Computer Time! Well, almost!

[kwirl]

Well, february or so is tax season, when i get a ton of extra cash to play with, and this year its about time for a new computer.

One of the biggest things i'm excited about is being able to build a computer with 16GB of ram and a 2GB Crossfire video card configuration with an AMD quad-core processor, probably either 2 or 4 TB of HDD space, although I might go for less if there's a really nice 10,000RPM disk out there to play with (size over speed when it comes to HDD).

February IS however, a few months away, and there may be new options available to me when the time gets here. At the moment, however - building a PC with the above specs costs just a hair over a thousand bucks, so by february i'd guess 8-9 hundred or so.

What kind of things would YOU be looking at in a new computer come springtime?

[Kifle]

Personally, I'd go Intel at this point unless you're trying to save money. Also, quad-core isn't even close to optimized as far as software goes, so you may want to shave some cash off the price and get a tri or dual core processor. For HDD, you may want to think about getting a smaller, quick HDD and a secondary storage drive as well. Depending on what you're doing, 16gb is overkill in the RAM department. Go for a lower number with higher quality RAM -- even 8gb would be much, but if you really like large numbers... I'd dump extra cash into a dual monitor system and skimp more on the things I was saying.

[Vaprak]

If I could get any computer I wanted right now I'd get this:
http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/MiddleFrame.asp?page=config&ProductLineId=431&FamilyId=2792&BaseId=26246&oi=E9CED&BEID=19701&SBLID=

[kiryan]

You're pricing doesn't sound right. The crossfire 4870 2gb is $550 and 1 tb drives are at least $100 each. That right there is 1g with a cheap ass motherboard and chip. The big cards are drawing 400-500 watts by themselves these days... you need a 750-1k watt power supply which is 150-250.

I'd consider whether you want the crossfire or the gtx 280. Unless you are running at real high resolutions, I think the gtx 280 is better for ultimate performance across all games. The difference is 2 cards on one card vs 1 card. 2 GPUs can combine for better performance in high resolutions, but lose their advantage at lower resolutions (like 1600x1200 and lower).

If I was putting together a high performance gaming system, I'd go with a high clock speed dual core. There is some evidence that some games are now CPU bound. I might even do some research on selecting a chip for overclocking and investing in a cooling system (whether a high performance air cooling or liquid cooled).

16 gb of ram is a waste of money even on a 64 bit system; more than 4 is wasted on any 32 bit system. The only way it would make sense is if you were using it for programming and running a SQL server and webserver which would run contrary to the idea of building a high performance gaming system.

If you want a fast game/level loading, I'd consider running 2+ drives in a raid 0, but lose 1 drive and its all bye bye.

[ssar]

The quad core cpu's can presumably run more distributed-computing tasks such as BOINC/Rosella/SETI etc. at once so for those that utilize thier systems for such things a quad seems the go.

And surely more and more programs/tasks will be optimized more and more for quads in the coming cppl of years - from what I can tell the quads prices are well worth it and I'd consider and Intel one in a new system if I were lookin.

And yea, go for good, big flat panel double or triple monitor display (as long as you have the room to mount them) - love multiple screens.

As for 16GB of RAM, why you'd need that is beyond me, surely 4 or 8 of reasonable stuff would suit fine for the forseeable years of use for your system.

Keep uis updated, sounds like a pretty sweet system comin up regardless!

[Corth]

Ooohh oooohh.. I got a few bucks.. need to find something shiny to spend it on!

Heheh.. its good to see that the american consumer still has a pulse. Thank you Kwirl for doing your patriotic duty!! :)

[Raiwen]

Dell is touting their new laptop with Solid state storage and 19 hr battery life.

I personally wonder why people want VERY large harddrives - for one simple reason.

How are you going to back all that up?

and thus I have to ask:

To where?

Off site?

Cost?

