Listen to some of what this guy saysDaedalus1942 said:Make sure you get a solid state capacitor motherboard (those things will last you ages, unless of course a fucking power surge fries both your power supply and motherboard... >.<)
A Decent mid-range/affordable videocard would be the Nvidia Series 9800 GT.
Very nice graphics/affordable price. Quad core is obviously a no brainer. I myself am a fan of Intel, but if you like AMD, they also develop some pretty sweet tech too.
Personally, as Windows XP only allows you 3 gb of RAM, and Vista is a ram hog, but a pos OS (operating system). If I were you, I'd hold out until Windows 7 gets ironed out. It can run both 32 and 64 bit programs (depending on your preference). What this all means, is you will have an easier time trying to get System Shock 2 to run on Windows 7, than you would on Vista.
Try to imagine how much hard drive space you think you'll need, and then double it.
1 Tb is roughly about $300 these days, from what I've seen.
Bide your time for a few months. If you can hold out, you won't regret it.
I hope that helps. Happy rig building.
That's all good and well, but I doubt he's going to know what your talking about (seeing as though he's never built a gaming computer before), now you've rattled off that page of specs. Maybe you would care to dumb it down for him, as I did?randomsix said:Listen to some of what this guy saysDaedalus1942 said:Make sure you get a solid state capacitor motherboard (those things will last you ages, unless of course a fucking power surge fries both your power supply and motherboard... >.<)
A Decent mid-range/affordable videocard would be the Nvidia Series 9800 GT.
Very nice graphics/affordable price. Quad core is obviously a no brainer. I myself am a fan of Intel, but if you like AMD, they also develop some pretty sweet tech too.
Personally, as Windows XP only allows you 3 gb of RAM, and Vista is a ram hog, but a pos OS (operating system). If I were you, I'd hold out until Windows 7 gets ironed out. It can run both 32 and 64 bit programs (depending on your preference). What this all means, is you will have an easier time trying to get System Shock 2 to run on Windows 7, than you would on Vista.
Try to imagine how much hard drive space you think you'll need, and then double it.
1 Tb is roughly about $300 these days, from what I've seen.
Bide your time for a few months. If you can hold out, you won't regret it.
I hope that helps. Happy rig building.
and listen to what I say
Get an 800 watt power supply
Get two EVGA GTX 280's and set them up in SLI (or get 2 285's)
Get two 750 (or larger) hard drives and set them up in raid 0 (2 750's costs about $150)
Get a core I7 mobo that can support SLI
If gigabyte has a UD3p that supports I7, I would go for that
Get a nice sound card
Get 6-8 gigs of DDR3 ram
Get an Intel I7 chip (EDIT: 920 is probably the best you would have to worry about.) (screw quad core. I7 has 4 native cores and is 20% faster than quad clock for clock)
Get a serious heatsink. You might consider something like the I7 compatible coolermaster v10
(on a side note, my ocz vendetta has been working quite well for me, so you might not have to spend so much)
I like my CM 690 case, but with your budget, you might want to get something classier, like a Lian Li
but remember: NEWEGG IS YOUR FRIEND. Google it if you don't know what it is.
So far the only useful post in this thread, but really if your not comfortable enough around computers to make the decision for your self just get one pre-built, the warranty is nice and your paying for the piece of mind.Alpha Centauri said:2K would get you an awful lot of cornettos
Important things:Daedalus1942 said:randomsix said:Daedalus1942 said:snip
The only useful post huh?Loky111 said:So far the only useful post in this thread, but really if your not comfortable enough around computers to make the decision for your self just get one pre-built, the warranty is nice and your paying for the piece of mind.Alpha Centauri said:2K would get you an awful lot of cornettos
why would that be a bad thingEmphraim said:How is that trolling? It's the truth. With $2000, you aren't getting a top of the line PC, you're getting a supercomputer with a a theater level speaker system.harhol said:First tip: don't listen to all the trolls who will inevitably come in the thread and tell you they put together a top of the range gaming PC for $500.
