PDA

View Full Version : Gaming system under $550.00?



Haggard
15 Nov 2007, 04:50pm
Well I set out to build the best gaming system I could while staying under $550.00. What do you think about this?

£cho
15 Nov 2007, 05:22pm
I know hardware specs, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that computer. CPU is slightly above-average, good motherboard, solid 2GB of RAM, great graphics card (I've got the same model), and really good stuff all round.

Out of curiosity, where'd you build this system?

Kennith
15 Nov 2007, 05:27pm
You will regret getting that video card. XP

£cho
15 Nov 2007, 05:28pm
I don't regret it one bit. Just buy that for now, and save for the 8800 or something. It's not too difficult. A steady 100FPS on the US Escape server is no laughing matter, especially after coming from a machine which gave out 20FPS on the lowest settings. -.-

Haggard
15 Nov 2007, 05:57pm
You will regret getting that video card. XP

I already have that video card in my system at home, and I love it. Down the road I will end up using the two together (SLI).




Out of curiosity, where'd you build this system?

newegg.com

raven maniac
15 Nov 2007, 06:27pm
very sexy i put mine together for under just under 500 but i should've waited til the 8600 came out so i could've gotten one. should run very nice Haggard I'll trade ya ;) lol

Edo
15 Nov 2007, 06:28pm
i have the same card so far so good:)

Jager
15 Nov 2007, 07:35pm
got you beat, same cost to boot with a full size atx mobo and core 2 duo chip. will kick the ass of that amd chip except in mem to mem contests. you can get all the same other stuff though

same price too.

mobo
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135059

cpu
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116052


id put alot more money into your PSU though, nothing sucks worse then a bad rig due to crappy power. id get at least a name brand one. but ill talk to you about that later, im yanking my sli approved 550w psu thats modular soon maybe we can work something out

HankTheTank
15 Nov 2007, 08:02pm
. A steady 100FPS on the US Escape server -.-

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET SUCH GOOD FPS!!!! i get 20 and im happy >.> normally i stand at about ... 5...10? ish

£cho
15 Nov 2007, 08:06pm
Performance configs, like Casey's Config 2.0 and that stuff. It's not exactly pretty, but it works. :cool:

Rea¦per
15 Nov 2007, 08:45pm
It'd be nice if they would update the game engine to that of Ep 1 or 2, In CS my avrg is about 15-20 regardless of graphics settings, in Episode 1 about 60+ with every thing maxed and enabled, highest aliasing and anistrophic. Rarely drops to 15, heavy ass firefights and the darkmatter grenade I think it was called.

£cho
15 Nov 2007, 08:59pm
It has nothing to do with the engine. It's the fact that in multiplayer, there's 2x the things your computer is required to render that it doesn't have to in any singleplayer game. One major difference, and major cause for poor FPS, is client animation, which measures and attempts to calculate and predict other players' movements and what they look like in real-time and about one frame for every second before it actually occurs. This can lower FPS by as much as 50%, and you can only blame the Source engine as a whole for that.

Kennith
15 Nov 2007, 09:07pm
I got max settings, with 1280x1024 resolution, rates at 25000, cl rates both at 66, and I still run a steady 80-120 FPS and this is in "laggy" areas. I see it go as high as 240.

Silent
15 Nov 2007, 09:09pm
I recommend a NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT.. It's not too expensive because it's last edition its only like $150.00. I got this video card and my ping is usually 5.

Haggard
15 Nov 2007, 10:14pm
Ok after some help from Jager (the hardware whore) we managed to make the system a lot better and lower the price 15 bucks. Here is the rig I will be buying. This is a budget system because I dont like to blow to much money on things I dont need, but in the end im pretty happy with the cost/performance of this one.

Zero001
15 Nov 2007, 11:58pm
I agree with Jager on this one. Never EVER! buy a micro ATX motherboard unless you're building a small portable LAN box. Also, never buy a power supply just because of price. Buy something of quality because if the power supply goes it can take out other parts with it.

Added: You might also want to invest a few more dollars ($4-10) on a SATA DVD burner instead of IDE. I think the ECS mobo only comes with 1 SATA cable so you'll need to order an extra cable (one for the Hard Drive and one for the DVD drive).

And if you're planning to go SLI you'll have to buy a motherboard using a NVIDIA chipset capable of SLI. Intel and ATI chipsets are only capable of crossfire.

Haggard
16 Nov 2007, 07:49am
I agree with Jager on this one. Never EVER! buy a micro ATX motherboard unless you're building a small portable LAN box. Also, never buy a power supply just because of price. Buy something of quality because if the power supply goes it can take out other parts with it.

Added: You might also want to invest a few more dollars ($4-10) on a SATA DVD burner instead of IDE. I think the ECS mobo only comes with 1 SATA cable so you'll need to order an extra cable (one for the Hard Drive and one for the DVD drive).

