BTRY B 529th FA BN
Lifer
- Nov 26, 2005
- 15,158
- 388
- 126
Actually, I encouraged him to spend an extra twenty bucks on a better processor that would give him the option to overclock if he chose to. And, the CPU does its own overclocking by way of turbo boost, so it'll give the guy some level of overclocking that he doesn't even have to worry about.
As for 8GB of RAM, sure, now that might be unnecessary. But in a year or two... And, with the limited base of two DIMM slots, he'll have already have 8GB and won't have to drop his 2x2 configuration to then go out and buy an 8GB set.
A computer can be a heckuva lot more than just a gaming machine. With the processor that he bought, he'll pretty much be able to do whatever he wants to do with it. And when he throws a better video card in there, even a "piddly" $130-$150 one, he'll still be able to play whatever games he wants with no issues whatsoever.
So I suggested an upper tier processor that cost him a whopping $230, and one that automatically overclocks so he doesn't have to worry about tinkering with it. And, when he chooses to, he can if he likes.
Again, this is simply my opinion, but every gamer I know uses his computer for more than just that. I am not someone who ever suggests a $200 plus video card because it simply will be old in a short time period. You may disagree, and that is all well and good, but I simply tend to look at what the person has been doing, and what he's been used to. He sounds similar to me, someone who likes to game, but doesn't invest his entire paycheck into it. A computer can be a heckuva lot more than just a gaming machine. With the processor that he bought, he'll pretty much be able to do whatever he wants to do with it. And when he throws a better video card in there, even a "piddly" $130-$150 one, he'll still be able to play whatever games he wants with no issues whatsoever.
Here is one such example of a good card for a low pricepoint (listed in hotdeals):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&SID=u00000687
You are not understanding the difference in the k and non-k processors. All non-k processors get turbo boost as well. So do all 6 series chipsets. If he doesn't manually go to BIOS/ UEFI to overclock, there is absolutely no difference in performance. I also don't consider having to replace your motherboard to overclock much of an option.
Ok, I'll buy that argument. But 8gb of ram is still completely disproportionate. But you have an valid argument here, just that you sacrifice a lot for gaming performance for that 4gb of ram you may or may not use in 2 years.
The i5-2400 isn't some piece of shit either. It beats the first generation i7s in a good number of benchmarks. It pretty much has no performance difference in average usage, and absolutely none for gaming in the next 3 years. And it comes $50 cheaper. i5-2400 with 4gb of RAM will be just as awesome in regular workloads. That 0.3GHz will only be noticeable if you do video encoding or benchmarking.
Once again, k processors do not automatically overclock. Turbo boost is not overclocking; intel processors since Nehalem have had turbo boost for a long time, both k and non-k versions. And he can't just overclock if he likes, he will have to shell out $100+ for a P67 or Z68 motherboard and do a complete system rebuild.
OP asked for best possible gaming performance right now. You invested in everything except gaming performance. The better processor and RAM are things that the a regular user won't even see a difference in unless you have heavy non-gaming workloads. Also, $200-$250 graphics cards are a great price point that both vendors aggressively target and you are not getting ripped off for performance.
Considering TSMC's incompetence, a 6950 or 560ti will retain its value well for at least a year, and in this age of console ports will be able to play at high to max settings at his resolution for at least 2, probably 3. Even the 8800GT does well in a lot of games.
And this is just my opinion, I also think its a much better idea to stick with an official copy of Windows.
I am currently skimming the Torrents to get ideas for a new Windows O/S 64 0r 32 bit (I've seen some nice costume ones).
Not seeking opinions, seeking facts.
Regarding this build, does the CPU qualify as 64bit as far as O/S's go?
Is it meant to run 64 or 32 bit, I have some old copies so I could got either way.
Another snafu!
My old DVD drive is not SATA, pitty installing an O/S through USB wasn't the easier option -.-
Nice edit
Wow, yeah! Smooth sneaking that one in under the radar! Good thing I got the original in my quote, so his edit is worthless. Hey Steve, play any dodgeball!? YARG!!![]()
Don't we have a Microsoft rep lurking in these forums??
This thread is hilarious.
In other words, I still need to get a new SATA DVD burner cause the noob wasn't thinking about a board being EIDE friendly or not.
OH good news!
I just discovered the iggy function, but for the small hand full of people who were really trying to help me thank you and the rest, bye bye enjoy the iggy bin!
In other words, I still need to get a new SATA DVD burner cause the noob wasn't thinking about a board being EIDE friendly or not.
OH good news!
I just discovered the iggy function, but for the small hand full of people who were really trying to help me thank you and the rest, bye bye enjoy the iggy bin!
Anyways, for a SATA DVD/burner, you can look at these two:
Samsung DVD burner, 18.99 with free shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827151192
Liteon DVD Burner, $23.88 after shipping with free 50 pack DVD/R
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827106289
The LiteON is slightly faster at 24x vs 22x but I don't think thats really a big deal. The key thing is the cost and the free DVD pack.
Edit: I had good experience with LiteON dvd burners so I'd probably recommend that.
I would get the Samsung. My experience with Lite-On burners is that they are flimsy and cheap. I prefer LG over either one of those.Edit: I had good experience with LiteON dvd burners so I'd probably recommend that.
