New gaming/multi-media pc,any suggestions?

[Rik]

Hi people.I am now contemplating getting a new pc that will handle todays resource eating programs and games.I am now using an ancient P2 pc.I want a new pc that will play all todays new pc games and programs,and wont go obsolete for at least the next 5 years or so.But i also dont want to overspend and get a nuclear powered pc that i really dont need.Any suggestions on the specs i should get,video ram,processor,speed,brand,sound card,video card ram,etc?I havent been keeping up,and i am behind with all the newer stuff today,Thanx!!!!!!!!!

[carmel_andrews]

The least spec'd 'new' machine you'll be able to get is either something running a low end AMD atlon xp64 (socket 757) or the sempron 64 (again socket 757) or a Pent. 4 (64bit version)

 

Middle to upper end is Any AMD Phenom (dual/quad core) compatible motherboards (AM2) or Pentium Core Duo etc

 

(sorry, not very familiar with Intel. Pentium setups...only AMD)

 

Make sure you get a motherboard that features a PCI-E (PCI Express) Slot...PCI-E seems to have replaced AGP (most modern motherboards only contain PCI-E and standard PCI slots) I have only heard of one or two recent pentium motherboards that support AGP

 

O/s to get is either plain vannila flavoured Windows XP (or any distro of Linux, if you've got a lifetime in getting that distro working with your hardware) or better still, take the plung and go for Windows XP x64 (a 64bit version of win xp, which has a built in emulator so that you can run pre XP64 released software)

 

 

I'd think twice about sticking windows vista (either 32 or 64bit versions) in your system at the mo....most peeps seem to be sticking with xp (even though MS have just recent announced there intention to stop marketing/selling XP)

[MCHufnagel]

If you plan on using this pc for gaming a few years down the road, I would get Windows Vista. A couple of years from now, all the big releases will be DX10 and XP just can't run DX10. And you might as well go 64 bit because of the ability to run more than 4 gb of ram. If you think Crysis is rough, you can just imagine what game requirements will be a few years down the road. A friend of mine has 64 bit Vista with 6 gb of ram and Crysis looks and runs really nice (as well it should on a $3000 machine ).

 

As far a cpu, go with an Intel quad-core. The AMD's are less expensive, but the Intel chips are considered more powerful/faster. Any of the new high end video cards will work great. But most gamers feel that Nvidia is for games while AMD/ATI is for home theater systems.

 

You can get away pretty cheap though. In the latest issue of PC Gamer, Crytek showed off a pc build that was less than $700 that they claimed could run Crysis fairly well.

[Hyper_Eye]

If you plan on using this pc for gaming a few years down the road, I would get Windows Vista. A couple of years from now, all the big releases will be DX10 and XP just can't run DX10. And you might as well go 64 bit because of the ability to run more than 4 gb of ram.

 

64-bit Linux was doing it before it was cool. Now 32-bit Linux can also have over 4 gigs of RAM (if you compile your kernel right.) Windows market superiority needs to die so that developers will move away from DirectX and back to OpenGL which is superior in that it's open and cross-platform. The only way it will ever happen is if people stop paying for the latest garbage MS is dishing out which would be Vista. I will admit XP was the best operating system MS ever release (followed by Win 2K and Win 98 SE.) Vista = ME.

 

If you think Crysis is rough, you can just imagine what game requirements will be a few years down the road. A friend of mine has 64 bit Vista with 6 gb of ram and Crysis looks and runs really nice (as well it should on a $3000 machine ).

 

He paid too much.

 

As far a cpu, go with an Intel quad-core. The AMD's are less expensive, but the Intel chips are considered more powerful/faster. Any of the new high end video cards will work great. But most gamers feel that Nvidia is for games while AMD/ATI is for home theater systems.

 

AMD Phenoms are pretty competitive. When you look at the real difference between the performance of the top chips you are talking a matter of a few FPS. Nothing to sweat over.

 

You can get away pretty cheap though. In the latest issue of PC Gamer, Crytek showed off a pc build that was less than $700 that they claimed could run Crysis fairly well.

 

A Crysis playing machine for $700 is easy. Build it yourself. I could (and did recently) build that $3000 machine for less then $1500 and only the best hardware went in.

