Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I'm Having a Comp Built, Can You Help With These Questions?
Hoobla.Dan
Member Posts: 63
Alright, so I finally have some money set aside and, assuming nothing drastically terrible happens (bad assumption), I should be able to finally buy a kick-ass rig in the next coming months.
I'm having two friends from my DnD group build it for me, however I don't want to waste their time asking whether or not what I'm asking for is good. So, here are my questions:
1. Quad-core... good or bad? I understand that this is more power, but will I be able to take advantage of it and will games run stable, or are they just for bragging rights?
2. Beyond processor speed, how important are processor cache and fsb? I've heard that fsb is important, but I'm not entirely sure.
3. Dual video cards... good or bad? Kind of the same question from core, really? I'm looking into dual 1-gb or 2-gb cards (probably expensive), but do most games now and coming out benefit from dual?
4. Vista or XP? I''ve heard varying reports on Vista, and I'd like some word from people who know their shit better than I do.
5. How much do hd speed and cache size effect performance of games?
6. Is there really a hefty difference in game performance between Intel and AMD? I've heard that there is.
That's all the questions that I know to ask, if there are any common pitfalls that built computers fall into please inform me, and thank you in advance for any help.
Playing: Single-player games
Awaiting: Stargate, Star Trek, assuming the burnout has passed
Retired: WoW, BC, LotRO, DDO, CoH/V, EVE, WotLK, WAR
Comments
1. Quad processors are more for bragging rights. Most games run on only 1 processor, and a few are just now running on 2. However, since the XBox360 is using a triple core processor we may be seeing games ported from it to run on triple core as well. Still right now for gaming your better off with a dual core mainly because of the issue of price.
2. Cache is really what makes Intel Processors perform better then AMD processors. They take less cycles to process something. FSB is important on Intel machines since they do not benefit from Hypertransport. It determines the bandwidth your processor can achieve.
3. Dual video cards for the most part are bad. They consume a large amount of memory and there is a large percentage of games that do not support dual GPUs. In alot of cases where Dual GPUs are not supported, you take a performance hit and gameplay anomolies such as in the many Korean MMOs. Also Dual GPU will only have a noticable benefit in 1 game if you are using a good video card, Crysis. This is with a 30" monitor at Native Resolution.
4. If you can work with it, Vista 64-bit is the better way to go at this point. There are alot of benefits to DX10, and you can do alot of cutting to the Vista OS to make it perform as well as an XP OS. Also the Vista OS has been released for nearly 2 years so driver issues aren't much of an issue anymore.
5. HDD Speed and cache can be a bottle-neck, but it can be corrected with enough ram. You feel the effects of this when you are loading but rarely if ever on actual gameplay.
6. Its not really hefty like an Intel doing the work of 2 AMD processors. Its more around 10%~20%. Although I am sure people here will give wilder numbers of differentiation. The thing about AMD right now is that thier Dual Cores are simply not worth it. Always opt for the Quad or Tri core. With Intel though, going with thier Dual Core is plausible.
Get a full-tower with good airflow. Its much easier to build and setup. It also keeps your PC cooler and is good for bragging rights. Like my Tower can probably get shot and the internal components would still be fine.
Thank you very much for your help!
Now, keeping in mind that those quad processors and double cards aren't so great right now, do they have future prospects for usefulness? I only buy a new comp once every few years, so if they're what I'm going to need for all my games next year, might be wise to get them. But I don't know!
Playing: Single-player games
Awaiting: Stargate, Star Trek, assuming the burnout has passed
Retired: WoW, BC, LotRO, DDO, CoH/V, EVE, WotLK, WAR
1) the 360 has three processors not a triple core processor. Only AMD thinks anyone wants quad core rejects
2) Let's not forget the poor design in the phenoms that make them run hot an inefficient
3) well put
4) drivers are all sorted out and there is no longer any performance gap between xp and Vista except for in open gl mainly because no one on the windows side of things care about it.
5) again, well put
member of imminst.org
quad core is a definate better choice for just about everything but gaming, but even that will get better. If you buy a motherboard that supports quad core then you don't have to worry about it now and just switch one in later if you want to. If anything the more powerful ones will be cheaper then especially with Intel going to a new socket type soon. Also, unless you are an overclocker there is no big advantage to going with a dual core now instead of a dual core.
member of imminst.org
The phenom doesn't have a poor design or else intel wouldn't be copying it with its nahelhiem. Also clock of clock it is an improvement over the Athlon processors. However, it has 3 inherit problems. 1. The TLB error that is present on the initial Phenoms. 2. The limited L2 cache. and 3. The Cool n'Quiet Bug.
the idea is good the implementation is horrible
member of imminst.org
Thanks very much for the advice ladies / gents.
Playing: Single-player games
Awaiting: Stargate, Star Trek, assuming the burnout has passed
Retired: WoW, BC, LotRO, DDO, CoH/V, EVE, WotLK, WAR