PDA

View Full Version : Is this pc a good deal?



Wild.Bill.Kelso
11-08-2007, 02:14 PM
Windows® XP Professional
Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme QUAD 2.66GHz GX6700 8MB Cache
NVIDIA EVGA nForce 680i SLI Motherboard Revision D
1000-watt Multi-GPU-approved power supply
2GB (2 x 1024MB) DDR2 PC2-6400 800MHz RAM / Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB PCIE Video Card
Ageia PhysX PCI-Express Processing Unit w/ 128MB GDDR3
1TB Terabyte Hitachi 7K1000 SATA 3.0G with NCQ Technology Hard Drive
NEC 18X Dual Layer DVD+-R/W Burner

For $2459. What do you think?
It seems like a good deal to me.

fabianfred
11-08-2007, 02:21 PM
looks like a Ferrari to my Jaguar.....as opposed to my old mini....
Nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

never get all that Hitech latest stuff here in Thailand....but thats OK...I couldn't afford it anyway

should be able to render the movie 'Star Wars' with that

Xiolablu3
11-08-2007, 02:46 PM
No monitor Bill?


Seems very expensive to me. Are you in the USA?

I think you could put togther a system very similar yourself for under $1000 if you bought the parts seperate and put them together. Even cheaper if you went with better value parts, such as a 8800GT instead, dual core Cpu rather than quad, and a smaller Harddrive.

it may be a bit more trouble and take you a couple of days to assemble it, but you will save $1000-1500, surely thats worth it?

If you dont feel confident enough to build one yourself, then I guess it may be good, but I still have a feeling that looks expensive.

That sort of system with no monitor would be about £750 in the UK now, as its $2 USD to £1, thats $1500.

I am no expert on buying systems new, so maybe otehrs will have a better opinion than me on it..

Be ready for lots of 'build one yourself' comments however.

Xiolablu3
11-08-2007, 02:54 PM
Heres one with a faster CPU, 4gb RAM, only a smaller HArdrive, for $2100.


http://item.express.ebay.com/Computers-Networking_Deskt...192QQcmdZExpressItem (http://item.express.ebay.com/Computers-Networking_Desktop-PCs__INTEL-E6850-CORE-2-DUO-8800GTX-4GB-750W-High-End-PC_W0QQitemZ170164062908QQihZ007QQddnZComputersQ20 Q26Q20NetworkingQQadnZDesktopQ20PCsQQptdiZ1129QQdd iZ1192QQcmdZExpressItem)


This was the first system I found in google when searching for quad core 2 duo and 8800GTX to get a bearing on the prices of such systems, so I am sure there must be much cheaper similar bargains out there.

My advice would be to shop around a bit more.

buddye1
11-08-2007, 04:14 PM
The Quads are still expensive chips. I think it is a very good deal both price and performance. Can you really use a quad? I run tons of very long C++ compiles and I can do that, run the game (BOBII) I am compiling, and serf the net at the same time.

I like my quad and had no issues as yet. The 1000W PS is good for the future also and it is what I went with.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-08-2007, 04:47 PM
You could build it for less if you live in the US. Nice rig though.

S!

mortoma
11-09-2007, 10:48 AM
As someone who builds computers for myself and other people and having done so since 1992, I think it's ok but it's a tiny pricey. Not too bad though, maybe couple hundred bucks too high, for what you get. Would it be a powerful system?? You damn betcha it would be.

I'd drop the physics processor, which does'nt do much in most games and instead get another identical graphics card and run SLI. But if you don't plan to get a sizeable monitor then SLI is not necessary.

Airmail109
11-09-2007, 10:52 AM
Go for the Quad, lots of games are being released with quad support and some already have. Go for the Q6600 CPU, you can overclock it to almost the same degree as the equivalent price dual core. It can do 3.6ghz on air

Ignore the people who tell you to go for a dual, how many times have I head "Oh you wont need this" then 6 months down the line you do.

The only thing you dont need is a 1000w psu, most next gen cpus and gfx cards are being made "greener" so they consume less energy. You could run a quad core sli system of a 750 watt PSU quite easily.

Worf101
11-09-2007, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
As someone who builds computers for myself and other people and having done so since 1992, I think it's ok but it's a tiny pricey. Not too bad though, maybe couple hundred bucks too high, for what you get. Would it be a powerful system?? You damn betcha it would be.