[MCHufnagel]

I'm not going to defend my friends purchase. I spent considerably less than he did on my gaming rig. And yes, the PC Gamer example was a do it yourself machine.

 

As far as OS's, you need to be realistic. The vast majority of games will use DX and not OpenGL. Unless the industry does a major turn around, 64 bit Windows (Vista or it's successor) is the future for pc gaming.

[Hyper_Eye]

I'm not going to defend my friends purchase. I spent considerably less than he did on my gaming rig. And yes, the PC Gamer example was a do it yourself machine.

 

As far as OS's, you need to be realistic. The vast majority of games will use DX and not OpenGL. Unless the industry does a major turn around, 64 bit Windows (Vista or it's successor) is the future for pc gaming.

 

There is nothing unrealistic about it. OpenGL was the most popular graphics API for quite some time and still sees wide use today. ID Software still makes their games using OpenGL. OpenGL 3.0 is coming out and it contains a complete API overhaul. OpenGL is not going anywhere. It is still and will continue to be a viable graphics API solution for modern game engines. Using OpenGL allows a developer to easily port to OS X which has been making major strides in increased market share. The only reason Windows Vista will be the future of PC gaming is because the consumers allow it to be. Is it because it is superior? Hardly. It is because the consumers don't know any better nor are they exposed to alternatives.

[MCHufnagel]

Consumers don't make games using either DirectX or OpenGL, developers do. They're the ones who need convincing. Like you said, most consumers are clueless, they couldn't care less how something is achieved. Whether it's by DirectX or OpenGL, it doesn't make a difference to most people. DirectX is the future of gaming because developers allow it, not consumers.

[+remowilliams]

You can buy so much power for so little these days. I just picked up a Q6600 Quad Core bare bones system with 2GB RAM for $349. It's exponentially faster than the P4 2.0Ghz server it replaced.

[Hyper_Eye]

Consumers don't make games using either DirectX or OpenGL, developers do. They're the ones who need convincing. Like you said, most consumers are clueless, they couldn't care less how something is achieved. Whether it's by DirectX or OpenGL, it doesn't make a difference to most people. DirectX is the future of gaming because developers allow it, not consumers.

 

No it is the consumers that allow it. The consumers allow it by buying the games. Developers make their games DirectX exclusive because MS greases their pockets. If the consumers didn't buy the games then the developers would make the necessary changes. Many consumers don't care for practices meant to stifle competition because consumers are smart enough to know that lack of competition is bad for the consumer. MS has not had competition in the OS department for far too long. They lack innovation and have made a lackluster release which they would not be doing were the market more competitive. They also wouldn't have their ridiculous pricing scheme. DirectX is a big part of what allows them to stifle that competition. Their attempt to push other proprietary formats as standards is another way in which they attempt to stifle competition.

 

Developers should use OpenGL and work towards better developing cross-platform games. It is one of the last real barriers to OS competitiveness. Wikipedia has a good article about how the two API's compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...GL_and_Direct3D

 

I think the summary line is:

Outside of a few minor functional differences, typically with regard to rendering to textures (the "framebuffer objects" extension did not cover everything, but the ARB is working to address this), the two APIs provide nearly the same level of functionality.

[+HammR25]

In the gaming world there is no computer that won't be obsolete in 5 years.

[godslabrat]

Using OpenGL allows a developer to easily port to OS X which has been making major strides in increased market share.

 

Anything that makes the Mac more game-friendly is OK in my book.

[ninjarabbit]

PS3?

[Rik]

In the gaming world there is no computer that won't be obsolete in 5 years.

I realize that, i said"AT LEAST" 5 YEARS. :)If someone bought a 3.5-or 4.0 gigahertz pc,or whatever its at now,in other words THE FASTEST PC available,(top of the line),I'm sure it would takeslightly more than 5 years for the software requirements to catch up wouldnt it?My p2 played the newest games till about 4-5-years ago.And availability for games that ran on my machine were the older used ones,which are now scarce to nil available.But i love the older games,so it wasnt really an issue.Now its to the point that NOTHING will run on my pc.I am still using win98,and win2000,hows that for behind!I am keeping my old machines though so i can still run older software like the great old DOS games.I still have my 386dx to play my old sierra "quest"titles.Huge unexpected car repair,house repair bills stopped me from getting a new "caught up"pc.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Rik