And if you're planning to go SLI you'll have to buy a motherboard using a NVIDIA chipset capable of SLI. Intel and ATI chipsets are only capable of crossfire.

I agreed with Jager as well which is why you can see a lot of changes in my final config, which I ordered last night. I personally dont care about the sata dvd. My wife burns 2 movies a week with it and has all the free time in the world, so no big deal there. Also I have no intent of SLI atm just figured since I have to buy a good video card might as well get another of what I already have and I will be ready for SLI the next time I build a system.

SDtielvdeo
16 Nov 2007, 10:26am
I agreed with Jager as well which is why you can see a lot of changes in my final config, which I ordered last night. I personally dont care about the sata dvd. My wife burns 2 movies a week with it and has all the free time in the world, so no big deal there. Also I have no intent of SLI atm just figured since I have to buy a good video card might as well get another of what I already have and I will be ready for SLI the next time I build a system.
Unless you want to buy an SLI motherboard later in the future and Rebuild the whole thing again, dunno, might be better to just get one now. The ram is decent for the price.... But in my opinion, The processor kinda sux... lol.

Heres a better ram.... well a bit better than the other and cheaper (after rebate).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145034

Dunno if you're interested, but I got this for my sister, works great for its price. ($109, 2.8GHz, 2x 2mb L2 Cache, Duo-Core Processor)
That processor you're buying for $90, is a rip off >.>. 2.0GHz and 1mb L2 cache, that really sux ass...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116237

Also.... The video cards(2) I'm getting, $109 after rebate. Same price basically as yours, but better.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150229

And just like Zero said, Power supply matters a lot, better trust a good company... like this. (Rosewill)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182030

Haggard
16 Nov 2007, 11:56am
Your kinda missing the point in what I was doing. My goal was to build a good system for a certain price, with your changes I would have paid alot more total. The config I bought last night is more then acceptable to me. Ofcourse it sucks compared to what is availible, but im not someone to blow $2000 on a sytem just to say I have it. If I can play all current games and run them smooth I have accomplished my goal and saved a lot of money. The system I have at home is probably half the specs of the one I just bought and I can play CSS and tf2 without lag at around 80-120 FPS. I guess I just dont see the point in over kill, but I always see the point in not wasting money :-).

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 01:15pm
The AMD processor was a hell of a lot better than the Intel one you have picked out here. :rolleyes:

SDtielvdeo
16 Nov 2007, 01:27pm
Well thats why I picked some low priced equipment, but w/e. At least get the processor I picked out :/

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 01:30pm
That processor is terrible for a dual-core. Why the hell would he want that? It's about 2/3 the speed of the AMD he had originally.

Jager
16 Nov 2007, 01:55pm
er ok first why is anyone commenting on a pentium d processor, its by nature slower then a C2D because its intels older technology called "netburst" its a power hog, its a heat blasting chip, and it sucks compared to amd chips.

something you must note this is VERY important. the speed in ghz between one chip versus another means NOTHING these days and it has not for YEARS. the pentium 4 chips at 3.2 ghz were slower in gaming then the amd chips at 2.2ghz. stock for stock. huh you say, its all about instructions per second. thats the bottom line. how fast the chip can work a set group of task instructions. former amd chips were the fastest. intel went and redesigned teh pentium 3 chip and the pentium M. the core 2 duo processors are based entirely on the pentium M's style of high use for low power and high speed and good instructions per second. the pentium M chips BTW on desktop boards with a retrofit kit was the FASTEST and BEST gaming chip until AMD ran out the opteron 939 chips. and still it was neck and neck. it was and is a killer chip.


AMD however is NOT the gamers chip either, sorry to those of you who believe so. but unless your only doing high memory bandwidth testing the intel C2d and Qx (dual core and quad core) beat the amd competitor (meaning same or cheaper price range heck even go up one level half the time) EVERY time. its simply the fact that intel has faster instructions per second times.

now for those screaming NUH HUH AMD FTW ....

well fanboi ? but seriously, the best amd systems are the am2 74 series and thats uber pricey. (processors are over 1k) intels quad cores are cheaper and preform as well and the qx6600 has been known to overclock and beat most am2 systems its price 266 bucks.... ill let you do the math.

when amd gets their 8 core chip out we will likely see this reverse, as amd has their memory controller on the chip and intels is on the northbridge, so AMD wont have a memory bottleneck to overcome with 8 processors trying to work in tandem.(hyper transport technology)

but bang for buck the intel core duo processors are fast, affordable and for those that overclock almost all of them easily have another 1000mhz in them on air cooling alone.

Haggard
16 Nov 2007, 01:57pm
Well thats why I picked some low priced equipment, but w/e. At least get the processor I picked out :/

I already own a better one then you suggested. I might put it into the new system and the 2.0 into my old system. The one I own now: Intel Pentium D 3.2GHz / 2MB Cache / 800 FSB / Socket 775 / Dual-Core.


