Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Upgrade or Build New


  • Please log in to reply

#1
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
When the my current computer was bought I wasn't really much into Computer gaming.... A few of my friends got me playing CS 1.6 which has very low standards as far as computers go (old game)...

I wanted to play Half Life 2 but it didn't run very well on my computer so I consulted one of the techs on geekstogo... He told me that my problem was that my graphics card wasn't good enough to run Half- Life 2... So I went out and bought a graphics card (ATI Radeon X1300 256MB AGP) however it wasn't compatible with my computer (guy said according to spec's it should've worked fine however it was one of those on in a million things..).... So I was wondering if it wasn't even worth up grading my computer...

My Computer specs are (off the top of my head, don't have the specs in front of me)

Processor-
AMD Athlon 3000+ (2.16 Ghz)

512 MB RAM
160 GB Harddrive
64 MB Intergrated Graphics Processor
350w Power Supply (I believe)

Windows XP Home Edtion


My orginal intention was to upgrade to a Gig of RAM and buy an nVidia GeForce 7600 AGP graphics card for my computer...

Now I've always wanted to build a computer but my question is should I spend the 200+ dollars on upgrading my computer for gaming or should I wait alittle longer, save up and build a gaming PC...

Edited by Caffiene_Powered, 22 March 2007 - 01:57 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#2
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts

When the my current computer was bought I wasn't really much into Computer gaming.... A few of my friends got me playing CS 1.6 which has very low standards as far as computers go (old game)...

I wanted to play Half Life 2 but it didn't run very well on my computer so I consulted one of the techs on geekstogo... He told me that my problem was that my graphics card wasn't good enough to run Half- Life 2... So I went out and bought a graphics card (ATI Radeon X1300 256MB AGP) however it wasn't compatible with my computer (guy said according to spec's it should've worked fine however it was one of those on in a million things..).... So I was wondering if it wasn't even worth up grading my computer...

My Computer specs are (off the top of my head, don't have the specs in front of me)

Processor-
AMD Athlon 3000+ (2.16 Ghz)

512 MB RAM
160 GB Harddrive
64 MB Intergrated Graphics Processor
350w Power Supply (I believe)

Windows XP Home Edtion


My orginal intention was to upgrade to a Gig of RAM and buy an nVidia GeForce 7600 AGP graphics card for my computer...

Now I've always wanted to build a computer but my question is should I spend the 200+ dollars on upgrading my computer for gaming or should I wait alittle longer, save up and build a gaming PC...




I would save up and buy a newer complete gaming system.. You cant go wrong in going that route even though it might take longer its worth it in the end..
  • 0

#3
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts

When the my current computer was bought I wasn't really much into Computer gaming.... A few of my friends got me playing CS 1.6 which has very low standards as far as computers go (old game)...

I wanted to play Half Life 2 but it didn't run very well on my computer so I consulted one of the techs on geekstogo... He told me that my problem was that my graphics card wasn't good enough to run Half- Life 2... So I went out and bought a graphics card (ATI Radeon X1300 256MB AGP) however it wasn't compatible with my computer (guy said according to spec's it should've worked fine however it was one of those on in a million things..).... So I was wondering if it wasn't even worth up grading my computer...

My Computer specs are (off the top of my head, don't have the specs in front of me)

Processor-
AMD Athlon 3000+ (2.16 Ghz)

512 MB RAM
160 GB Harddrive
64 MB Intergrated Graphics Processor
350w Power Supply (I believe)

Windows XP Home Edtion


My orginal intention was to upgrade to a Gig of RAM and buy an nVidia GeForce 7600 AGP graphics card for my computer...

Now I've always wanted to build a computer but my question is should I spend the 200+ dollars on upgrading my computer for gaming or should I wait alittle longer, save up and build a gaming PC...




I would save up and buy a newer complete gaming system.. You cant go wrong in going that route even though it might take longer its worth it in the end..


Yea I thought so....

I'll post alittle later with some ideas so I can get somewhat of a price estimate to work with...

Edited by Caffiene_Powered, 22 March 2007 - 01:51 PM.

  • 0

#4
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
Well first let me tell you that I know I don't have enough to pay for this computer yet so if I end up building one (won't be for a couple months at least) I'll have to re-check all this stuff...

I also have a few questions....

To begin with I want a computer that will be useful for many years..Sounds odd considering Computers are out of date like an hour after you buy it...What I mean is I want one I can play new games with for a couple years...For instance a couple years ago I though a gig of RAM was alot, but now I think a good computer should have atleast 2 gigs...and when I bought my current computer my AMD Athlon 3000+ was relatively good, but now most games recommend you run a processor at atleast 2.4 Ghz...