Because after a certain point, you start getting less and less value for your dollar. Moving your budget from $500 to $1000 will get you a lot of extra power. Going from $1000 to $1500 gets you even more, but it's not as big of a jump as the first increase, and $1500 to $2000 doesn't really get you a whole heck of a lot.2wenty6ix said:why would that be a bad thing
That's my point. It's not a bad thing. I have no idea why harhol made it sound like a bad thing that people built gaming pcs $500. Spending $2000 is a bit excessive though.2wenty6ix said:Emphraim said:How is that trolling? It's the truth. With $2000, you aren't getting a top of the line PC, you're getting a supercomputer with a a theater level speaker system.harhol said:First tip: don't listen to all the trolls who will inevitably come in the thread and tell you they put together a top of the range gaming PC for $500.
why would that be a bad thing
Those graphs aren't about how well the computer can run things but rather on energy efficiency...AbuFace said:Because after a certain point, you start getting less and less value for your dollar. Moving your budget from $500 to $1000 will get you a lot of extra power. Going from $1000 to $1500 gets you even more, but it's not as big of a jump as the first increase, and $1500 to $2000 doesn't really get you a whole heck of a lot.2wenty6ix said:why would that be a bad thing
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/system-builder-marathon,2315-8.html
If you look at graphs they have there, it shows a $625 PC, a $1250 PC, and a $2500 PC. The "Average Performance Difference" graph is quite telling. The $1250 PC doesn't quite perform twice as good as the $625 PC, even though twice as much money was spent on it. The $2500 PC cost four times as much as the $625 PC, but it barely gets double the performance. Unless the OP has a lot of extra money laying around, or he really wants to spend that much money on his computer, it is my opinion that the OP is better off exercising some frugality and spending ~40% less money while only sacrificing 10-15% performance.
You're right. I was thinking the 280 or 285. 2 295's would be just gratuitous.Watcheroftrends said:One thing about my build; it can't do full SLI. If you get a second card, it will only run at half the bandwidth of the first.
About Randomsix's recommendations, it seems like you'd go over budget under his guidelines. Then again, shopping around helps. He is right with everything he wrote, but I'm worried you'd have trouble keeping things from getting too expensive. (Two 295's would run you over $1000 alone).
With the extra money left from mine, you might consider getting some overclocking stuff like Randomsix said. That would also remove the problem of the processor I chose being a little weak.
I also should remind myself that the law of diminishing returns does apply. There is a point at which your system will be able to run the best games at the best settings and get the 30-40 fps it takes to make lag invisible to the eye. Spending the extra $1000 will get your framerate up to 60, but you won't be able to tell the difference.AbuFace said:Because after a certain point, you start getting less and less value for your dollar. Moving your budget from $500 to $1000 will get you a lot of extra power. Going from $1000 to $1500 gets you even more, but it's not as big of a jump as the first increase, and $1500 to $2000 doesn't really get you a whole heck of a lot.2wenty6ix said:why would that be a bad thing
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/system-builder-marathon,2315-8.html
If you look at graphs they have there, it shows a $625 PC, a $1250 PC, and a $2500 PC. The "Average Performance Difference" graph is quite telling. The $1250 PC doesn't quite perform twice as good as the $625 PC, even though twice as much money was spent on it. The $2500 PC cost four times as much as the $625 PC, but it barely gets double the performance. Unless the OP has a lot of extra money laying around, or he really wants to spend that much money on his computer, it is my opinion that the OP is better off exercising some frugality and spending ~40% less money while only sacrificing 10-15% performance.
Edit: After reading Emphraim's next post, I misread his first post and thus my post here is awkward and out of place. Nevertheless, as unnecessary as my post was, I still believe I have a valid point to be considered.
Actually I bought one from a guy who builds computers for some side money while he goes to university. $550 CAD, about $500 USD. I bought it a year ago and it's still what I'd call top of the line. Crysis Warhead runs at 1280x1024, no AA and everything else on highest.First tip: don't listen to all the trolls who will inevitably come in the thread and tell you they put together a top of the range gaming PC for $500.