That processor is terrible for a dual-core. Why the hell would he want that? It's about 2/3 the speed of the AMD he had originally.

According to Jager I am better of with a 2.0 dual core intel then a 2.6 dual core from amd. These days I really dont know the diff anymore other then written specs but Jager is a hardware reviewer so if he says a little less from Intel is still better then AMD I will beleive him.

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 02:09pm
While I disagree with the claims about AMD processors, it is your decision, Haggard. I know that the speed of the processor means little these days, and that in most cases Intel is the way to go, but the point is there's plenty of reviews out there about the Intel processor you picked out and it comparison to the AMD model you chose originally; it doesn't compare.

Once again, you're decision entirely, and who you decide to trust is up to you. All I'm saying is that the model you have now isn't going to be as fast as the model you picked originally, period - in my opinion. :cool:

And by the way, check your PMs when you have the chance. ^_^

Jager
16 Nov 2007, 02:11pm
youll be fine haggard, this isnt like horsepower, and i can squeeze more outa your chip over vent then youll feel the need for anyway. your 8600gt will bottleneck before the chip will in gaming.

echo, if you disagree im happy to show you oodles of graphs and review charts showing the setups running as well as repeatable benchmark numbers to back them up. not just from myself, but from every major review site. am2 is slower. even amd admits that.

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 02:13pm
edit: See Next Post...

Haggard
16 Nov 2007, 02:16pm
Jager, Echo, SD. Do you think I would be better off putting my 3.2 D processor in place of the 2.0 I just bought. Spec wise it should preform better right? I know it will produce alot more heat then the newer version 2.0 but what do you think?

No changes can be made now, like I said I purchased it last night.

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 02:16pm
He'll be fine, I didn't say he wouldn't be, but it won't be as fast. lol

Yes, generally Intel is faster...
Mid-End Intel Processor vs. Mid-End AMD Processor = Intel Wins.
Low-End Intel Processor vs. Mid/High-End AMD Processor = AMD Wins.

This is pretty general knowledge.
I don't want to get into an argument, so I'm done.
Just trying to help, although you've already bought the machine.

EDIT:
I'm unsure if a 3.2 D will run faster than a 2.0 C2D. It should, I suppose.

Jager
16 Nov 2007, 02:17pm
no. leave what you have haggard.

get it wsetup and ill get bios screenshots, for your mobo.

few tweaks and youll be easily running about 2.5-2.8ghz on stock cooler and you will decimate your older dual core.

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 02:20pm
IPS are not the only factor in buying a processor, and neither is speed. This conversation is going no where fast, as it's impossible to rule either company victorious. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Saying either one is superior as a company or compared to a company's product is sheer insanity.

EDIT: You've got to stop editing your comments. It makes me look like an idiot, unless that's what you're going for. lol

Jager
16 Nov 2007, 02:26pm
no i was ending the convo as you said you wanted. so i removed the last part. i can put it back ,

the point your missing is the proc he had was 2x512kb l2. the one he has now is 400mhz slower and 2x 1 meg l2 cache. given nothing else. by its very nature the doubling of the onboard chip memory makes it that much better overall for a speed loss that i can erase in a few minutes in the bios.

i brought down my arguments so that a normal gamers could grasp them, if you wold prefer to get technical we can, or you can feel free to talk to me at my site hardware.gamershell.com

either way id love to see what your argument is overall other then its faster. i enjoy a good debate.

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 02:29pm
I'm not trying to get into a debate. I'm trying to help someone, and that's it. If you're looking for some sort of "tech-off", I'm not your man.

This is pretty useful:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=918&model2=883&chart=435

It's not what I'm basing my claims off of, and I'm plenty aware that both models can be overclocked, but that E2160 model is closest to the E2180 that they had available. It'll give you a general idea of what a processor will perform at, but in no way should be the only resource that makes up one's mind regarding these types of matters.

Haggard
16 Nov 2007, 02:33pm
I appriciate everyones opinions here and to everyone who help me decide what to do.

Why I bought it in the first place:
I already have a good system at home. This system is just a newer one that I demanded to keep under $550. I will be using my old system during the week while I am in IOWA on biz and the new system while im at home on the weekends. My son plays on the old system currently and I didnt want to leave him without a gamer during the week. So in the end I needed two cheaper systems that allow both of us to play any game we want whithout spending much. In the end they both will perform good on todays games and I am happy with that result, which really is all that matters.

PS: I would spend alot more on system parts if I didn't have adult bills :-). My mortage/utils/phones/tv/cars cost me $2,600 a month so gaming has to come second to that.

£cho
16 Nov 2007, 02:35pm
Wasn't aware of your situation. You'll be fine, then.