tempus
Full Member
Alien Ant Farmer
Posts: 212
|
Post by tempus on Mar 3, 2009 8:30:05 GMT -5
The Athlon 2400 XP I've currently got is getting a bit long in the tooth.
I'd like to build a fairly solid system that's as current as I can reasonably make and if possible, I'd like to bring it in for under 300 bucks, because I'm sort of on a budget. I'm not expecting it to be bleeding-edge, but it would be nice if it were capable of running the majority of games currently on the market. Any suggestions on what to do, or what not to do?
I'll entertain pretty much any suggestions that don't end with me getting naked and mooning the cheap seats at a football game. I'll save those for the weekend.
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 3, 2009 8:47:16 GMT -5
I'd like to bring it in for under 300 bucks, because I'm sort of on a budget. I'm not expecting it to be bleeding-edge, but it would be nice if it were capable of running the majority of games currently on the market. I don't think that equation is possible, unfortunately. I built a new games/work PC a couple of weeks ago and the total was approx. $1000. Here's the main parts list: Intel Q9550 Quad Core CPU Asus Rampage Formula motherboard Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 512MB graphics adapter OCZ DD2 4GB Platinum Dual Channel x 2 (total of 8GB RAM) OCZ Stealthstream 600W power Seagate 1TB HDD You might save some $ by going for a Intel Core Duo CPU, buying only 4 gigs of RAM and a cheaper motherboard, but if you wish to play games, you don't want to skimp on the graphics adapter. The Sapphire HD 4870 was the cheapest 4870 series card I could find. Here's a quote from Tom's Hardware Guide (July '08): "Though itβs faster by an average of 6% (and in the majority of our tests) than the GeForce GTX 260, it sells for $299 β $150 less than the competing Nvidia card! Even the top-end card from Nvidia, the GeForce GTX 280 β souped up with more transistors, twice as much memory and higher clock speeds β is not that far ahead. It showed only 13% better performance than the Radeon HD 4870, though it costs twice as much. (T)he Radeon HD 4870 suffers slightly from the competition with its own stable mate, the HD 4850, since the smaller card has a better performance/price ratio (only 23% less performance at a price that is 60% lower)." I guess you could look at HD 4850 as well
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Mar 3, 2009 9:34:01 GMT -5
For 300 bucks I think he'd be looking at a Radeon HD4830 or a GeForce 9600GT at the most.
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 3, 2009 9:39:06 GMT -5
For 300 bucks I think he'd be looking at a Radeon HD4830 or a GeForce 9600GT at the most. Possibly. Unfortunately those might be a bit underpowered for most recent games, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 3, 2009 13:01:16 GMT -5
I have Radeon 2900 and it runs most recent games at max resolution and max details.
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 3, 2009 13:17:17 GMT -5
I have Radeon 2900 and it runs most recent games at max resolution and max details. Which games (name some examples) and, more importantly, at what framerate? It's not a big deal to set the resolution to 2560x1600 and drag all detail sliders all the way to 'Insane', but if the game takes two seconds to draw a frame....
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 3, 2009 13:30:23 GMT -5
Radeon 2900 Pro running Crysis (released November 2007):
1280x1024 - 13.1 fps 1280x1024 4xAA - 9.9 fps 1600x1200 - 9.7 fps 1600x1200 4xAA - 7.1 fps 1920x1200 - 8.4 fps 1920x1200 4xAA - 6.1 fps
Yeah, that's not very good. In fact, it's pretty dismal ;D
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 5, 2009 1:52:02 GMT -5
Yeah... You aren't going to get shit for under $300. The least you can reasonably expect to spend and still be able to run any current games, even at low settings, is roughly $700.
If you want a computer worth half a damn, save up your money and, if needed, turn tricks on the street corner. A solid gaming rig can easily cost you in the neighborhood of $1,200 before you even start approaching insane. You just flat out will not get something worth your money for what you're saying you've got. If you try to go cheap, the parts will be shit.
Or, to put it another way: Your OS will eat up half the budget you've got. $150 will buy you a HDD and case.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Mar 5, 2009 2:36:18 GMT -5
Under $300 you can't get anything that'll run modern games (unless you are Jesus or aren't using USD.) My computer cost around $1000 to build and can run any modern game at high settings and this was about a year ago. Search for bargains and barebones kits and you can get a decent rig.
I believe I have a Geforce 8800 GT with 512 MB. When I get Windows 7 64-bit I think I'll add another one of those and upgrade to 8 GB of RAM.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 5, 2009 3:48:29 GMT -5
Ok, I figured out a good solid build that will game well and it comes in at $745.90 using New Egg. That's before shipping, of course.
Also, it's assuming you don't need a monitor, mouse, keyboard, or speakers. A good gaming mouse will be around $40, a keyboard for around $7, though it won't be anything special, and monitor and speakers depend on what you want.
Computers aren't cheap. Sorry, man. Expect to wait it out or find a way to get money faster.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 5, 2009 16:02:58 GMT -5
Dunno about crysis - never played it.
What I play on the 2900 without a problem is: Dead space, Mass effect, UT3, Bioshock. That is I play them at 1920x1200 with settings on max.
I may try crysis if I have the will and time to bother with checking how it works on my rig.
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 5, 2009 16:34:58 GMT -5
Yeah, you can probably get 60+ fps on UT3 (and other games that use the same 3D engine) running at 1900x1200 on the HD 2900 with a decent CPU. Crysis is on a different level of complexity and it shows...
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 5, 2009 18:00:23 GMT -5
I thought the original question was about being able to play most games.
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 8, 2009 19:26:09 GMT -5
Well, he wrote "capable of running the majority of games currently on the market". I figured he meant new, as in current, games.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 8, 2009 22:09:35 GMT -5
Well, he wrote "capable of running the majority of games currently on the market". I figured he meant new, as in current, games. So I listed 4 games that had release dates later than the one (1) game you listed. That while absolutely not exhaustive is by all means a majority of what we have been talking about. On top of that all the games we listed are fps games which are known to be the most video processing power demanding ones. So if we expand the genres I wonder how things would work out... You have any ideas?
|
|