need more help buying new coputer

[kajun]

what geforce card do u recomend about the same price as the radeon 4870?

and any feed back on a geforce 9500GT?

[joevh09]

what geforce card do u recomend about the same price as the radeon 4870?

The nvidia geforce gtx 260 is around the same price as a 4870 on newegg

[Track]

Right now the difference between a quad core and a dual core on games isn't all that noticable, in fact many games only support two cores.  I don't know about the recent call of duty games but I'm sure that source games only use two cores.  Quad cores are mostly for intensive games, notable GTA4 which was an extremely sloppy port but will take those 4 cores and put them to work.

For the same price as the suggested intel cpu you could get one of the phenom 2's an extremely overcloackable quad core, but then you would also have to change motherboards as well to an am2+ socket.  The phenom 2's will require additional cooling if you want to overclock them, but I've seen people getting stable readings at 4.2ghz on air (but that's from an experienced overclocker).  If you are looking into the phenom 2 don't look at tomshardware reviews, because they are simply awful at overclocking their chips.

Trust me, kid. I've been on the Quad vs. Dual scene for two years now, and buying a Dual-core CPU is the biggest mistake you can make.

[ThrowingShapes]

what geforce card do u recomend about the same price as the radeon 4870?

The nvidia geforce gtx 260 is around the same price as a 4870 on newegg

There were a few models of the 260 if I remember correctly, the latest having 216 stream processors, over the original 192, so I would suggest picking up the 216 if this is the card you want.

Here's a pretty nice 4870 for only $230 after MIR:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121291

If you intend to have 2 gpu's running in crossfire or sli, I would suggest using a 4870x2.  It's a single slot card but still uses 2 gpu's (ati has the dual gpu thing down).  The performance is similar, and a bit inconclusive as far as benchmarks go but the 4870x2 is a little cheaper and will use less energy/produce less heat than two 4870's in crossfire.  These cards don't come cheap though with the price lingering around $400

The 295 is nvidia's answer to the 4870x2.  It also uses two gpu's on a single board but it will perform worse than it's sli counterparts because it is (from what I understand) two 280's with the memory speed of a 260.  These cards also don't run cheap with the starting price around $500.  I would suggest the 260 (core 216) or the 280 for only $330 at newegg:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130367

Once we get your graphics card sorted out I'll start trying to put a rig together.

Edit: Track, can we get some of your reasoning as to why dual cores are such a bad purchase instead of simply saying they are?  Not trying to start an argument I just want some constructive reasoning. You say it's bad to buy 2 when you can buy 4, does that mean it's bad to run dual xfire/sli when you can run quad xfire/sli?

[BC_Programmer]

Edit: Track, can we get some of your reasoning as to why dual cores are such a bad purchase instead of simply saying they are?  Not trying to start an argument I just want some constructive reasoning. You say it's bad to buy 2 when you can buy 4, does that mean it's bad to run dual xfire/sli when you can run quad xfire/sli?

Agreed. Saying something without backing it up is just making noise while breathing.

Quad Core CPU's would only have an advantage if you needed four threads to run simultaneously. I've been over the issues of memory sychronization before, so I won't go into that again, but a quad-core, unless you want the worst possible price/performance ratio, is not a particularly cost-effective choice.

[chevronman]

The gtx 260 would be a good choice. You might want to wait until the gtx 295 come out you might be able to pick up a gtx 280 at a fair price. And to the guy that said why by a dual core instead of a quad core, look at the budget. The only quad core at a reasonable price would be the q6600 and if your going to play a game like Crysis it won't do it and most games don't utilize 4 cores anyway. Also as far as heat goes I did recommend an after market cooler plus the case vents well and with the system I recommended and you would not have to overclock anything.

If your using an E-machine I would start over. E-machines are a el cheapo delux computer. You could always find out the specs of your motherboard and max out those specs, you already have the fastest processor that will fit in your mobo. You can add more ram, you mobo supports 2gig, thats easy. A huge upgrade would be to dump the 8400 video card. If you put in a 8800 or a 9800 it would be a huge improvement. You can keep win XP, you already have the authentication code as long as you are only using it in one computer you don't have to buy a new OS. One of the main things that suck on the emachines are the power supplies with a bigger video card you might have to replace the power supply. I'm also pretty sure your mobo will not support two video cards.

If you want to buy one pre built you can also checkout digitalstormonline.com. They seem to be reasonable priced. Don't know anything else about them.

