well heck he could just have alienware build him a system for gameing.. but with good input hes been getting from everyone he can build a good pc for half the $

also he will have more fun HE HE

yeh .. half the fun is puttin it together and standing back and saying ,... ok il take it to shop tomorrow and have them fix it ......

lol

but seriously.. a pc isnt as hard to build as many make it out to be ...

just remember .. duct tape and super glue are not a viable tool set, in the pc industry......

its almost all bolt on sow to speak just (rtfm) JAFO would say know what you want and double check every bit of info on any thing you think you want it to do (then take it to the shop)

Ok, if you want a pc for gaming, you should be looking at a CRT monitor. You can save more than $100 and use the extra towrds better components.

Second, you don''t really need a kickass hard drive. Whoever said it will ''make a mass difference in your pcs gaming performance'' is wrong. Just faster load times. Use the extra money towards a better video card and whatnot.

If it was up to me, I''d go with ATI. Benchmarks show they perform better with next gen. games. The barebones kit you linked comes with a GeForce4 MX440 Not really a bad card, just terrible for gaming.

Get at least PC2700 RAM (512 will suffice until you''re ready to upgrade to a gig), at least a 2800+ (Barton) CPU and at least a 9800Pro.



[Message Edited]

Second, you don't really need a kickass hard drive. Whoever said it will 'make a mass difference in your pcs gaming performance' is wrong. Just faster load times. Use the extra money towards a better video card and whatnot.

..

um a ultra 320 will out perform a 133 by a long shot. hence smoother gameing...
and $150 isnt a huge expence ..

and $150 isnt a huge expence ..

It is when your broke....

hey kona

#34 by HG_Eliminator - 6/10/2004 10:58:32 PM um a ultra 320 will out perform a 133 by a long shot. hence smoother gameing...and $150 isnt a huge expence ..

Tell me, when those textures are loaded, is the hard drive gonna make the difference? Or is the CPU and video card?


[Message Edited]

CPU and mobo and vid card... all depends basically on the speed of the FSB.

while yes it is true that after reading and loading the textures the v card and cpu do the work ... but most sytems stagering in games is caused by trying to get the textures loaded to gpu and cpu ..slower hdds will cause stager as will slower v cards and cpu''s, they all work together ...and i had recomended the 53fx amd cpu and the 6800 ultra nividia .. not exactly slow in either case.. and since i believe he had asked about a hdd i gave a recomendation ..i found my games stopped stagering after going ultra 320.....
[Message Edited]

Yeah but he can''t afford that
(according to his budget)

My point was when focusing on a gaming pc and on a budget, the hard drive isn''t your main priority. That could be the difference between a 9600XT and a 9800 Pro. And the 9800Pro just about doubles the 9600XT in performance.
[Message Edited]

I have a little Nvidia Gforce2 MX 200 and all my games work fine. But then again the biggest game I have is Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2.

I still say that it all comes down to the FSB speed.

yes when your working within a budget then $ is the key factor.. my post was actually a recomendation for building an extreme gaming pc and the bare bones setup he posted has a hdd in it .. i made a recomendation on another way to go if he was buying a hdd ...since id read posts talking about building one instead so at $150 which is abt the same price as a 160 gig 133 it wouldnt be out of his $ range . and yes kona fsb is a important factor. good point.

I''m done. Nothing to prove. My system blazes. I''m playing Unreal II and I haven''t lagged a bit. I''m ready for Half Life II also. I just did exactly what JD89187 is trying to do. Upgrade his system for better gaming performance. And, I did it with basically the same starting system.

I can''t argue about cheaper, because I''m happy. And, I''ve found that cheaper is not always better. I''ve been sold on Pentium systems from the very beginning. I didn''t buy a Celeron and I won''t buy a AMD.

(Chas exits and shuts down WC to contimue UR II.)
[Message Edited]

Anyways...
[Message Edited]

I still say that it all comes down to the FSB speed

P4 with a 800 Mhtz FSB here.

