Need your suggestions about 1st Gaming PC?

[Bristol Mike]

I'm thinking of buying a new desktop that can comfortably run games like WoW, CS:S, and CoD4. Oh and Starcraft 2, of course. My friend recommend this deal for Dell XPS 420

http://www.dealstudio.com/viewtopic.php?t=39099&ru=290

how do you guys think? for that price, worth to buy? any other good suggestions?

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Go outside.

Oh wait...I'm on a computer :doh:

[dfitzo53]

Crappy video card, which will hurt you in games. The quad core processor's also not going a whole lot for you since most games don't take good advantage of 2 cores, let alone 4. Other than that it's not a bad setup, especially considering that it comes with a 22" LCD, a 2 year warranty, and the OS.

Generally though, there are better deals to be had. You want to look for an 8800GT as the video card if you're going to buy a Dell. (Another option would be to buy the video card and install it yourself, but there's no guarantee the power supply in the Dell would be up to the task.)

Is building it yourself an option? Outside of the occasional deal at Dell, building your own tends to give you better value when you're talking about a good gaming PC.

[Springfield]

You should build it yourself. www.newegg.com sells all the components necessary at a fraction of the cost.

[Coach Williams]

You should build it yourself. www.newegg.com sells all the components necessary at a fraction of the cost.

I 2nd this....

that computer has a garbage card, average ram speed of a awful brand and a refurbished POS motherboard that won't make it to it's 2nd birthday before a capacitor blows......

-----------------

If you wanna good buy for the price get a :

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz ,$199

ASUS P5K PREMIUM/WIFI-AP LGA 775 , $169

CORSAIR XMS2 (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500), $135

EVGA 8800 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 , $179

Creative Sound Blaster SB0570 Audigy SE 7.1 , $29

----------

There is your core parts......

now get an ATX powersupply, a CPU fan, a sata HD, a DVD-RW, CASE and an OS.

[dfitzo53]

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz ,$199

ASUS P5K PREMIUM/WIFI-AP LGA 775 , $169

CORSAIR XMS2 (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500), $135

As I said earlier, quad core really isn't the smart buy right now. Go with a faster dual core, like the E7200 for $135 or E8400 for $199. Also, RAM speed makes essentially zero real-world performance difference. Don't waste $135 on overpriced RAM when you could get 2x2GB of DDR2-800 for less than $90.

Having 4GB of RAM will be far more beneficial in the near future than 2GB of slightly faster RAM.

Anyhow, we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit since he hasn't even said whether or not he wants to build his own.

[Springfield]

EVGA 8800 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 , $179

Wow, I didn't realize the 8800 GT's had become that cheap. That is an utterly awesome video card for less than $200, might even want to consider getting 2 and calling it a day. You'd be set for a while on that.

[.Guy.]

CORSAIR XMS2 (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500), $135

damn $135 for 2 gigs of ram these days is crazy. I don't know why you would need 1066mhz ram for a quad core with a 9x multi.

heres ddr2 800 for $20

http://shop2.frys.com/product/5375608?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

if you really want high speed ram heres ddr2 1150 for $46

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227196&Tpk=N82E16820227196

anyways, i agree with everyone else, build a computer yourself.

Wow, I didn't realize the 8800 GT's had become that cheap. That is an utterly awesome video card for less than $200, might even want to consider getting 2 and calling it a day. You'd be set for a while on that.

you can get a 8800gts 640mb for $130

http://fxvideocards.com/ZOTAC-GeForce-8800-GTS-640MB-ZT-88SE640-FSP-GDDR3-PCI-Express-x16-SLI-ZOTAC-Video-Card-p-16284.html

its pretty much on par with 8800GT besides being on the G80 die instead of the G92.

[Coach Williams]

As I said earlier, quad core really isn't the smart buy right now. Go with a faster dual core, like the E7200 for $135 or E8400 for $199. Also, RAM speed makes essentially zero real-world performance difference. Don't waste $135 on overpriced RAM when you could get 2x2GB of DDR2-800 for less than $90.

Having 4GB of RAM will be far more beneficial in the near future than 2GB of slightly faster RAM.

Anyhow, we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit since he hasn't even said whether or not he wants to build his own.

huh?.....the Q6600 smokes the E8400 in gameplay bench marks....

SEE 3dMARK06

as for the diff between 2 & 4......I find it doubtful he is gonna choose a 64bit OS since no games run 64 yet and compatibility issues are arising rapidly....

as for the ram....I gotta disagree......unless he is picking up a 8800ultra with 1gig of VM he needs faster ram to make sure he hasn't a bottleneck effect.

if the board runs at 1066, you buy 1066..........you're suggesting he put regular in a Ferrari. :doh:

I do this ALL friggin day bro......I really doubt too many ppl are more spec obsessive than I am.....

[dfitzo53]

damn $135 for 2 gigs of ram these days is crazy. I don't know why you would need 1066mhz ram for a quad core with a 9x multi.

You don't, especially for someone building for the first time. I would strongly recommend getting RAM that's designed to run at 1.8V, like this stuff:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146731

[Coach Williams]

damn $135 for 2 gigs of ram these days is crazy. I don't know why you would need 1066mhz ram for a quad core with a 9x multi.

heres ddr2 800 for $20

http://shop2.frys.com/product/5375608?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

if you really want high speed ram heres ddr2 1150 for $46

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-SlickDeals&cm_mmc=AFC-SlickDeals-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16820145194

all your prices were off :laugh: :doh:

ps- I don't think he'll notice the diff between the gts & gt but I posted it anyways.....( ps- that is a garbage brand VC )

you guys are getting all butt hurt over an *example* I posted when I don't see any posts prior.....

[dfitzo53]

huh?.....the Q6600 smokes the E8400 in gameplay bench marks....

SEE 3dMARK06

If you think 3DMark represents actual gameplay you're wrong. 3DMark is written to take advantage of multiple cores, and 99% of games are not. Look up some actual game benchmarks and you'll see very little benefit to a quad core.

As far as RAM speed, same thing. Look at some benchmarks of actual games, not a system bandwidth test like Sandra or Everest, and you'll find no effect from faster RAM. As long as your RAM speed matches or exceeds the frontside bus on an Intel system there's no RAM bottleneck.

If you think following the board standard is the way to buy RAM, you must not have any idea how RAM frequency and the frontside bus are actually related. The memory standard listed for the board is simply the maximum speed it's guaranteed to run, not the speed you need to buy.

[.Guy.]

all your prices were off :laugh: :doh:

ps- I don't think he'll notice the diff between the gts & gt but I posted it anyways.....( ps- that is a garbage brand VC )

you guys are getting all butt hurt over an *example* I posted when I don't see any posts prior.....

lol i posted the wrong link heres the right one

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-SlickDeals&cm_mmc=AFC-SlickDeals-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16820227196

im quoting the price after rebate.

anyways, i would rather use a 1:1 divider vs some random one the mobo chooses. unless you are clocking super high or have a low multi you dont need super fast ram.

[.Guy.]

If you think 3DMark represents actual gameplay you're wrong. 3DMark is written to take advantage of multiple cores, and 99% of games are not. Look up some actual game benchmarks and you'll see very little benefit to a quad core.

As far as RAM speed, same thing. Look at some benchmarks of actual games, not a system bandwidth test like Sandra or Everest, and you'll find no effect from faster RAM. As long as your RAM speed matches or exceeds the frontside bus on an Intel system there's no RAM bottleneck.

If you think following the board standard is the way to buy RAM, you must not have any idea how RAM frequency and the frontside bus are actually related. The memory standard listed for the board is simply the maximum speed it's guaranteed to run, not the speed you need to buy.

Yep I totally agree. Coach Willaims isn't taking real world game play into effect and relying on canned benchmarks like 3dmark. its like if you have quad they just throw 2k extra points toward your score even though it makes no difference in real game play. most games arent even optimized for dualcores and now people are reccomending quads :doh:.

for gaming:

dual core + high clock speed > quad core + lower clock speed

[Coach Williams]

If you think 3DMark represents actual gameplay you're wrong. 3DMark is written to take advantage of multiple cores, and 99% of games are not. Look up some actual game benchmarks and you'll see very little benefit to a quad core.

