New Computer: Might as well join in

[Cool Cat Carl]

In like a week, I'll have...

Intel Core2 Quad processor Q6600 (2.4 ghz)
2 gig ram
Nvidia GeForce 8500 GT

It's the awesome.

[seekdestroy]

how much that quad core costing u? Are you sure its worth it?

[QuotidianTemerity]

Nvidia GeForce 8500 GT

It's the awesome.

Err.

[globalenjoi]

Skip the quad and get the 8800, GTX if you can afford.

The dual core won't let you down. That 8500 will. =\

[Tinnesa]

I agree with you QuotidianTemerity, wtf?

[frogopus]

Q6600 = $280

E6750 = $200

8500GT~ $110

The E6750 will give you a higher speed and you can put that extra money towards a better card, like an 8600 series or so (which will be roughly $200)

I went with with a Q6600 processor but I also got an 8800gtx. I'm sure you'd see more gains from a better card than a quad core right now.

[Shrubberyjsc]

I've got that newfangled 'Geforce 1' card.

It's teh pwnzorz.

It costed my $ 2.00 tho....


lol.

[Deek]

Games will eventually take advantage of multiple (quad) cores as a standard, Crysis being the most notable upcoming title. The future-proofing alone is worth the $80 imo. However, you will see higher speeds with the e6750 in the meantime, as hyperthreaded games are far from standard atm.

[hool10]

The video card will create a bottleneck so you may suffer from that. The quad core is worth it so don't listen to anybody otherwise! Crysis and other games will support and use all four cores so get it instead of the duo core. I just OC'd my quad core to 3GHz without messing with the voltage. All I had to do was change the multiplier to 2 and that was it. I could go more but I like 3GHz.

[Magicprime]

Just make sure, dont spend the extra cash on a 8800GTS unless you just have the cash laying around. For less than the price of a 8800GTS you can go SLI with decent 8600s and be plenty powerful without the kick to the wallet/nuts.

The thing to remember about computers is Expensive dosent always = Best. Alot of times you have to play a balancing act of money vs performance vs braging rights. Dual 8600 SLI is nothing to laugh at.

[Salamander]

Quad core right now just isnt worth it, sure it makes Windows go a bit faster when doing heavy apps etc, but for games, its pointless.

In 6 months time then quad core will be a good purchase.

Go with a faster video card, and junk the quad and go with a dual core.

[globalenjoi]

Games will eventually take advantage of multiple (quad) cores as a standard, Crysis being the most notable upcoming title. The future-proofing alone is worth the $80 imo. However, you will see higher speeds with the e6750 in the meantime, as hyperthreaded games are far from standard atm.

If he's strapped for cash (which I'd assume so, if he's getting the 8500) then he'd be better off going dual core, and getting a better video card. As someone else stated, the 8500 is gonna bottleneck his performance, quad core or not.

[hool10]

In 6 months time then quad core will be a good purchase.
So you think buying a quad core in 6 months is justifiable? We need to know your budget first Carl.

[Deek]

If he's strapped for cash (which I'd assume so, if he's getting the 8500) then he'd be better off going dual core, and getting a better video card.
This is true. The 8500 doesn't even amount to a 7900, in terms of power - the only benefit is the DX10 you will never be able to use, with the limitations of your rig. The 8600 superclocked (for around $200ish) is pretty close to the high end of the 7-series in terms of horsepower (just a little shy), with the additional DX10 support. If you can afford it, the 8800 320mb card is nothing to scoff at, weighing it at just under $300 more often than not. It will crush anything the 7-series has to offer, with DX10 to boot. But it's prolly out of your price range, I guess?

At the very least, I'd seriously consider the 8600 superclocked. The 8500 is really a poor investment, in terms of price/performance. If it means dropping down to a high end duo core instead of the quad, I'd give it some serious thought. Do you sacrifice the future proofing of the quad for more immediate horsepower? Sure, Crysis will fire on all four cores, but duo cores users will be fine. I have no intention of upgrading from my e6600 for Crysis, and I'm not worried. It'll scale down.

