Buying a new PC, help plzx

[Angrist]

So my PC is almost 5 years old and it's starting to get really unreliable. Also, I can't play all the games I want.

I'm getting a PC where I can kick out or add additional hard/software. For example, I don't want Windows Vista. I want a good fan, a decent dolby surround soundcard, etc.

How is this one? http://www.paradigit.nl/configurator.php?system=2165

I'm not sure what the onboard soundcard is like. What's the difference between processors? Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2x2,33 GHz 4 MB vs Intel Core2Quad Q6600 4x2,40 GHz 8M Box.

Thanks. :)

[Happydude]

Core 2 duo has two cores and core 2 quad has 4 cores, so it's like having two or four processors in one respectively. Also the 4mb and 8mb Caches is how much memory it could hold at any given point in time, now you might think 4/8 mb isn't a lot, but for what the processor does it's quite a bit. i would personally take the quad just because it's newer and therefore won't need upgrading as soon as the duo would. and also it's more powerful :)

the rest of that computer should allow you to play all the new games as well, maybe not on the highest settings but close to them.

[-alpha-]

Each intel core has 2mb cache allocated to it, so the 4/8 MB is pretty much just giving each of the processors its own space.

The on board soundcard apparantly supports 7.1
http://www.i-tech.com.au/products/21984_MSI_G31M_F_mATX_G31__1333MHz_FSB_.aspx

That's pretty good, the videocard will pull its weight for quite a bit too. Like happydude said, it'll play the newest games, just don't expect to run crysis on max settings and 1900 x 1400 resolution :p.

[thatmariolover]

The Quad is nice for some stuff, not so nice for others. Bottom line, though, is that Quad is the future and most applications will end up supporting multiple threads. Parallel processing is really where the quad core shines. I can be zipping a file, encoding a video, and doing a virus scan without it interfering with the game I'm playing. However, until more applications are multithreaded you won't notice a huge difference between two cores and four.

As for surround sound, you can get decent (usually not digital) 5.1-7.1 with an onboard solution. I've had particular success with the ALC88x sound boards. I did end up investing in a Razor Barracuda AC-1 and there's a notable difference even with a headphone jack (quite a difference with a digital jack). The onboard sounded fine, don't get me wrong, but there is quite a difference if you're an audiophile.

[Professor S]

Go Here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/

Its a great site, and the best part is they concentrate on what you need and not just what the latest and greatest is.

1) Unless you do a lot of design work or video production, there is no need for a quad core. Most software outside of video and design still isn't advanced enough to exploit multiple cores.

2) Unless you game a insanely high resolutions, or have a huge monitor, a single video card solution is best for you. 17-19 inch monitors look great with a Vid card below $100. if you want all the AA, then you'll have to move into the $100 - $200 range. Also, when choosing, remember that games are designed to run on specific GPU's/GPU drivers, so check your favorite games to see what they "run best on". It really does make a difference.

[jeepnut]

Also, when choosing, remember that games are designed to run on specific GPU's/GPU drivers, so check your favorite games to see what they "run best on". It really does make a difference.

BS like this is why I quit using my computer for gaming.

[thatmariolover]

BS like this is why I quit using my computer for gaming.

In my experience the difference is usually negligable. Regardless, I agree, it's wrong to optimize a game for one line of cards and not another.

[Angrist]

Thanks guys. For €60 ($90) extra, would you go for the better processor? I'm leaning towards it, but on the other hand, if hardly any programs can use multiple processors at once... I'm not a big multitasker.

Oh, what about the video card? I'm simply looking at the best price/quality deal. I'm not a graphics whore. XFX GeForce 8600GT 512MB DDR2 PCI-E will suit me fine I guess?

The the onboard soundcard has 7.1 sound, but does it have a separate microphone plug? My current one doesn't, I have to choose for either 5.1 sound or 3.1 with a mic. They use the same plug. >_<

Oh, I also want to know how loud the cooler will be. The one I have now is quite noisy and I hate it. But I guess that's hard to say from this site.

[Jason1]

Go Here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/

Also, when choosing, remember that games are designed to run on specific GPU's/GPU drivers, so check your favorite games to see what they "run best on". It really does make a difference.

Okay, this isnt really true. Well sometimes it is, but its usually total bullshit. Nvidia pays developers to run that stupid "plays best on" thing while their games open, and its bogus. Some games that say that will actually run better on ATI cards.

Personally I like ATI cards a lot more.