So I'm looking for something that isn't necessarily top of the line but will at least meet minimum req's for awhile....

That being said-

I would like to have at least 2 gig's of RAM

A Graphics Card that is at least a Pixel Shader 3.0, and supports Direct X 9 (or the latest one)

A relatively powerful Power Supply because I think alot of good Graphic's Cards need it (like 500w)

A decent Processor-

Here's my first question, what would be the advantage of having a Dual Processor over a fast Single processor...Like whats better a single 3 Ghz or a Dual 2.4 ghz??

Thats basically all I'm going to say at this point...
  • 0

#5
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
First of all, you'll want DX10 with shader model 4.0. Mid range and budget cards in this area are about to be released, and once they are you'd be stupid to go to DX9 as they'll be running for as cheap as 80$ and demolish most DX10 cards, the mid range and up anyways.

One the note of a processor. Were at dual core now and there is no time to look back, quad core is on the horrizon and if you where to buy a single core you wouldn't be happy with the performance, the only reason why you still see them today is because they are trying to eliminate old inventory. At this point in time we are seeing many multi-threaded applications, they are mostly in the multimedia sector, but thats all about to change. Upcoming games such as crysis will support quad core processors. Now the key difference that we all know between a dual core and a single core is that one has "two processors" in one while the thing only has one. But this is where the similarities end. Since all dual cores are on a more advanced microarchitecture, the processor can do more calculations per cycle when compared to older processors. That being said, look at dual cores and don't look back, you'll regret all the money to put towards a single core as your going to be forced to upgrade the motherboard if you go the AMD route, and possibly the INTEL route (only if you buy a real low end MOBO).

Also never compare processors by clocks, anyone that does is an idoit. The reason like I have already stated, the newer processor arcitechture will always perform better by processing more per cycle. For an example a 3.2GHz pentium D is the equivalent of a Core2Duo 1.8GHz (approximately). That example however involded two dual cores, when comparing a single core the difference becomes much much greater.
Hope this infor helps.
James
  • 0

#6
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts

First of all, you'll want DX10 with shader model 4.0. Mid range and budget cards in this area are about to be released, and once they are you'd be stupid to go to DX9 as they'll be running for as cheap as 80$ and demolish most DX10 cards, the mid range and up anyways.

One the note of a processor. Were at dual core now and there is no time to look back, quad core is on the horrizon and if you where to buy a single core you wouldn't be happy with the performance, the only reason why you still see them today is because they are trying to eliminate old inventory. At this point in time we are seeing many multi-threaded applications, they are mostly in the multimedia sector, but thats all about to change. Upcoming games such as crysis will support quad core processors. Now the key difference that we all know between a dual core and a single core is that one has "two processors" in one while the thing only has one. But this is where the similarities end. Since all dual cores are on a more advanced microarchitecture, the processor can do more calculations per cycle when compared to older processors. That being said, look at dual cores and don't look back, you'll regret all the money to put towards a single core as your going to be forced to upgrade the motherboard if you go the AMD route, and possibly the INTEL route (only if you buy a real low end MOBO).

Also never compare processors by clocks, anyone that does is an idoit. The reason like I have already stated, the newer processor arcitechture will always perform better by processing more per cycle. For an example a 3.2GHz pentium D is the equivalent of a Core2Duo 1.8GHz (approximately). That example however involded two dual cores, when comparing a single core the difference becomes much much greater.
Hope this infor helps.
James



Thanks alot this really helped, especially the bit about the processors....
I was actually gunna ask in my next post why some 1.8 ghz were more expensive then 2.4, but yea I thought processor were all about speed...

I wasn't sure if DX10 was out yet....So yea

SO basically what your saying is that I should Get the next gen of Graphics card...
I'm a bit worried about going up to quad-core processor as I see that being very expensive....I think that I'll stick with Dual Core unless when I finally get down to building this comp and I have the money...

How much do you think these next gen parts will be in comparison to their predecessors...

EDIT:
After reviewing some of the parts you listed vs what I think I want, I can tell that the most expensive parts are going to be the graphics card ($200+) , Processor(300+) ...

Though I really don't know how much this is all going to cost me until I end up sitting down and planning it, because if I'm not mistaken alot of the choices you make are going to based off what Motherboard you choose..