[kwirl]

In backwards order -
I don't need to back any of it up, i can reinstall the software, redownload the media, and i burn all of my pictures and documents to dvds.

its not just a matter of 'shiny and new' its the fact that i NEED a computer, and i might as well build one that is going to last me a while, since i don't know when i'm going to be able to afford one again.

16gb of ram .... well first, who wouldnt? but second, i'd like to see what that kind of memory can do. last time i got 8gb of ram and it was amazing how much better of an experience i had with the memory whore we call vista (<3 vista!)

re; pricing - the price i included was not for an entire PC, it was just for core components - no case, psu, monitor, etc. i wasn't looking the 4870, although by the time it rolls around i might - i was looking at the 3870 1gb x2 video card - unfortunately i can't afford the 'high end' video world, so i'm comfortable in mid-range pricing options

[Vaprak]

In backwards order -

16gb of ram .... well first, who wouldnt? but second, i'd like to see what that kind of memory can do. last time i got 8gb of ram and it was amazing how much better of an experience i had with the memory whore we call vista (<3 vista!)

Unless you are running the 64bit version of Vista anything over 4GB is a complete and total waste in a MS world. For a list of Windows OS memory limits see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista Anything over that limit simply cannot be addressed by the OS. And since you seem to want to play games you're probably not going to be able to use the 64bit flavour of the OS...

[kiryan]

What application did you see a performance benefit going to 8 gb. I assume you're in 64 bit windows since only specially coded applications can use memory higher than 4 gb in 32 bit windows (which does not include any game I am aware of). There is a 2 gb addressable memory limit for a 32 bit application. If you had 8gb you could use, all that means is you could have 4 applications using 2 gb.

I run 3 gb on my vista system and have 1 to spare most of the time even when coding. I have 4 gb in my gaming machine and 3 to spare 90% of the time. I run the aero experience and all the bells and whistles other than those stupid gadgets.

High clock speed is the way to go for gaming, but since you aren't buying a top end video card, you probably don't need to worry about being CPU bound. There are no multi threaded games that I am aware of, and quad cores have been out for over a year now. There only consumer application seems to be audio and video encoding.

It takes complicated programming to make a multi threaded application and its not suited for most games, especially single player games. You have to have something not time sensitive to offload to the other CPUs for it to be of any use. If you are hosting a game server, it makes more sense, but 2 cores is still sufficient to give each program its own CPU. Go with a dual core if you can get it cheaper or higher clock speed. IF a multi core game does come out that you have to have, just buy another cpu in a year when its 50% cheaper than today.

[kwirl]

of course i run 64 bit vista, been running it since RC1, mainly i use it for high end multiplayer games, crysis, battlefield anything, the half-life 2 source stuff and sims 2 with about 20GB of custom content (god knows the sims loves ram). i havent had any problems with 64 bit gaming in a LONG time, so i'm not sure when your most recent experience with 64 bit gaming was?

but in addition to that kind of stuff i play with 3dsmax, photoshop, premier and do a ton of video encoding and compression

[Kifle]

Kwirl, Vista is well-known for its gaming difficulties. Games just don't run well on vista in general. As far as the RAM, like I said, go for a smaller number with good timings and overclockability rather than RAW storage numbers. Dual core cpus are all you will need as of now, but, depending on the socket restrictions, I would go with a triple core rather than quad if the quad will not fit into any of the current dual core sockets.

[kwirl]

I have 3 computers in my house running vista - 1 32 bit and 2 64 bit, they run crysis, spore, sims 2, battlefield 2, battlefield 2142, age of conan, world of warcraft, civilization 4, half life 2, and all the expansion packs for all those games - they all run flawlessly, and the only crashes are usually patch-related on the vendor side.

most people i know run vista, and in the last 6-9 months none of us have had any problems that are vista-related in terms of gaming. so, to my knowledge, the games above represent some of the most popular and widely played games on the market. saying that vista is well-known for its gaming problems sounds like something that people loved to spam message boards with before sp1