[thatmariolover]

Price/Performance I'd get a GeForce 9600 right now. But if that's not available on your prebuilt PC, then the 8600 should work. Though the 8800 would be better for anything running a resolution of 1280x1024 or lower (faster, but less video RAM).

[Angrist]

The GeForce 9600 is available. EVGA GeForce 9600GTSC 512MB PCI-E for €85 extra.
I'm not sure if I want to pay that much extra. How is it better than the 8800/8600? Like I said, I've never cared much about graphics. I rarely play games anyway. The only game that's on my radar is StarCraft II.
I don't have a very big monitor, so I doubt I'll play games in a very high resolution.

[thatmariolover]

Then the 8800/8600 should be fine.

[Professor S]

Okay, this isnt really true. Well sometimes it is, but its usually total bullshit. Nvidia pays developers to run that stupid "plays best on" thing while their games open, and its bogus. Some games that say that will actually run better on ATI cards.

Personally I like ATI cards a lot more.

Once again, it depends on the games your playing. You say it isn;t really true, then say sometimes it is... just like I said that sometimes it does make a difference depending on the game. I've had both nVidia and ATi cards in my current rig and I can 100% tell you that more games I played run better on the nVidia, and the nVidia was a inferior card when it comes to hardware. I had a 1950 xtx and it was shit for the money all things considered.

Also, I think nVidia's software and driver support is far superior, while ATi has been archetecture, but what does that matter if they have constant compatability issues?

[Angrist]

Ok, I suddenly changed my mind when I saw this one:
http://www.paradigit.nl/configurator.php?system=2172
Processor Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 4x 2,4 GHz
Besturingssoftware Legitieme Windows Vista® Home Premium
Geheugen 4 GB DDR2
Harde schijf 500 GB
CD / DVD - Speler DVD±ReWriter, dual layer en LightScribe
Videokaart NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT TurboCache , tot 1791 MB
Interface Onboard: Audio, Gbit netwerk, USB , Draadloos , FireWire , Geheugenkaart lezer
Software MS Works
Toetsenbord/muis PS/2 toetsenbord en optische muis
Garantie 1 jaar pickup & return
Merk HP
Type Compaq Presario SR5310NL

For €699, so €50 more than the other one. What do you think? What does TurboCache mean? Sounds like virtual memory to me... will that work under Windows XP?

[Angrist]

PC GET! I got the Compaq one. I'm copying some files atm.

[-alpha-]

Well, its kind of late now, but turbocache on a videocard lets the videocard use your system's ram in order to add to it's local memory. Considering you're running 4GB of RAM, and the 8600 has 512 on board, this should actually work in your favor. On the website for your computer it says that the videocard supports a total of 1791 MB, so if the card has 512 MB on board, it is capable of stealing 1279 MB from your ram (should it need it).

[DeathsHand]

Also too late, but the 8800 is actually a more powerful card than the 9600...

The #600's are their low-ends, the #800's are their mid-high level cards...

But if all you're really looking to play is SC2, with the way Blizzard likes to cater their games to the masses, you should be fine with that there 8600...

[thatmariolover]

Also too late, but the 8800 is actually a more powerful card than the 9600...

The #600's are their low-ends, the #800's are their mid-high level cards...

But if all you're really looking to play is SC2, with the way Blizzard likes to cater their games to the masses, you should be fine with that there 8600...

No, 9600 is the mid-range. 9300 and 9500 are the low-ends for the GeForce 9 series. Regardless, the 9600 should be cheaper than the 8800 GT, and if it's not get the 8800 GT. As I said, price/performace the 9600 is awesome. Just a bit below the 8800 GT, and in the US at a fair price break.

[Angrist]

Ok, thanks for all the help guys. :) I'm playing the demo of Crysis, it looks nice. The framerate is too low, but if I choose a resolution anywhere below 1024x768, it looks incredibly ugly.

[Seth]

Anyone have a good recommendation for a PC hardware site that ships to Canada without customs bullshit? I'm planning on building up from a skeleton case and I don't want to get parts that are returns or faulty. Preferrably fair priced as well. Newegg and compusa style stuff ya?

[Happydude]

actually...don't know if BC has these but tigerDirect and Canada Computers have pretty good prices...and they are inside canada...

[-alpha-]

actually...don't know if BC has these but tigerDirect and Canada Computers have pretty good prices...and they are inside canada...

What he said.


I'd suggest Canada Computers simply because they're more trustworthy, I've met a lot of people that have bad stories with Tiger Direct. Mostly stuff like not telling you that the stuff they're selling you is refurbished, and sometimes refusing to honor the warranty and refund policies.