I can't honestly say I understand why there are so many people in here touting 64-bit processors.. Seeing as 64-bit OS and driver support are lacking at best and I don't think there are more than a handful of software apps written to support 64-bit processors. Am I missing something or is everyone here running the latest Linux build that has 64-bit support ?? 64-bit computing will be great and probably considerably faster than what we see today, but not until everyone is running a 64-bit system from OS to apps. Until then anyone running a 64-bit processor is going to be like someone running their favorite accounting software from the WIndows 3.1 era on their blazing new P4 XP Pro system..

If I'm just seriously out of the loop here someone point me at some articles that have definitive data on the 64-bit processors because I've tried but can't find any...

JD, Gateway bought... dum dum dum "eMachines"

I would look at one of their AMD 64 systems as a starting point. At one time they used off brand low grade Hardware when starting out. It left the system cheap in price and even cheaper in quality, but since the drop in Hardware for higher end parts over the last couple of years. They have been getting name brand parts in quanity which has let them keep their pricing very low and quility extreamly high.

for instance...



$669.99 - mail-in rebate $50.00 = $619.99
http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_T3085

CPU: AMD Athlon™ XP 3000+ Processor
QuantiSpeed™ Architecture operates at 2.167 GHz
512KB L2 cache & 333MHz FSB
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
Chipset: nVIDIA® nForce™2
Memory: 512 MB DDR (PC 2700)
Expandable to 2 GB
Hard Drive: 160 GB HDD (7200 RPM)
Optical Drives: DVD +/- RW Drive (Write Max: 4x DVD+/-R, 2.4x DVD+RW, 2x DVD-RW, 16x CD-R, 10x CDRW Reads 40x CD, 12x DVD), 48x Max. CD-ROM Drive
Media Reader: 8-in-1 Digital Media Manager (USB 2.0, Secure Digital (SD), Smart Media, Compact Flash, Memory Stick, Memory Stick PRO, Micro Drive, Multimedia Card)
Video: nVIDIA® GeForce4™ MX graphics (1 AGP 8x slot available)
Sound: nForce™ 6-channel Audio
Modem: 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
Network: 10/100Mbps built-in Ethernet
Peripherals: Premium Plus Multimedia Keyboard, 2-Button Wheel Mouse, Amplified Stereo Speakers
Dimensions: 7.25"w x 14.125"h x 16"d
Internet: AOL 3 month membership included, click here for details
Ports/Other: 5 USB 2.0 ports (4 in back 1 in Media Reader), 1 Serial, 1 Parallel, 2 PS/2, Audio-In & Out
Pre-Installed Software: Microsoft Works 7.0, Microsoft Money 2004, Encarta Online, Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™, Microsoft Media Player, Real Player, PowerDVD, Internet Explorer, Roxio Easy CD & DVD Creator Basic, CompuServe®, AOL (with 3 months membership included**), Norton AntiVirus 2004 (90 day complimentary subscription), BigFix®
-

You can upgrade with 3rd part products as you like...
Or with the ones they list on the site...

But... It is a solid combination and system for the price.

As far as a gaming system goes. I would just out right build that with what I wanted and price be damned.
One thing that has to be remembered though.

Todays $500.00 video card is the $200.00 video card three months from now.
as with all other hardware, so pick what you spend the high money on with care
and hold off using a lower end part which will do until such time that the higher
end part drops in price where you feel there is a real cost advantage...

can't honestly say I understand why there are so many people in here touting 64-bit processors.. Seeing as 64-bit OS and driver support are lacking at best and I don't think there are more than a handful of software apps written to support 64-bit processors. Am I missing something or is everyone here running the latest Linux build that has 64-bit support ?? 64-bit computing will be great and probably considerably faster than what we see today, but not until everyone is running a 64-bit system from OS to apps. Until then anyone running a 64-bit processor is going to be like someone running their favorite accounting software from the WIndows 3.1 era on their blazing new P4 XP Pro system..

64 bit CPUs can and do run at 32 bit when needed.

Display: 15.4" Widescreen TFT LCD WXGA (1280 x 800 max. resolution)
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
CPU: Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ Processor

64-bit Architecture operates at 2.00 GHz 1 MB L2 Cache
System Bus uses HyperTransport™ Technology operating at 1600 MHz

pretty much explains it enough for most...

My Laptop...