you make a scaled down version for them. You can't just give them the top product for a lower price, because then no one would pay that higher price. But at the same time, there's no reason to waste development money purposefully making a worse design. So you just modify the existing design to be worse.
Consider TV or internet services. There are tiered plans, not because the Cable company runs out of premium packages to sell, but because they know that not everyone wants to fork over the dough to 2000 channels.
Re:I Just Don't Get It... (Score:2, Informative)
You were lied to.
Additionally, you are attributing vastly more responsibility to your CPU for the performance of all of these games. Why don't you underclock your CPU and see how much effect it has on your framerates? Yes, even to 2GHz and below.
The HD 3870 was released in October 2007, Fallout 3 was released in November 2008. Those other games, around the same time. Barely a year apart, those games were designed to run on those exact games: not the 4870 which was released barely months before.
On top of that, the 3870 was almost the top of the line card for the 3000 series. It's no surprise that it can handle those games. The people that develop them are not stupid. They do not expect people to buy a new graphics card just to play their game. It will run on the cards released not even a year ago, and it will run well. Expecting it not to is foolishness.
Sheesh
Re:Sure will (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More to the point (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps I am missing something, but Civ III just MUST be older than the parent's 4-5 year spectrum.
Re:More to the point (Score:3, Informative)
doh, why do I even bother. He's going to be modded 5 and I'll be -859365834 troll for speaking the truth
Re:Sure will (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, it is called segmenting the market.
You might as well complain that Microsoft sell different versions of Windows, they all cost the same. They all have the same media, box, it doesn't cost any extra to burn a different image.
Re:More to the point (Score:2, Informative)
There are definitely reasons for preferring a PC, but some of yours don't make much sense :-)
Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console. I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs.
It takes some getting used to, and you'll never be as good with a controller than with keyboard and mouse, but it's not as bad as many PC gamers pretend it is. Besides, lots of good FPS never make it to PCs.
Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out,
True, but on the other hand, nothing prevents you from also using a laptop, netbook or iPhone while playing a game on a console.
and to be able to download patches for buggy games,
In my opinion, that's not a plus, it's a minus because the main result of this is that games are released in what is essentially an unfinished state. Unfortunately, the PS3 and Xbox now also allow patches for buggy games, so some console games are released with gameplay-killing bugs, too.
and extra content for the expandable ones.
The same applies to consoles.
Consoles also suck for RTS games, as in there aren't any to speak of.
That has changed in recent years. Even the Wii has a neat little RTS with Swords & Soldiers [nintendolife.com].
Also PCs are cheaper to deal with, once you have one for gaming. Throw in a $80 video card every 2-3 years and your good to go.
The PC update race is slowing somewhat, but on average, console hardware is still cheaper (although games tend to cost more).
Re:More to the point (Score:3, Informative)
And Age of Empires 2 was released back in Feb 1996, which makes it 13 years old now.
dude age of empires 1 is from 1997 and 2 is from 1999
Re:More to the point (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm...
Considering i have a 38.4MBps connection to the 'net supplemented by a backup connection (from another ISP) of 2Mbps, both of which are NOT throttled in any way, and i have the freedom to download anything anytime i want, plus indian equivalent of FCC actually man dating net neutrality as per law and sending to jail company execs that don't obey their advertised speed limits, and the fact i can buy a 9800GTX+ in the next door PC shop, AND got Spore one day earlier than released in US, yeah i guess we are pretty backward.
BTW, how's comcast treating you now?
Re:all that power... (Score:3, Informative)
I AM running Windows 7 on a Core 2 machine (1.8 GHz-ish) with 2 gigs of RAM. So far, everything works surprisingly well.
Oh please, come back with something new (Score:5, Informative)
At the moment a Radeon 4770 would be a better choice, if the not the #1 on bang for buck, as touted by most reputable sources. Highly clockable e7xxx or e8xxx range core 2 duo still kicks quad core ass for less money (easy stable 4ghz), less power draw and subsequent heat problems. What really gets my gall with these kind of websites, is the ram recommendations. That quad core has a 1333mhz bus, thus DDR2 faster than 667mhz gains almost no improvement in memory bandwidth and latency, yet somehow there is a huge market for this kind of crap.
I hate to sound like a greybeard but back in the day it was all about making dirt cheap parts outperform four-figure parts. Now overclocking parts cost more and are much less challenging to work with. If anything overclocking is boring now, it's all about bling. Remember the Celeron 300A?
Yep, CL5 800 is just fine. If you want another 5% in benchmarks you can blow your dosh on CL4 1066mhz. Even if you overclock your FSB speed, you'll watch your bandwidth scores scale up, even holding ram speed at a fixed 800mhz! Even if your FSB is stepping up faster than your ram speed, your memory benchmark scores will continue to go up. It only really makes more sense to come down in latency, 667 CL3 is lower *realtime* latency than 1066mhz CL5, and even reasonable 'value ram' will reach those timings with a voltage boost. Yep the socket 775 platform is that crappy. Spend your money on other areas please.
No IT professional worth their salt recommends anything above reasonably priced and reliable 800/1066 ram, unless you really are going to push high FSB speeds on a core 2 duo, maybe worth paying a whisker more. You don't really need heat spreaders either, and a strip of aluminum and 3M thermal tape will do the job better than $20 set of aftermarket spreaders.
Honestly, you could blow this thing away in benchmarks for less money.
Re:More to the point (Score:4, Informative)
Demigod
Left4Dead
Team Fortress 2
Re:Cost of PC multiplayer (Score:2, Informative)
Does it just have some of the worst graphics output ever, or what?
Yes. It's graphics power is nearly the same as the last-gen nintendo gamecube. The ps3 and 360 look better because they have better graphics. So the ps3 and 360 would look better on composite graphics too (or even an old black and white tv). The output resolution, (480p, 1080i etc.) just allows those better graphics to shine through with less jaggies. It's textures and polygon counts that make the difference in video games.