What would you do?

[Just4Ever]

I'm looking to build my own computer somewhere around the beginning to middle of September. I am willing to lay down $1,300 to $1,500 to get a new case, PSU, CPU, motherboard, GPU, and RAM.

By then Conroe will be out and I'm wondering if I should go with that setup or opt for an AM2 setup. I am also willing to consider a Pentium D 805 as well as any AMD dual core socket 939 setup. Which one of these will give me the most bang for my buck?

As for the video card(s) and RAM, I am also open to any suggestions.

So what I want to know from you guys is what would you do if you were in my shoes. If I gave you the money what would you buy and, most importantly, why? Do you think it's better to get a cheap Pentium 805 after Conroe comes out or do you think I should futureproof my machine and go for DDR2? Let me know what you think.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Conroe, probably the E6600, though you're free to try the others. With your budget, getting a Conroe + board will be no problem. The 805 is old hat and is beneath you.

 

[Imyourzero]

Conroe, especially if you're worried about futureproofing your machine.

Of course, futureproofing is sort of a lost cause since there is usually something better and cheaper in 3-6 months. I used to be concerned with futureproofing and now I'm starting to agree with the guys that say just buy whatever you can afford now and be happy. Whatever you buy will last a good 2 years at the minimum, unless you just have to stay on top.

 

[Just4Ever]

Alright. However, will I be ABLE to get a an E6600 considering that everyone will be after them? Also, assuming I can get my hands on one, what else would you use for my setup? What kind of motherboard, video card, and RAM?

 

[broly8877]

By everyone, you mean the hardcore on forums who spend $300+ on a CPU? (ie, .2%)

Of course you will, there will be an abundance of them. If there's a short supply of certain chips, it'll be the lower-end ones.

 

[Just4Ever]

Yeah, I agree with you about the futureproofing. I don't need to stay on top and I would be happy as long as my system will last for a good couple of years. I should also mention that I plan to overclocking the RAM, CPU, and video card. Another point that I should bring up is that I would also be willing to buy a PS3 and a new tv/monitor with my money instead of getting a new computer and maybe just get the computer next year. Would this be a wise decision? I am a die hard pc gamer and I am absolutely craving the idea of having a computer that can run games on max settings.

 

[Duvie]

Tankguys told me he had about 40 preorders on an intial stock of 90...I think you can get one....


I would lay 350 on E6600....probably another 200 for a decent mobo....lay down about 150-200 on ddr2 ram...spemnd about 150 for case if you get a PSU with it....otherwise I say get a nice antec SLK case and then say a decent 500+ watt PSU....


I see the last part...If all you do or 90% of what you do on the system is game.....Then I say get the PS3 and screw the PC....I think gaming only on a PC is a colossal waste....

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I see the last part...If all you do or 90% of what you do on the system is game.....Then I say get the PS3 and screw the PC....I think gaming only on a PC is a colossal waste....

Agreed. If gaming is your #1 priority then get the PS3 because

a) It'll look great (the games)
b) It'll run every game without the hassle of installation/patches/etc.
c) It'll play games fluidly for the life of the console, so long as the coders know their stuff.

However, if you want a PC that can run games on max settings, there is nothing wrong with that. Just be aware that it won't last as long...I mean it'll do more, but if you keep the same hardware, PS3 will be running games smoothly in 3 years and your PC probably won't be.

I'm not biased toward either. I'm going to upgrade my PC and I will definitely get a PS3 at some point in time. Maybe not at launch, but I will have one.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

september....come again

 

[foosa]

i think bling was getting at it, come back with questions on parts in september. By then new better stuff will be out(or atleast the stuff you are looking at now will be cheaper) and you can get a real look at the conroes and see what they are made of.

 

[akshayt]

I would suggest:

Conroe E6600(or 6400 or even 6300 if you are willing to OC and will change it in a year or so and have a low budget) + a good mobo like Intel Bad Axe, let all this be 550$
I would suggest getting E6400 or even E6300 can save a lot of money that can be used on the GPU or RAM

4GB DDR 2 667/800 ram : maybe 300-400$ or up

A cabinet depending upon your budget

Antec NeoHE 500/550 or better class

Radeon X1900XT or better GPU

What ever you do don't get less than a 1900xt and don't buy less than 2gb ram that too ddr 2 667 or up

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: akshayt
4GB DDR 2 667/800 ram : maybe 300-400$ or up
r better GPU

What ever you do don't get less than a 1900xt and don't buy less than 2gb ram that too ddr 2 667 or up

4GB of RAM? Utter waste of money.