[globalenjoi]

If you can afford it, the 8800 320mb card is nothing to scoff at, weighing it at just under $300 more often than not. It will crush anything the 7-series has to offer, with DX10 to boot. But it's prolly out of your price range, I guess?


I got my 8800 320mb for 270$ I believe, and it had some sorta rebate also (didn't use it lol). It is a great card. My only regret is that I couldn't afford the 8800 Ultra hehe.

[A DUCK]

E6750 = $200

/Confused

The E6600 which is 2.4GHz and 1066FSB, is $230..
The E6750 is 2.66GHz and 1333FSB for $30 less even though it is better?

/Still confused

[dontleave]

8500 is teh sux.

I know, I have two 8600GT's and they can barely even play BioShock or MOHA on high

[Deek]

I haven't studied the benchmarks ...

Do a pair of 8600s in SLI beat out a single 8800 GTS 640mb? 'Cause I know (99% sure) that the 8800 basically creams two 7950s in SLI.

Also, considering donleave's comments above, my 8800 GTS 640 has no problem w/ BioShock on full with 4x AA (though 8x starts to drag quite a bit).

Maybe 8600s SLI'd will give the 8800 320 a serious run for the money, but you'll be spending $60-$100 more on the SLI 8600s, compared to a single 8800 320 (unless you know of a smokin' deal somewhere).

[globalenjoi]

Maybe 8600s SLI'd will give the 8800 320 a serious run for the money, but you'll be spending $60-$100 more on the SLI 8600s, compared to a single 8800 320 (unless you know of a smokin' deal somewhere).

Yeah, it could be close, but I'd have to agree, the better deal is getting a single card.

Also, from the benchmarks on Tomshardware and others, the 8800GTS 320mb scored higher framerates on alot of games out currently. I imagine Crysis is going to be a little rough, though. All that extra memory on the 640 and the Ultra = yummy. If you can, get it. If not, the 320mb will get you by plenty good. (I can run Bioshock maxed, at 1680x1050 with a continuous 60fps, no drops.)

[Deek]

Yeah, I've heard it said that less memory will occasionally produce better results, as with less memory, the GPU is able to track textures faster, the same principle behind a 10,000rpm 150GB Raptor harddrive. Less space means faster read speeds. However, these gains tend to be title specific, and situational, and more memory is generally a good thing.

[globalenjoi]

Yep, and I think it's gonna start showing more and more. I read somewhere that you can't even set the textures to high in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter unless you have 512mb or more video ram...

[Teknobry]

Global, that would depend though on the resolution you're running at.

[globalenjoi]

The GRAW textures?

[Teknobry]

Yeah. If you're running on a lower resolution less memory is required.

[Nemesis_vs_Leon]

You should get a new computer in the middle of 2008. It'll be able to run all the great 2007 games coming out just fine, and it'll be fine with things in '08 too, but I haven't heard much about '08 games, so for now '07 games should be run more.

Although, if the computer is just really powerful, you could be fine anyway.

I'd suggest 4 gig ram instead or in the near future if you want to run Starcraft 2 in a year.

[Deek]

The 45nm processors will be "commercially viable" in 2008, and the 9-series is supposedly poised to enter the market around Xmas (rumor). Hopefully, DDR3 will be more common and down in price by then, and will start showing marked advantages over DDR2. If you want to be on the bleeding edge, then waiting until '08 isn't a bad idea. However, if you're simply prepping for the new releases coming our way over the next few months (Crysis, Hellgate, etc), now certainly isn't the worst time to upgrade. Just be sure your mobo (if you're buying a new mobo), is able to support all the new future tech like 45nm processors, DDR3 and PCI-e 2.0. And 4 gigs of RAM will only do you proud if you're running Vista, I believe (correct?)

[frogopus]

And 4 gigs of RAM will only do you proud if you're running Vista, I believe (correct?)
My understanding is that Windows XP will only detect 3gb, but I think there are some work arounds