I can't disagree because this statement HEAVILY does depend on the game.....I've seen it go both ways.....

As far as RAM speed, same thing. Look at some benchmarks of actual games, not a system bandwidth test like Sandra or Everest, and you'll find no effect from faster RAM. As long as your RAM speed matches or exceeds the frontside bus on an Intel system there's no RAM bottleneck.

Wait?.....you suggested 800Mhz, then here ^^ you imply the use of 1066.....

If the 2nd post is your true opinion than we agree again

If you think following the board standard is the way to buy RAM, you must not have any idea how RAM frequency and the frontside bus are actually related. The memory standard listed for the board is simply the maximum speed it's guaranteed to run, not the speed you need to buy.

This also depends on the board.....you can't just grab a stick and throw it in....especially if it's a n00b incapible of adjusting voltages and frequencies.....

I've seen too many people come to my bench because they put in 667 in a 533 and and tried to boot it and their machine will no longer start :laugh: :doh: I will agree on the level that a GOOD board can handle the compatibility itself.......and a good board + a good user can adjust those timings accordingly. :cool:

[dfitzo53]

I don't imply the use of 1066 anywhere. There is no desktop gaming rig that needs that memory speed right now. Again, you seem to have some confusion about how memory speeds, processor speeds, and motherboards are related.

As far as games going either way, there is a very small bunch of games that take meaningful advantage of four cores, most notably Supreme Commander. None of the games the OP plays, like WoW and CS:S do so.

I agree with you that newbies shouldn't have to worry about adjusting voltages and frequencies. That's why I wouldn't recommend DDR2-1066 in the first place. There's no RAM that can run at 1066 without tweaking the voltage.

@ the OP: If you do decide to try building your own I would recommend visiting a place like www.AnandTech.com to do some research. They have their own forums there with some very knowledgeable people that will help you out.

[Coach Williams]

I don't imply the use of 1066 anywhere.

yeah, because I implied the use of a 1066 and you said to match it or higher

As far as games going either way, there is a very small bunch of games that take meaningful advantage of four cores, most notably Supreme Commander. None of the games the OP plays, like WoW and CS:S do so.

ironically enough I was gonna post those but you are right.....

I agree with you that newbies shouldn't have to worry about adjusting voltages and frequencies. That's why I wouldn't recommend DDR2-1066 in the first place. There's no RAM that can run at 1066 without tweaking the voltage.

Are you trying to tell me that

this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148187

placed into the new formula II asus board that runs mem at 1866 is gonna default the speed to 1066 ?!?! something isn't adding up here.....

[Springfield]

I agree with Coach Williams.

If your FSB is 1066, you should run memory at 1066 as long as the motherboard is compatable with it. You'll never get to realize the FSB of 1066 if you are running memory that only runs 800.

[dfitzo53]

KB, pulling in DDR3 when the discussion is about DDR2 doesn't help your point at all. And I never said memory had to match or exceed 1066. I said it had to match or exceed the frontside bus which varies from processor to processor but is not currently greater than 333 on mainstream consumer processors. Not Intel's marketing mumbo-jumbo, but the actual clock speed of the frontside bus.

Edit: Springfield, like Coach you are apparently mistaken about the relationship between RAM speed and frontside bus. DDR2-800 does not bottleneck a 1066 FSB processor. On the contrary, it has bandwidth to spare.

DDR2-533 is actually the memory speed that matches a 1066 processor. The fact is that motherboard chipsets and frontside bus speeds have progressed far more slowly than RAM speeds.

[Coach Williams]

KB, pulling in DDR3 when the discussion is about DDR2 doesn't help your point at all. And I never said memory had to match or exceed 1066. I said it had to match or exceed the frontside bus which varies from processor to processor but is not currently greater than 333 on mainstream consumer processors. Not Intel's marketing mumbo-jumbo, but the actual clock speed of the frontside bus.