I'd drop the physics processor, which does'nt do much in most games and instead get another identical graphics card and run SLI. But if you don't plan to get a sizeable monitor then SLI is not necessary.
My sentiments exactly. I too build rigs and think that your configuration is "nice" but you don't need so large a HD and certainly no physics card. The latter is merely a waste of money at the current time.

Da Worfster

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-09-2007, 11:03 AM
That's an excellent system for today's applications...and yes, a bit on the high side price-wise. If you don't want the hassle of researching, acquiring, matching, assembling your components then that may not be too bad, but I mirror what others have already said (i.e. no monitor should drop the price by a couple hundred bucks).

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-09-2007, 11:12 AM
Also make sure you get the name of the powersupply, 1000 watts does not mean that it is any good, a crappy 1000w psu can blow up and die just as fast as a 500w crappy psu.

JG6_Oddball
11-09-2007, 05:11 PM
NVIDIA EVGA nForce 680i SLI Motherboard
exact model # of MB please and who makes the RAM and the video card?

S!

Airmail109
11-09-2007, 05:22 PM
Oh yerr get a Good P35 or X38 mobo as well. 680i's are a bit dated now.

JadehawkII
11-09-2007, 05:36 PM
I would get a hard drive running at 10,000 RPM if you can instead of the run-of-the-mill 7000 rpm types. Faster seek times should translate into better game play if it's setup correctly. I have a Western Digital Rapter running at 10,000 rpm for the last 2 1/2 years.

mortoma
11-10-2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Also make sure you get the name of the powersupply, 1000 watts does not mean that it is any good, a crappy 1000w psu can blow up and die just as fast as a 500w crappy psu. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

mortoma
11-10-2007, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by JadehawkII:
I would get a hard drive running at 10,000 RPM if you can instead of the run-of-the-mill 7000 rpm types. Faster seek times should translate into better game play if it's setup correctly. I have a Western Digital Rapter running at 10,000 rpm for the last 2 1/2 years. I kindly somewhat disagree here. With most of todays games, including our current level of IL2, all of the core program code gets pasted into memory, as does most of the graphics data and probably all of the sound data that you need for the particular mission. And for this game ( 1946 ) even as I write this, 1 Gigabyte of memory is sufficient for this!!!

I still run 1946 on an old machine that dates back to the stone age of DDR ram and I only have 1GB. Once I load a typical mission, and I'm playing it, my HD is never accessed. It's all in memory!! Now I'm sure BoB/SoW will use more memory but IL-2 is not really all that memory intensive as many people in our community think.

It's very graphics ( at high setting ) intensive and very processor intensive. But a fast hard drive only helps the initial load times, when you first start up the game and when you load a mission. If the game you are playing never needs to keep going out to the hard drive because most if not all is already in memory, then a fast hard drive will not affect frames.

Most of us at this point have sufficient RAM. If you want to get into the game faster and then have all your map/aircraft/ground objects and so forth load up faster when you start up a mission, then yes a faster drive will help. But won't help frame rate at all ( with this 1946 title ) if you have a 1 gig of RAM of higher.

Wild.Bill.Kelso
11-10-2007, 10:06 AM
Thanks for all the replies. This has helped a lot.

I built my first computer about 18 years ago. It was a 486. Hah! I had a 386 before that, that my boss built for me, and I tweaked and learned from. I also built a Pentium when they came out. But with technology changing so quickly, and me getting older, I don't want to have to research every detail about all this stuff just to make a one time purchase that I will probably keep for 4-5 years. So all your comments are helping.

I am not building this just for IL2, or any one game. I want a kick-*** system that will be good for games for the next 5 years. Having looked around, I think I can get a little better system built for me if I keep looking.

That system I posted came with a terrabyte, but I didn't really want that, it was just on sale. I think a 150gig 10k rpm seems like the way to go if I don't do Raid. I have another 250gig 7500rpm I can take from this pc and put in the new one. Plus an External 500gig firewire I just got.

I agree that I probably don't need a physics processor now. And I can always add that a year from now if I want.

