Quake 4/Battlefield 2 computer :D

[bob4432]

get the opteron 165 (or whatever the "slow" opteron dc is), it has more cache than the 3800 and from what i have read can o/c better too.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Googer

Spike,

You may be correct, but I am getting my estamations from years of experiance. On average it has in the past taken about three years for a given CPU to be listed on the minimum requirements label of any game or program. If you look at most packages from early to mid 2005 a vast majority of them listed a PIII 500-733 MHz processor as the minimum recomended CPU. Those CPU's are more than 5+ years old (1998-1999-ish). Recently around the release of battlefield 2 the minium requirements have begun to creep up to a slow 1.1 to 1.5GHz Pentium or equivallant, even those CPU's are more than 4 years old in most cases.

(Williamette P4's were first released around May of 2001)

So go single core and in three years even celerons will may possibly have dual cores. By then going from single to dual will be a super cheap upgrade.

While I agree with you on min sys requirements, who the heck trys to play games on min sys requirements?

-spike

I am playing battlefield 2 on a P3 Tualatin 1.4GHz and an ATI 9700 PRO.

Dual core is not the best way to get high frame rates. But when it is needed, it will be a whole lot cheaper and faster than it is today.

 

[bob4432]

op - why go with that gpu and not use aa/af? aa/af make a big difference.

 

[bob4432]

also, op, you don't have to quote articles about the products, most of us here know what you are talking about.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Googer

Spike,

You may be correct, but I am getting my estamations from years of experiance. On average it has in the past taken about three years for a given CPU to be listed on the minimum requirements label of any game or program. If you look at most packages from early to mid 2005 a vast majority of them listed a PIII 500-733 MHz processor as the minimum recomended CPU. Those CPU's are more than 5+ years old (1998-1999-ish). Recently around the release of battlefield 2 the minium requirements have begun to creep up to a slow 1.1 to 1.5GHz Pentium or equivallant, even those CPU's are more than 4 years old in most cases.

(Williamette P4's were first released around May of 2001)

So go single core and in three years even celerons will may possibly have dual cores. By then going from single to dual will be a super cheap upgrade.

While I agree with you on min sys requirements, who the heck trys to play games on min sys requirements?

-spike

I am playing battlefield 2 on a P3 Tualatin 1.4GHz and an ATI 9700 PRO.

Dual core is not the best way to get high frame rates. But when it is needed, it will be a whole lot cheaper and faster than it is today.

*sigh* There is a big difference between playing a game and playing it well which your 1.7 and 9700 will NOT be able to do, at least in my book. You completly missed the points of my argument. I was not suggesting that a game was not playable if your computer possessed the min specs listed just that the experience would not be any fun! A DC now will benefit the OP more than a SC if he does ANY multi-tasking, and that statement has been proven time and time again by many reviewers across the web.

As I have all-ready stated, I am not against someone purchasing a high end single core CPU for gaming. My previous statments merely suggested that if you can afford a DC there is no reason why you should not go for it. Tt can be as fast or faster than a similar priced single core (with overclocking) AND give you the added benefit of fast multi-tasking. That combined with the availability of video drivers that used the second core and SMP games on the horizon it seems strange that you would be so againts DC.

I know it sounds like I am saying the same thing over and over (which I am) but you don't seem to get it. If a SC is what you want to play games on then more power to you, I salute you as a fellow gamer.

-spike

EDIT** I see that as you are using a 1.7 and a 9700 you are one of those types who keeps his computers for a long time. I envy you as I am constantly plauged by the "upgrade bug" so I feel the need to build new machines every 1.5-2 years (my wife does not seem to understand this). If I had your ability to ignore the bug then I would be alot happier and MUCH wealthier. You are absolutly correct that waiting a few years will allow you to have your pick of any number of DC cpu's for really cheap. By that time the OP and I will be on our 4 or 8 core CPUs (can you imagine the size of the HSF need for 8 cores!) and still be much poorer, but that is the way of things.

 

[aLeoN]

Not a bad choice at all, OP. I have everything in BF2/CoD2/AoEIII on the highest quality at 1280x1024 with 2xAA with stock timings and such. I was never a graphics whore so until my settings start to chug I have no reason to OC my rig. Getting all these parts just made me at ease to know that this will outlast the 3 celerons I've had before. I thought about it, the CPU is theoretically 2x3000+ Venice's right? For the games where I want to do something else in the background (ie add my own music or do some folding at home for example) I just set affinities and the game runs with that music and protein folding in the background w/o loss of performance. Personally I've yet to see slowdown from a 3700+ SD and I've just upped my productivity by switching to X2.

 

[Googer]

Spike the whole point to this thread is becasue someone wants maximum FPS and a 2.4GHz Singlecore will give him a better frame rate than a 2.0GHz dual core for the same cost.

 

[GamerExpress]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I like the EPoX board more than DFI... but that's details.

I like the setup overall, but I think you're spending waaaaay to much on the sound card. For audio quality, Creative is not the place to go to. If you MUST have EAX, then just get an Audigy2 for cheap... X-Fi is a huge waste of money.

Also, I don't quite agree with your choice of hard drive. I think there is better to be had.

That's not details about the Epox board...it's your opinion!! and I have my opinion about the DFI board, which I think is better then the Epox. Well anyway!

The HDD you have picked out is all wrong, don't buy that Hitachi crap.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: GamerExpress

Originally posted by: Meuge
I like the EPoX board more than DFI... but that's details.

I like the setup overall, but I think you're spending waaaaay to much on the sound card. For audio quality, Creative is not the place to go to. If you MUST have EAX, then just get an Audigy2 for cheap... X-Fi is a huge waste of money.