 

[Just4Ever]

Thanks for the input akshayt, but won't this be blowing my budget of $1,500? I'll definitely consider your setup but probably drop it down to 2 GB of RAM unless there is a reason that it will help much more than having the money spent on another video card or something else.

A couple more questions for you guys. If I decide to go for the PS3 with new HDTV, do you think that the price of the HDTV's will drop after the PS3 hits or do you think that there will be enough demand for them that it will increase the price? And I would like to get a HDTV / monitor that will work for both my computer and as a tv. Are these combo devices a good value or are they garbage? Can you recommend a few brands that do both well?

 

[Just4Ever]

bump

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Duvie


I see the last part...If all you do or 90% of what you do on the system is game.....Then I say get the PS3 and screw the PC....I think gaming only on a PC is a colossal waste....

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Some of the PS3 titles might wind up being great, but the hardware itself is looking worse all the time what with the delays and the missing functionality on Cell.

In fact, Cell is shaping up to be a colossal failure compared to the hype circulating a year or so ago.

I'd still go with a PC for gaming even though many of the titles are unappealing. I've gotten years out of Neverwinter Nights alone, and the mileage people are getting from Oblivion on the PC is amazing. The money I put down in this simple little machine I'm running now has been some of the best money I've spent in years, and I don't even play half of the games I could on it (mostly due to time constraints).

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

4GB of RAM? Utter waste of money.

Under XP? Sure. Under Vista 64? Nope!

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

4GB of RAM? Utter waste of money.

Under XP? Sure. Under Vista 64? Nope!

Then wait for Vista. RAM prices usually drop over time as newer fancier stuff comes out.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: broly8877
By everyone, you mean the hardcore on forums who spend $300+ on a CPU? (ie, .2%)

Of course you will, there will be an abundance of them. If there's a short supply of certain chips, it'll be the lower-end ones.

???

What do the rest spend? $20?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Duvie


I see the last part...If all you do or 90% of what you do on the system is game.....Then I say get the PS3 and screw the PC....I think gaming only on a PC is a colossal waste....

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Some of the PS3 titles might wind up being great, but the hardware itself is looking worse all the time what with the delays and the missing functionality on Cell.

In fact, Cell is shaping up to be a colossal failure compared to the hype circulating a year or so ago.

I'd still go with a PC for gaming even though many of the titles are unappealing. I've gotten years out of Neverwinter Nights alone, and the mileage people are getting from Oblivion on the PC is amazing. The money I put down in this simple little machine I'm running now has been some of the best money I've spent in years, and I don't even play half of the games I could on it (mostly due to time constraints).

Compared to what I am seeing from my Xbox360 I am certain I could not build a 400 dollar system to do graphics like that....I still think consoles are money better spent....

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Compared to what I am seeing from my Xbox360 I am certain I could not build a 400 dollar system to do graphics like that....I still think consoles are money better spent....

Be that as it may, one must keep in mind that the Xbox360 is not really a $400 machine. It only retails at that price because MS is lowballing to get as large an installed base as possible without ruining themselves in the sproces. Same deal for the PS3. These machines cost quite a bit more than $400 or $600 respectively to build.

In contrast, PC hardware sells for a profit rather than a loss.

That point aside, a well-balanced PC that runs non-game apps with considerable speed could probably be turned into a killer gaming rig with one or two video cards (SLI, Crossfire) costing around $300-$600 in total. A PC does more than run games (as you well know). Unless you've got a gimpy machine built only to check email and browse a few simple websites, there are many opportunities to turn PCs that would be otherwise necessary to many individuals into killer gaming rigs for the same amount of money that one might spend on a console.

About the only real disadvantage I see to PC gaming is that PCs generally don't ship with gamepads.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Duvie

Compared to what I am seeing from my Xbox360 I am certain I could not build a 400 dollar system to do graphics like that....I still think consoles are money better spent....