Though I'm pretty sure I can build a decent computer for $1000 or less...and given the price of most computers this isn't so bad....

Edited by Caffiene_Powered, 23 March 2007 - 10:26 PM.

  • 0

#7
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
I also wanted to question exactly what makes certain processors better/more expensive then others...

I mean just looking through a few at newegg.com I realized the varying prices..

What I've found is basically the difference lies in
L1 Cache and L2 Cache..What exactly is this and whats good?

Just trying to learn so I can make a good choice :whistling:
  • 0

#8
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
Is the Cache just the speed at which it processes?
  • 0

#9
SOORENA

SOORENA

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 974 posts
Cache is a special type of computer memory that works at very high speeds. It's similar to RAM but's much faster. The CPU uses it as a storage place for processing instructions. When the computer is shut down any information held in the cache memory is lost.

L2 cache has the same purpose as L1 cache, but is usually not integrated into the processor.


L1 (level 1) cache - L1 cache stores information for use by the processor. L1 cache is extremely quick but also expensive. Most processors have an L1 cache divided into space for data and space for instructions.

L2 (level 2) cache - L2 cache is the next step down from L1 cache. Most processors today have L2 cache, which increases cache performance. Most desktop processors have an L2 Cache of about 256KB, but some high-end processors can have as much as 2MB.

So the bigger the Cache the better!
  • 0

#10
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
Alright thanks...
I'm looking at different processors and such right now....
  • 0

Advertisements


#11
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
Will I really notice a big difference in performance (as far as gaming goes) between an Intel Dual Core and an AMD Dual Core?? :whistling:
  • 0

#12
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Will I really notice a big difference in performance (as far as gaming goes) between an Intel Dual Core and an AMD Dual Core?? :whistling:


??? :blink:
  • 0

#13
Dryfter

Dryfter

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
No, not really, I think Intel has taken over gaming for the time being. Their C2D's have been running faster than AMD's (I haven't heard anything from AMD lately).

I used to be an AMD fan, but I switched to Intel. I notice a difference in gaming. Loading times are a lot faster. as you can see in my sig, my old gaming rig and my new one. There is only a .06 Ghz difference (both dual cores). but Intel's architechure(sp?) is getting a lot better. They are getting away from the higher clock and low FSB, and getting into more effiecent processors (greater fsb and average clock speeds).
  • 0

#14
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Sorry I was gone for a week.

To a point larger cache=more performance, many say 4MB of cache is over kill in the E6600+ but once you send complex instructions with HDR and AA in games I think you'll begin to see a difference.
Wait till the end of April, once we have seen the price cuts.
Intel's Core2duo's are for sure dominating the field right now, but in order to build a decent rig with them you need to spend $1000+. For a budget computer AMD has a better price/performance ratio and since their south bridge is intergraded into their processor their motherboards are generally cheaper as well.

Also Barcelona (sucessor to the FX series, AMD) will be released at the end of the year, and will have the same chipset, meaning it'll work on the same motherboard that you buy, if you purchase a AMD setup.
Also Intel is going to release a new Core2duo series which has a FSB of 1333 instead of the 1066 we see right now.
If you have the money, Intel is the way to go.
James
  • 0

#15
Caffeine_Powered

Caffeine_Powered

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Sorry I was gone for a week.

To a point larger cache=more performance, many say 4MB of cache is over kill in the E6600+ but once you send complex instructions with HDR and AA in games I think you'll begin to see a difference.
Wait till the end of April, once we have seen the price cuts.
Intel's Core2duo's are for sure dominating the field right now, but in order to build a decent rig with them you need to spend $1000+. For a budget computer AMD has a better price/performance ratio and since their south bridge is intergraded into their processor their motherboards are generally cheaper as well.

Also Barcelona (sucessor to the FX series, AMD) will be released at the end of the year, and will have the same chipset, meaning it'll work on the same motherboard that you buy, if you purchase a AMD setup.
Also Intel is going to release a new Core2duo series which has a FSB of 1333 instead of the 1066 we see right now.
If you have the money, Intel is the way to go.
James


Thanks for both the responses...As for waiting until the end of April, that shouldn't be a problem, Like I said I'm trying to get a feel for prices, chances are I won't be building this computer for a little while :whistling:

Right now just trying to build it in my mind and get a general price, I'm hoping to spend at most between 1000-1100...I'd much rather spend 700-1000 but I don't want to sacrifice alot of power just because of price...I'd rather save up alittle longer and get more bang...

I'll post a few more things in a bit..
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP