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."
you dont need this shit (Score:5, Interesting)
spend $400, get one thats 90% of this speed, in a year sell it for face value on craigslist, rinse and repeat.
I've been getting free upgrades for many years now.
Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted? (Score:5, Interesting)
True, it can't access the RSX under Linux, but it's still a PS3. One:
in a terminal and it boots right back into GameOS so you can play your PS3 games or in my case, my PS3/PS2/PS1 games.
And even under Linux you can still play games, there's always Nethack, or Jools, or Megamek, or Epyx Rogue under Dosbox, or the PC version of Diablo under QEMUized Win95.
Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted? (Score:2, Interesting)
though the two are coming very close to merging in some way. there was a time when i would NEVER consider a console for games, but considering where the development has gone, i find very few appealing titles that are exclusive to the PC- most i can get on my console and not have to worry about compatibility, framerates etc. at an $800 price point you could get a PS3 and a netbook and do everything that gaming rig does, but do it better, have a laptop and a gaming rig and not really have to worry if the console breaks (not likely - save for the RROD on the360) you still can do your work on the laptop. it really is a valid counter point to a gaming rig, an i think to have a conversation about gaming hardware and not acknowledge the alternative is just ignorant. if you cant rationally consider that then you probably have no business spending $800 on a toy
I Just Don't Get It... (Score:5, Interesting)
I build a new computer almost exactly a year ago. 4 Gigs of DDR2 800 Low Latency memory, 7200 RPM SATA II hard drive with 32mb cache, an Athlon X2 5000 BE (I just bumped the multiplier from 13 to 15 to get it at 3ghz) and a HD 3870. With the exception of the CPU, everything is is running at stock speeds. These are the games I play:
Call of Duty: World at War
Fallout 3
Race Driver: Grid
NBA 2K9
Drakensang
I was sure my computer would be sluggish, but it runs all these games just fine with excellent graphics at a 1680x1050 resolution. The point? At the time of my building, all of the mentioned games were (for the most part) considered "current generation", and my CPU was lumped into the scrap heap with the "only if you have to" parts. When I actually started playing games, I soon realized that my performance was exactly what people said I wouldn't achieve.
CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will) (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a friend working at an AMD factory. He toll me the manufacturing process isn't precise enough to produce specifically 3GHz, 2GHz or 1GHz CPUs. Or at least this model helps in diminishing costs, they could probably make the process precise enough but it would raise costs.
So how do they do it ?
They produce 3GHz, 2GHz and 1GHz CPUs in one process all at the same time, there is no difference between the manufacturing process for each speed.
They then test each produced CPU to see how much clock speed it can handle then classify them with regards to this criteria.
When demand for higher clock speed CPU goes down and they have too many CPUs that can handle 3GHz on shelf, they just stamp "2GHz" on them and sell them as "2GHz" CPUs to diminish their inventory.
So overclocking would seem like a gamble, it might work perfectly because the company actually sold you a CPU that was rated for a higher clock speed. It may also not work because the company sold you a 2GHz CPU that was rated to handle only 2.000352 GHz.
Don't take for granted that because your friend or blog posters successfully overclocked a given CPU model, you will automatically have as much success.
Re:Sure will (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sure will (Score:3, Interesting)
No it isn't, because of the nature of how the consumer demands they price their CPUs.
Lets look at the P4 to C2D jump.
They still need money for R&D, so what are they supposed to do? Charge $100 for a 3.6ghz Pentium D(R&D all paid up), and $800 for a 1.8ghz Core 2 Duo? Good luck selling that to consumers.
Nope. We demand prices based on the performance we get - not the realities of the product. If a P4 costs $100 then an equivalent performance C2D must cost close to that - lets say $150 - or we won't buy it. Intel would clearly have no choice but to sell a higher performing part for more money, to cover the R&D costs - but how can they do that without selling lower performing parts?
Answer: They can't. And there you have the reason it's not anti-trust. Consumers demand that that companies supply a product for a competitive price. It's up to the company to figure out how the heck they balance their books.
Now...