[ThrowingShapes]

The gtx 260 would be a good choice. You might want to wait until the gtx 295 come out you might be able to pick up a gtx 280 at a fair price. And to the guy that said why by a dual core instead of a quad core, look at the budget. The only quad core at a reasonable price would be the q6600 and if your going to play a game like Crysis it won't do it and most games don't utilize 4 cores anyway. Also as far as heat goes I did recommend an after market cooler plus the case vents well and with the system I recommended and you would not have to overclock anything.

If your using an E-machine I would start over. E-machines are a el cheapo delux computer. You could always find out the specs of your motherboard and max out those specs, you already have the fastest processor that will fit in your mobo. You can add more ram, you mobo supports 2gig, thats easy. A huge upgrade would be to dump the 8400 video card. If you put in a 8800 or a 9800 it would be a huge improvement. You can keep win XP, you already have the authentication code as long as you are only using it in one computer you don't have to buy a new OS. One of the main things that suck on the emachines are the power supplies with a bigger video card you might have to replace the power supply. I'm also pretty sure your mobo will not support two video cards.

I almost completely agree with this post (but the 295 is already out).  The only thing I would be taking away from your old e-machines is the hard drive, because you can always make it an external and use it for backup/whatever.  If you are going to be building a higher-end system I would also suggesting taking the step up to a 64 bit os since games these days are asking for more and more ram, I fear 3.2ish won't be cutting it for to much longer.  Like chev said, an 8800/9800 would be a huge improvement even over the 8400.  With the previous generations of cards the x600s and under were not really high performance cards, but wee excellent for the budget, if that makes sense.

[chevronman]

If you do go with the gtx 260 make sure you get the one that ThrowingShapes said, because there are two different cards. The shaders in the newer card will make a difference. There are still alot of the first versions still out there. Just double check before you buy, if thats the way you go.

[kajun]

ok how about this card its $200.00
Zotac NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB

[joevh09]

ok how about this card its $200.00
Zotac NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB

I have almost the same card but is a gtx+ and it can run cod4 with all the stting on high without a problem.

[Track]

Edit: Track, can we get some of your reasoning as to why dual cores are such a bad purchase instead of simply saying they are?  Not trying to start an argument I just want some constructive reasoning. You say it's bad to buy 2 when you can buy 4, does that mean it's bad to run dual xfire/sli when you can run quad xfire/sli?

Oh for the love of.. not this again. It seems like every few months I have rain in the newbies on this forum.

Yes, if Quad SLi was around the same price (or around a reasonable price for a GPU) as SLi, then there would be no reason not to get Quad SLi.

But Quad SLi doesn't even come close to being a worthy comparison because it is HIGHLY inefficient, where as having 4 cores gives you twice the performance of 2 cores. It does not matter if a program can utilize more than a single core, it's that Windows itself can use as many threads as it wants. You have dozens of programs and mini-programs run by the OS itself running at any second, especially in Vista and having twice the power to handle them for around the same price - just makes sense.

It's simply ridiculous not to buy a Quad core CPU. What reason do you have for not buying it? You'd reach pretty much the same clocks by overclocking. You'd get no worse performance. You'd spend almost the same amount of money. A year ago, it would have been a debate, but NOW.. not buying a Quad core is simply the dumbest thing one can do. Look at Intel and their new i7 line - do you see a dual-core CPU offering? No, of course not.

Most programs don't use more than a single core. So ask yourself - why should I get a single-core CPU. And why don't you? Because that would be a waste when you can have 2 cores, which are at worst 0% better and at best 100% better, and the companies know this which is why they no longer make single-core CPU's.

I could go on, but the point is this - if you buy a dual-core CPU you cannot be my friend. Yes, that's right. Friendship with me will not be a possibility if you waste your money on a dual-core CPU.

[Track]

ok how about this card its $200.00
Zotac NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB

Listen, either save up the money and get a GTX 295, or find a 260 for ~250$ and if you're lucky a 280 for around the same price, like we saw at Buy.com just a few days ago.

[ThrowingShapes]

Oh for the love of.. not this again. It seems like every few months I have rain in the newbies on this forum.

Yes, if Quad SLi was around the same price (or around a reasonable price for a GPU) as SLi, then there would be no reason not to get Quad SLi.