Yeah, I know, I switched topics on ya....

ok, let's roll back to ddr2 for a sec.....are you saying that all ddr2 HIGHER than 1066 will default to 1066 until the timings are adjusted? I keep asking because I've NEVER seen this happen in person.....

edit: Kb <---- some ppl jus won't let it go.... :laugh: I don't mind tho

[dfitzo53]

Yeah, I know, I switched topics on ya....

ok, let's roll back to ddr2 for a sec.....are you saying that all ddr2 HIGHER than 1066 will default to 1066 until the timings are adjusted? I keep asking because I've NEVER seen this happen in person.....

edit: Kb <---- some ppl jus won't let it go.... :laugh: I don't mind tho

Actually, RAM generally defaults either to DDR2-800 or to the correct speed to run 1:1 with the processor, depending on the motherboard and RAM. Generally RAM isn't going to default to DDR2-1066. All RAM is supposed to have SPD profiles for running at DDR2-800 or DDR2-667 on the standard 1.8V setting, even if it's advertised as DDR2-1066 or even DDR2-1200.

You're absolutely right though, sometimes motherboards won't recognize RAM that wants to be run with nonstandard speeds/voltages.

Edit: Anyway gents, it's time for my ass to be in bed. Good night all.

[Springfield]

Hopefully this explains it better.

And as far as I know, a 1066 or 1333 Mhz FSB is that stated speed. A 1066 or 1333 Mhz memory chip is that stated speed. To my understanding, the FSB is the interface between the processor and the northbridge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[.Guy.]

I agree with Coach Williams.

If your FSB is 1066, you should run memory at 1066 as long as the motherboard is compatable with it. You'll never get to realize the FSB of 1066 if you are running memory that only runs 800.

this is wrong. if you have a core 2 duo processor that runs at 1066 fsb your ram should run at half that speed to have a 1:1 divider (best performance)

1066/2 = 533mhz ram

now if you are overclocking and raising the fsb your ram speed should rise accordingly. my fsb is 1800 atm so my ram speed is 900mhz.

at these fsb's you need that high speed ram. 2000fsb = 1000mhz ram.

[Coach Williams]

Actually, RAM generally defaults either to DDR2-800 or to the correct speed to run 1:1 with the processor, depending on the motherboard and RAM. Generally RAM isn't going to default to DDR2-1066. All RAM is supposed to have SPD profiles for running at DDR2-800 or DDR2-667 on the standard 1.8V setting, even if it's advertised as DDR2-1066 or even DDR2-1200.

You're absolutely right though, sometimes motherboards won't recognize RAM that wants to be run with nonstandard speeds/voltages.

That's good to know.....while it doesn't effect ME because I adjust everything myself, in 2-3 years when that is a *basic* speed stick I'll probably have to deal with it.

switching to amd:

So I have a Q for ya......

So if I upgrade from the RIGHT side to the left side in the pic below.....am I really gaining in the 1600Mhz boost from the cpu to the memory? I'll assume this is a yes however wouldn't this create a bottleneck effect since the mem by default is 1066 and the bus is 2600 ? Is this amd's way of making up for the lack of cache in their processors? ( faster bus speeds )

[Coach Williams]

this is wrong. if you have a core 2 duo processor that runs at 1066 fsb your ram should run at half that speed to have a 1:1 divider (best performance)

1066/2 = 533mhz ram

now if you are overclocking and raising the fsb your ram speed will rise accordingly. my fsb is 1800 atm so my ram speed is 900mhz.

at these fsb's you need that high speed ram. 2000fsb = 1000mhz ram.

Good, I understand this because it clearifies something I said above....

so taking THIS into account, is the 2600Mhz bus on an am2 socket really 1300 so I should be running 1333 ram>? ( IF I upgrade ? )

Also....the current chipset I use....if the bus is 2000 and I run 800Mhz ram how come I can't just stick in some 1066 since it's only 66 over the bus?