Also, I don't quite agree with your choice of hard drive. I think there is better to be had.

That's not details about the Epox board...it's your opinion!! and I have my opinion about the DFI board, which I think is better then the Epox. Well anyway!

The HDD you have picked out is all wrong, don't buy that Hitachi crap.

there is nothing wrong with the newer hitachi drive, sure a years and a half ago ibm/hitachi had a bad run of drives, but that sinced been rectified. the hitachi is as good of a choice as a wd, seagae, maxtor, etc.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: GamerExpress

Originally posted by: Meuge
I like the EPoX board more than DFI... but that's details.

I like the setup overall, but I think you're spending waaaaay to much on the sound card. For audio quality, Creative is not the place to go to. If you MUST have EAX, then just get an Audigy2 for cheap... X-Fi is a huge waste of money.

Also, I don't quite agree with your choice of hard drive. I think there is better to be had.

That's not details about the Epox board...it's your opinion!! and I have my opinion about the DFI board, which I think is better then the Epox. Well anyway!

The HDD you have picked out is all wrong, don't buy that Hitachi crap.

there is nothing wrong with the newer hitachi drive, sure a years and a half ago ibm/hitachi had a bad run of drives, but that sinced been rectified. the hitachi is as good of a choice as a wd, seagae, maxtor, etc.

Right. My Hitachi 7k250 has been running 24/7 for 2 1/2 years now with out a hickup. And after all this time the Hitachi is still one of the fastest drives out there. I agree Hitachi is just as good and Seagate and Maxtor.

Next time if you decide to bash something give a reason for it and do not just say "it sucks" with out explaining why you feel that way. Please reinforce your arguements.

 

[Hanzou]

Didnt read all the posts but I dont think you want the big Typhoon on you Ultra D board. I may be wrong but I heard that it doesnt or extremely hard to fit on th the board. If you go with the XP-90 you will get roughly the same performance at half the weight. Plus its easy to install.

 

[denl82]

Hi Guys 😀
Fyi from understanding the context, I believe the "OP" refers to me. I have never heard op being used this way b4, 😛

Hi Bob4432😀
I can get the opteron 165 for $14.86 less than the x2 3800+. I've also read that the opteron 165 oc's to around 2.4 ghz at stock voltage. Nice😛 My problem is, since I know very little about overclocking right now, I only want to overclock my cpu 500 mhz with the DDR 500 ram, so I do not have to use dividers or anything else that might complicate my overclocking experience. Being that I do not want to use dividers, I can overclock the x2 3800+ to 2.5 ghz easily, while I can only overclock the 1.8 ghz opteron 165 to 2.25 ghz easily. I have to say, the 2.5 ghz looks better to me😛 Any opinions on this? 🙂

To answer your question about why I do not want to use aa/af: I never run anything with aa/af on with my hardware, since they cause a huge fps drop in games. Today's hardware fare better with aa/af on in games, but I still have the older mentality that fps>aa/af. If the 7800 GT performs very well in games, I'll try to play with antialiasing and anisotropic filtering on 😀

Originally posted by: bob4432
also, op, you don't have to quote articles about the products, most of us here know what you are talking about.

I love including references in my posts, as they provide proof for my statements, instead of having my statements be ideas of the top of my head. In addition, they offer information someone might want to read to satisfy any interests they have. Also, I've always found references in posts to be helpful, so I thought I'd try to be as helpful to others as they have been to me🙂
Thank you for your response. Have a nice day Bob4432😀

Hi Googer 😀
Your right about a dual core processor not being the best hardware to use to have the greatest fps, but it sure is in a very close second place🙂 If you read my post made before this one, you will see that developers are already trying to have their games take advantage of dual core processing. Also, the first link in that post provides evidence that the fps differences in games using a single core and a dual core processor usually means minimal fps increase with the single core processor. So I believe a dc is a great bang-for-buck piece of hardware, since I get two cores that offer very similiar performance made by single core processors.
Thank you for your response. Have a nice day Googer 😀

Hi aLeoN 😀
lol🙂

Originally posted by: aLeoN
Not a bad choice at all, OP.

Thank you! Thank you for sharing your gaming experience! I love to know how my computer will perform with the games I want to play 😀

Originally posted by: aLeoN
Personally I've yet to see slowdown from a 3700+ SD and I've just upped my productivity by switching to X2.

LOL. Fyi, I will be coming from a thunderbird 1.33 ghz cpu with a gf3 setup, so...I SHOULD be blown away by the new hardware I get. LOL. When I get the x2 3800+, I will try to assign my anti-virus program and winamp to one core, and the games I play to the other. I'll see if that has any benifits to overall performances😀
Have a nice day aLeoN 😀

Hi GamerExpress😀
How are you today? 😀
On someone's suggestion, I've decided to use the Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB hard drive , instead of the Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 250GB, which is about $10 cheaper.😛 If anyone has any reasons to why I shouldn't make this switch, please feel free to comment 😀 Have a nice day GamerExpress 😀

Hi Hanzou 😀
How are you today? 😀
If you look in the link below, you can see 3dxtreme.net using the same motherboard I want with the Big TT 😀 You will also see the Big TT outperforming the XP-90 in their benchmark 😀

http://www.3dxtreme.net/index.php?id=ttbigtyphoon4

Also, I have access to two sites with visual instructions on how to install this heatsink/fan, which I found to be very helpful 😛 Not only that, but when I consider the Big TT's price and how many awards and recommendations it has, I still find it to be a great cpu cooler 😀.
Thank you for your response😀 Have a nice day😀

Hey Spike😀
How are you today? 😀

Thank you for your responses guys, thank you😀
Enjoy your weekend!