I see most systems come with 2gig of memory. Would it be better to get 4gig now, or wait? My current Dell system has 1 gig, and would cost about $500 to upgrade to 2 gig (IIRC). I checked it out about 6 months ago and decided it was not even worth it. Better spent on a new pc.

I do like the Quad core, seems like since I plan on keeping the pc for a long time, it will come into play sooner or later.

I do also want to get Vista sometime. Seems like I may be better off getting it now and not paying for XP, and then Vista in 8 months. Plus I have several copies of XP Pro from my MSDN subscription back in 2004. So, I would have to reformat and install everything with XP for now. Or maybe make a dual boot, which I have not done in years. Also, if I get Vista or XP, should I get the 64bit? Does it work as good as the 32bit? Will I even notice any difference on 32bit apps? Why would anybody buy the 32bit if 64bit works the same, and will support any new 64bit apps for faster processing?

grndragon57
11-10-2007, 10:08 AM
I priced it out on Newegg using the brands you specified and the cheapest brands where you didn't have one. Used the Antec 900 case. With shipping it comes to about $2100US. So that is probably a very good price for a pre-built system.

Edit: Didn't include an operating system.

Wild.Bill.Kelso
11-10-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I'd drop the physics processor, which does'nt do much in most games and instead get another identical graphics card and run SLI. But if you don't plan to get a sizeable monitor then SLI is not necessary. I am leaning this way. I do plan on getting a large widescreen monitor after I get the pc. My current 19" Mitsubishi monitor has 2 inputs, so I can run both pc's on it for now. But that will be my next purchase. Just want to let this sticker-shock go by for a few weeks till I build up the confidence to blow another wad of dough on gaming. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

mortoma
11-10-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Wild.Bill.Kelso:
Thanks for all the replies. This has helped a lot.

I built my first computer about 18 years ago. It was a 486. Hah! I had a 386 before that, that my boss built for me, and I tweaked and learned from. I also built a Pentium when they came out. But with technology changing so quickly, and me getting older, I don't want to have to research every detail about all this stuff just to make a one time purchase that I will probably keep for 4-5 years. So all your comments are helping.

I am not building this just for IL2, or any one game. I want a kick-*** system that will be good for games for the next 5 years. Having looked around, I think I can get a little better system built for me if I keep looking.

That system I posted came with a terrabyte, but I didn't really want that, it was just on sale. I think a 150gig 10k rpm seems like the way to go if I don't do Raid. I have another 250gig 7500rpm I can take from this pc and put in the new one. Plus an External 500gig firewire I just got.

I agree that I probably don't need a physics processor now. And I can always add that a year from now if I want.

I see most systems come with 2gig of memory. Would it be better to get 4gig now, or wait? My current Dell system has 1 gig, and would cost about $500 to upgrade to 2 gig (IIRC). I checked it out about 6 months ago and decided it was not even worth it. Better spent on a new pc.

I do like the Quad core, seems like since I plan on keeping the pc for a long time, it will come into play sooner or later.

I do also want to get Vista sometime. Seems like I may be better off getting it now and not paying for XP, and then Vista in 8 months. Plus I have several copies of XP Pro from my MSDN subscription back in 2004. So, I would have to reformat and install everything with XP for now. Or maybe make a dual boot, which I have not done in years. Also, if I get Vista or XP, should I get the 64bit? Does it work as good as the 32bit? Will I even notice any difference on 32bit apps? Why would anybody buy the 32bit if 64bit works the same, and will support any new 64bit apps for faster processing? No, 4 gigs will not help our current game at all, but I'm sure BoB/SoW will need more memory than IL-2 does. So will other games in the near future. 64 bits would be the way to go if you are planning to run 4 gigs of RAM. No, you will not notice any difference in the way 32 bits programs run on 64 bit OSs. 32 bits of data is a "double word" of data and 64 is a "quadruple word" of data. In the processors registers and execution elements and such, a double word will be used the same way, but the extra will be simply zero-filled to the right. So the speed of the program is not affected one way or the other.

Since the processor itself is 64 bit capable, if you used a 32 bit OS, it would be forced to do this anyway and with no effect. If you get a 64 bit version of Windows it will simply be able to utilize 64 bit programs if you have any. But IL2 is 32 bit. I'm sure BoB/SoW will be 64 bit so you'll probably need a 64 bit OS for it. Not absolutely sure though.