Lately I've noticed both Intel and AMD are targeting overclockers. First Intel with their hugely overclockable C2D's, and now AMD with their core unlockable Phenom II's. Near as I can tell, just about every tri-core Phenom II is a working quad. :O I must admit, they've got my money this time around!
So the real question is... (Score:2, Interesting)
What is the optimum configuration that yields the high-enough FPS/high-enough resolution/lowest latencies with the minimum of price?
In other words - Build a system configuration at the minimum price after which any incremental gain in performance is disproportionate to further input in price?
An optimization problem there.
Re:Why Quad Core? (Score:3, Interesting)
-Quad cores don't go for much more than dual core processors do. The price between one Q6600 and a E8400 is approximately $20, so not exactly a tremendous price gap there.
-Given that, the quad core is a very viable option if you wish to future proof your PC. The clocking speed shows a lower number, but you're essentially given twice as many pipelines for information to go through. Right now, that's a substantial boost if you multitask.
-Not good enough? Even for gamers, quad core would be a better option. Sure, right now you're going to see dual cores cranking out the numbers because most games have really been optimized for use with two cores. But you said it yourself, video encoding delivers results due to utilizing all four cores on the quad core. It's only a matter of time until the standard for game developers include optimizing for more than two cores. When that time comes, those people will start wishing they bought that quady.
-By the way, this same argument used to take place when dual core was introduced. Some gamers suggested buying single cores due to their higher clock speeds, but those recommendations were short lived once the software caught up.
Re:Didn't we already have this story? (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely.
Seriously; this article, the person who submitted it, and the editor who deigned it front-page-worthy, can fuck right off.
This is not news, not useful - christ, it's not even interesting. The interwebs are totally awash with articles of exactly this nature, and have been for fucking years. 90% of /.ers are already perfectly capable of building a PC to a spec which suits their unique requirements, cheaper than this, and don't need or want to read this. The other 10% can fuck off and learn a thing or two about technology before commenting.
I ask you: HOW THE FUCK DID THIS BECOME A FRONT PAGE ARTICLE??!?.
I know this is a surly rant, but I have karma to burn and I'm frankly pissed off that shit like this got through. I mean, why don't we have a "How to write HTML" article, while we're at it?
Christ.
Re:Why Quad Core? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tomshardware just recently did an article where they measure performance of games in PCs with different numbers of cores (link: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280.html [tomshardware.com]).
Their conclusion is that at the moment, for the current crop of games the ideal number of cores is 3.
Re:Cost of PC multiplayer (Score:4, Interesting)
An entry-level $600 TV makes Wii look good. Not all genres need 1080p or higher resolution.
Correction: A shitty $50 TV makes Wii look good. I have a $600 TV (a 32" Sharp Aquos) and the Wii looks like total dogshit. What's puzzling to me is that the PS2 and Xbox both look better at 480i or 480p than the Wii. Does it just have some of the worst graphics output ever, or what?
Re:Cost of PC multiplayer (Score:3, Interesting)
PC Gamers always loved to rag on console guys, bragging up our fancy graphics, user maps, multiplayer, etc while spending countless hours fucking with patches, drivers or tweaking hardware to get things to just work. It was sort of a labor of love I guess. Consoles always were a "it just works" option. Aside from blowing into a nintendo cartridge the most difficult technical thing you had to do was figure out which hole to screw the coax into on the back of the TV.
But we've seen a convergence as the console has tried to become more like the PC. And along with that has come all of the PCs bad habits. Frankly, I'm not sure its progress. I think when most people sit in front of a console, they don't want to deal with downloading patches or overheating GPUs, etc.
I remember when people started talking about network connectivity for the xbox 360 and how games could be patched now. That isn't really a good thing. Enter games that don't even work when released because "Hey, we'll just patch it later...or not, maybe we ran out of money. Its not like we'll have to recall it anymore." Hell, Microsoft seemed to basically release the whole 360 console under this plan and it more of less paid off.
I think the next step is consoles with upgrade ports for video cards and ram...introducing the horrors of multiple system configurations and compatibility issues. Hell, they already update the OS system all the time.