But Quad SLi doesn't even come close to being a worthy comparison because it is HIGHLY inefficient, where as having 4 cores gives you twice the performance of 2 cores. It does not matter if a program can utilize more than a single core, it's that Windows itself can use as many threads as it wants. You have dozens of programs and mini-programs run by the OS itself running at any second, especially in Vista and having twice the power to handle them for around the same price - just makes sense.

It's simply ridiculous not to buy a Quad core CPU. What reason do you have for not buying it? You'd reach pretty much the same clocks by overclocking. You'd get no worse performance. You'd spend almost the same amount of money. A year ago, it would have been a debate, but NOW.. not buying a Quad core is simply the dumbest thing one can do. Look at Intel and their new i7 line - do you see a dual-core CPU offering? No, of course not.

Most programs don't use more than a single core. So ask yourself - why should I get a single-core CPU. And why don't you? Because that would be a waste when you can have 2 cores, which are at worst 0% better and at best 100% better, and the companies know this which is why they no longer make single-core CPU's.

I could go on, but the point is this - if you buy a dual-core CPU you cannot be my friend. Yes, that's right. Friendship with me will not be a possibility if you waste your money on a dual-core CPU.

Where do I begin? Windows uses as many threads as it can, ok, but windows doesn't really require 4 threads.  I'm not saying a quad core is a waste, I use one personally, and this certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack which you seem to have taken it as.  You say they have the same clocks when overclocking, but you do realize that buying a board that can overclock efficiently will bump up the price even more. This specific person is probably new to the overclocking scene, seeing as how he is hesitant to peice his computer together himself.  As far as intels new i7 line (first off LOL for even bringing that up) those are intended to be used as high end cpus.  That's like asking why Cadillac doesn't release a car from the 1980's next to their escalades.  The single core comparison is, again, an ineffective one because both of us are aware that games require more than a single core CPU at this point which would be the reason for not purchasing one. Unless of course you didn't notice that, in which case I'm glad I could fill you in.

Oh and you not being somebodies friend will make them reconsider their purchase I'm sure.

Listen, either save up the money and get a GTX 295, or find a 260 for ~250$ and if you're lucky a 280 for around the same price, like we saw at Buy.com just a few days ago.

The 295, really?  You want him to pay $100 more over the 4870x2 for ~ 5% more performance?  I'm not an ati fanboy, as I own an nvidia card, but the 295, at it's current pricepoint fails on price/performance.

I'm done arguing with you over your illogical posts, I'll let somebody else handle them from here on out.

[Blade285]

i personally would prefer a faster dual core.
many programs still only use a maximum of 2, maybe even 1 of the cores.
the quad cores have a lower amount of GHz per core, therefore making it lack performance if a program can't utilize them.
just get a motherboard that can support quad, but i'd recommend dual for now.
eg. am2/am2+ compatible for AMD or S775 for intel. (that's what i've done, waiting for better value and more quad utilization, which may be in windows 7, who knows)

[BC_Programmer]

Dual Core barely gets a 50% speed increase. When the game is DESIGNED for it

Quad core would likely get only 25% over that.

and both would be practically useless with games not designed for dual core- they would use a single core. (of course, the response here will be, "well, if it doesn't support dual core at least, it isn't worth playing"... which is nothing more then a cop out)

the only benefit of a quad core, at least at the windows desktop, is four programs can run at once. but think about it... you cannot even use two programs at once, the most intense multi-tasking most people do is burning a CD while playing a game.

Well... get this... I did that on my 486DX-2 120. a Burn took about 10 minutes... but it completed.



In any case, a Quad Core invokes extra costs; for a 25% performance gain over dual core (which is reduced since most quad cores run at lower speeds), is it worth the 100$? No.



@Track: I think one thing you might not have taken into account, is that things were different last year, and things will be different next year. what you now think is a sleek sexy machine one year will be a giant POS the next year, and honestly I'm tired of that mentality. The computer itself doesn't change in that time frame. Only the person using it does.


Lol... I don't even HAVE a dual core in my computer. Do I care? No. Because the games I play were programmed by real programmers. Programmers actually looking at performance in their design specs.

I do have a Dual core, but that's a laptop, so I think it's omitted from this discussion...


Besides. Visual Studio doesn't exactly demand performance.

having twice the power to handle them for around the same price

it would make sense. unfortunately Quad Core's are more expensive then dual cores. "around" in this context meaning 100$?


also... being a "Graphics Card Expert" should entail more then telling everybody, "buy the most expensive card and processor. I don't care if you can afford it."