i dont understand why people do this...

[flexy]

recently, i come along a lot of specs like

A8N DLX Nforce 4
200GB SATA NCQ
A64 3500+
OCZ 520W PSU
1 GIG of some expensive low latency Ram
fancy overpriced case
6600 GT

Then these people do benchmarks using 3dmark and wonder about their scores etc.

Ok...first..i dont see the point in getting the bleeding edge on hardware and even waste a lot of money on stuff like cases and cooling - and then put a $200 mid/low range graphics card in the same system. Somehow i never understood that.

I know there is a huge number of people who never spend more than $200 or so on a card...but then i ask..why do these people get all this high-end components and A64 3500+. They could save money (on the case, maybe a bit smaller HD etc...) and get a better graphcis card instead.

As for me..i am one of the guys who *rather* has a slower CPU but i feel i"must" always have the latest graphic card. I think the benefits are that (with a high end card) you can run higher resolutions/better image quality (eg. antialiasing) and take load off the CPU.
I guess there are two schools of thought - the ones who always get the faster CPUs first....and the ones who always get the fastest graphics card first.

my $0.2: If you already spend $1400 or so on a new top-notch system then it should be (at least) a 2x 6600 SLI system (2x6600 NOT because i think SLI is good but because of the current lack of availibility of the higher end cards...)

 

[bladefd]

See, I would get the better cpu first then go for the videocard. Reason is that cpu(along with a good mobo) is the main part of a computer. Keeping everything completely stable and running is very important. I am not saying that a videocard is not important but it's just that a videocard isn't the MAIN MAIN part of a good computer which keeps everything stable.

 

[mechBgon]

Your title made me think of my A64 with the 15000rpm SCSI drive (two of them, at one point), 1GB Corsair XMS, and the Radeon 7500. But then again I don't storm around griping because it didn't score a certain level in e-ManhoodMark04 or something. So I concede the point.

 

[jvarszegi]

I'm one of those people! I use my computer for lots of stuff besides playing games, though. Anyway, I've got a baby on the way, and I was already spending so much money on my new system that I figured a 6600GT was good enough in the graphics-card department. I figure that when that can't play games I want to play at UXGA, I'll be able to upgrade my graphics and leave the rest of my system mostly untouched.

I also bought my second 2001FP, even though it's not the world's best gaming display. Why? Because I don't just play games all day and all night, and it's an all-around awesome LCD display for $600.

The thing I don't get, honestly, is why game junkies think that it makes sense to spend thousands on computers just to play games! Different priorities for different people, I guess. I still play some games on my Xbox that I like, like Project Gotham Racing. That's all of a $200 system...

A computer is the single most general-purpose tool ever produced by the human race (besides, of course, the towel).

 

[Budman]

Not eveybody is a gamer.

 

[Baked]

Getting a case is so overrated, you'll just spend more money on the cooling 'cause the damn case is trapping all the heat.

 

[miketheidiot]

if they bought a SLI mobo and a 6800gt, obviously they are planning on adding a second 6800gt

 

[ingenuiti]

FYI, people use computers for things other than playing video games.

 

[MrCodeDude]

Most people who purchase a high end graphics card only use it to increase their e-penis size in benchmarks. Really, what can a 6800 do so much better than a 6600 in terms of real (read: noticable) performance.

 

[Darth Farter]

depends on how people would upgrade certain system parts,
like preparing for a better next gen videocard
or factor in availability of better options of those (like where I live... :-( more then 2 times the MSRP in $ IF you can find it)

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
Most people who purchase a high end graphics card only use it to increase their e-penis size in benchmarks. Really, what can a 6800 do so much better than a 6600 in terms of real (read: noticable) performance.

At 1680x1050 it can make a difference.. ( Read: noticable ) difference.. ; )

Toss some 2-4x AA and some Af and you need the extra power..

Or at least i do.

 

[rikadik]

It purely depends on what you're going to do with your computer.

I find its more common to be held back by your processor and memory, rather than your graphics card. Unless you insist on enjoying the kudos of having all the sliders on your favourite games switched to max and you want a faster FPS than your monitor can ever come close to displaying then a top-end graphics card is great.

I however, like many others, am more interested in the computers performance of all the tasks I get it to do. I'd much rather have a cheaper graphics card and more memory.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ingenuiti
FYI, people use computers for things other than playing video games.

True - also take into account that not many people know much of anything about computers. You'll be lucky if most can identify what version of Windows they're using, just so long as you don't say "What operating system are you using?" The answer will range from "Intel" to "Internet Explorer."

If a user wants to play games, and knows enough to be using 3dMark, then the person should have done more research before buying.

 

[jterrell]

Originally posted by: flexy
recently, i come along a lot of specs like

A8N DLX Nforce 4
200GB SATA NCQ
A64 3500+
OCZ 520W PSU
1 GIG of some expensive low latency Ram
fancy overpriced case
6600 GT

Then these people do benchmarks using 3dmark and wonder about their scores etc.