Be that as it may, one must keep in mind that the Xbox360 is not really a $400 machine. It only retails at that price because MS is lowballing to get as large an installed base as possible without ruining themselves in the sproces. Same deal for the PS3. These machines cost quite a bit more than $400 or $600 respectively to build.

In contrast, PC hardware sells for a profit rather than a loss.

That point aside, a well-balanced PC that runs non-game apps with considerable speed could probably be turned into a killer gaming rig with one or two video cards (SLI, Crossfire) costing around $300-$600 in total. A PC does more than run games (as you well know). Unless you've got a gimpy machine built only to check email and browse a few simple websites, there are many opportunities to turn PCs that would be otherwise necessary to many individuals into killer gaming rigs for the same amount of money that one might spend on a console.

About the only real disadvantage I see to PC gaming is that PCs generally don't ship with gamepads.

Good point.....

Still that being said I am not quite interested in what the company is taking at a loss just what it cost me the consumer....I cannot build a comparable system in the pc arena to do the same thing...high end graphics, wireless controller, lan support.....

I also avoid the hassle of drivers and setup...it was ready to go out of the box...i have played 8 games now and not one glitch and I have not even hooked it up to xboxlive yet...I know enough of PC gaming to not be able to say that with 8 games....

True 1080p support would be nice, but really....in the xbox360 world one doesn't become preoccupied with fps and settings...It plays great and looks great even on 42"plasma screens...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yeah, I'll concede the point that consoles are generally easier to configure and use out-of-the-box. Hardware configuration nightmares, particularly with early adopters of SLI and Crossfire systems, can be considerable.

As far as console costs to the consumer, well, it depends on what you do with it. MS plans to get that many back through licensing fees (that's why they want the installed base). I don't know if 360 titles or PS3 titles run more than your average PC game, but both MS and Sony intend to make that money back somehow. With the 360, I'd think that monthly Live fees would probably do the trick if you stayed subscribed for long enough. Most online PC games have no cost associated with TCP/IP multiplayer functions, but Live costs ya extra. However, if you bought a 360 and modded it to be a cheap home PC or something, well hell, you can't beat that kind of hardware for $400. Ditto if you use it for offline gaming on games acquired at a cost of $40-$45 (which is about the most I've ever had to pay for PC games, aside from Daggerfall).

 

[Noubourne]

He has a $1300 budget and you guys are telling him to wait for PS3?

Is there some silly promotion by Sony that pays AT posters to recommend a PS3 crap console over a PC?

You must be joking. I've never seen any other person wanting to build a gaming rig told to buy a PS3 instead. This is unreal. What is this, Tom's forums?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Yeah, I'll concede the point that consoles are generally easier to configure and use out-of-the-box. Hardware configuration nightmares, particularly with early adopters of SLI and Crossfire systems, can be considerable.

As far as console costs to the consumer, well, it depends on what you do with it. MS plans to get that many back through licensing fees (that's why they want the installed base). I don't know if 360 titles or PS3 titles run more than your average PC game, but both MS and Sony intend to make that money back somehow. With the 360, I'd think that monthly Live fees would probably do the trick if you stayed subscribed for long enough. Most online PC games have no cost associated with TCP/IP multiplayer functions, but Live costs ya extra. However, if you bought a 360 and modded it to be a cheap home PC or something, well hell, you can't beat that kind of hardware for $400. Ditto if you use it for offline gaming on games acquired at a cost of $40-$45 (which is about the most I've ever had to pay for PC games, aside from Daggerfall).

I have 8 games and have paid n average 30shipped by buying them used...all are in immaculate condition with no scratches...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Noubourne
He has a $1300 budget and you guys are telling him to wait for PS3?

Is there some silly promotion by Sony that pays AT posters to recommend a PS3 crap console over a PC?

You must be joking. I've never seen any other person wanting to build a gaming rig told to buy a PS3 instead. This is unreal. What is this, Tom's forums?

For me it has nothing to do with PS3....I just think getting a gaming console as outlined in my posts when your sole goal is gaming makes more economic sense....

If he has other PC business to get done I say get a low end conroe.....