Ok...first..i dont see the point in getting the bleeding edge on hardware and even waste a lot of money on stuff like cases and cooling - and then put a $200 mid/low range graphics card in the same system. Somehow i never understood that.

I know there is a huge number of people who never spend more than $200 or so on a card...but then i ask..why do these people get all this high-end components and A64 3500+. They could save money (on the case, maybe a bit smaller HD etc...) and get a better graphcis card instead.

As for me..i am one of the guys who *rather* has a slower CPU but i feel i"must" always have the latest graphic card. I think the benefits are that (with a high end card) you can run higher resolutions/better image quality (eg. antialiasing) and take load off the CPU.
I guess there are two schools of thought - the ones who always get the faster CPUs first....and the ones who always get the fastest graphics card first.

my $0.2: If you already spend $1400 or so on a new top-notch system then it should be (at least) a 2x 6600 SLI system (2x6600 NOT because i think SLI is good but because of the current lack of availibility of the higher end cards...)

thats easy, not everyone uses their pc solely to play doom 3.

 

[Vernor]

At 1680x1050 it can make a difference

.

Only in a couple of shooters.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: ingenuiti
FYI, people use computers for things other than playing video games.

True - also take into account that not many people know much of anything about computers. You'll be lucky if most can identify what version of Windows they're using, just so long as you don't say "What operating system are you using?" The answer will range from "Intel" to "Internet Explorer."

Not forgetting Windows ME 2000, of course.
A little part inside of me died every time I heard that.

 

[arsbanned]

I have never spent 200 bones on a VC. Your theory applies only to gamers. Some of us do mostly 2D and don't require $500. cards. I find it ridicualous that gamers build multi-thousand dollar machines for gaming when they could just get an X-Box. *shrug* Whateva.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: ingenuiti
FYI, people use computers for things other than playing video games.

you dont need a $1400 and up system with a64 3500+, SCSI 1000rpm or SATA II w/ NCQ for surfing the web or using word.

I see of course that there might be uses for that kind of systems....eg. servers or distributed computing, video-editing etc,

till i think you would be much better off eg. skimping $100 or so on the CPU, because it really does NOT matter whether you get a A64 3200 or 3000 (instead of a 3500)...and then put the money toward a better card.

But...you have a point of course if you say there are people who just dont game

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude
Most people who purchase a high end graphics card only use it to increase their e-penis size in benchmarks. Really, what can a 6800 do so much better than a 6600 in terms of real (read: noticable) performance.

i am not sure about the EXACT numbers now..too lazy to look up benchmarks. But a fast card always allows you to run higher resolutions and nice 4x Antialiasing....all effects maxed out...etc....which *very real* resiults in a better "game experience" on the screen.

(As compared to lower resolution, unable to run Antialiasing

Also..the times where i cared about my points in 3dmark are actually over...i use this just as a reference to check whether my system is up to specs with similiar systems..there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[imverygifted]

its all about priorities and 3d mark scores arn't everything believe it or not

 

[V00D00]

My computer is pretty sweet.

Pentium 4 3.4ghz, 1gb dual channel pc3200 (can't afford ddr2 yet, but eventually ddr2 600)
and I'm using sweet onboard video

Getting a good video card is the stupidest thing you can do. Just buy the one that was cool 6 months ago. I don't see how ANYONE can justify buying a $450 video card just to get 20 more fps than the card that costs $150. I know this isn't the case most of the time, but it's just ridiculous when you could make your computer much much faster if that money went to something that was actually useful for all aspects of computing.

3D Mark for benchmarking your system, eh? That makes a lot of sense.... use a video benchmark to get the general system performance.

Sisoft Sandra is for benchmarking, dummy.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: ingenuiti
FYI, people use computers for things other than playing video games.

And the majority of them only browse the web, your point? Dell and such have people thinking they need a blazing PC to surf, and it's a good thing - the economics of scale involved means much lower prices for everyone. If you want a better idea of what our PCs would cost if web surfers & email readers all had p3-500s, have a look at Macs.

 

[Vernor]

And the majority of them only browse the web, your point?

There's a reason why there are price brackets for video cards.

Some costumers value 3d gaming at 0$. Some value it at 50$.


And a few value it at 500$.

 

[LifeStealer]

Originally posted by: Baked
Getting a case is so overrated, you'll just spend more money on the cooling 'cause the damn case is trapping all the heat.

Yea! Get a piece of tuperware big enough to put the mobo in, pour mineral oil in it, then seat the motherboard inside. Cheap effective cooling in the convenience of tuperware!

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Point of this thread
_______________

Most of your heads

The point isn't that "Everyone needs Ultra Uber L33t L33t Hyper Turbo 3D" - it's that if you castrate your A64 system with an FX5200, don't bitch when your game performance is somewhere between "Fecal Matter" and "Zucchini Curry"

- M4H