new gaming rig

You don't NEED Quad Core. The only people that NEED that are
professional movie editors and CG artists. You are overpaying for
something to play 1 game, where the E8400 3.0ghz chip will play just
as fine.

I somewhat agree here. The extra cores don't do anything for gaming use.
However, the extra cores do help when you are performing other tasks with
your computer, and you don't need to be a movie editor or CG artist to
appreciate the bump in performance. It's a judgement call. After all, it
is rare to find someone who uses a computer for ONLY gaming. If your
primary goal is gaming, look for high clock speed. Then if you have more
money, add some cores (without losing clock speed)

Second, what size monitor are you playing on ? If you are playing on a
24" or greater 19x12 res, then yeah you'll need latest gfx cards and
possibly SLI.

It's not possible to throw too much GPU power at a gaming system.

But if you are playing on a monitor less than 19x12 res, say, 16x12
and 22", then just grab the $200 nvidia card, the 9800 whatever
(forget offhand).

Even smaller monitors will benefit for gaming, with more powerful GPUs or
multiple GPUs like SLI or crossfire. It's basically how much money do you
want to spend? OTOH, I agree that most people would be pretty happy with a
~$200 nvidia chipset graphics cards from one of the better online vendors.
That should work great for gaming use.

Finally, build your own system. I did it for the first time last year.
PIECE OF CAKE!

I agree, but not all people feel that way. They are intimidated. The
hardware itself is like a puzzle with about 10 pieces, and hard to get
"wrong" if you -read- the motherboard manual. What trips up first time
builders is usually related to OS install and driver issues (and sometimes
BIOS issues). In other words, building the computer is somewhat easy, but
getting all the software/firmware to a useful state can be a challenge.
I recommend people have a COMPLETE, working computer system with Internet
access handy during a build. It makes it easy to pop online to research
problems or ask for help places like this, etc.

You may pay the same or more as a pre-built system, but
you know what parts you put in, and usually each is high quality.

For low or mid-range system, you will spend the same amount of money either
way. But you'll always end up with a better system if you build it
yourself. And, For high-end, it's usually cheaper to build yourself.

Nothing beats the experience either especially when it comes time to
upgrade individual parts.

Can't argue there. If you know the guts inside and out, it's easier to
change things around later.

No need for soundcard either, really. UNLESS you play in a 5.1
surround sound environment.

Even then, most reviewers seem to think that built-in sound is OK now. I'm
still skeptical. -Dave

On Nov 18, 1:33*pm, "Dave" wrote:
You don't NEED Quad Core. The only people that NEED that are
professional movie editors and CG artists. You are overpaying for
something to play 1 game, where the E8400 3.0ghz chip will play just
as fine.

I somewhat agree here. *The extra cores don't do anything for gaming use.
However, the extra cores do help when you are performing other tasks with
your computer, and you don't need to be a movie editor or CG artist to
appreciate the bump in performance. *It's a judgement call. *After all, it
is rare to find someone who uses a computer for ONLY gaming. *If your
primary goal is gaming, look for high clock speed. *Then if you have more
money, add some cores (without losing clock speed)

True. OK let me rephrase - I think that Quad IMO is only good if you
are gaming and using a lot of other processor intensive apps. But if
you just load up 1 game and play that, even if you use media player to
listen to music and have some web browsing apps open, you still don't
need Quad.



Second, what size monitor are you playing on ? If you are playing on a
24" or greater 19x12 res, then yeah you'll need latest gfx cards and
possibly SLI.

It's not possible to throw too much GPU power at a gaming system.


It can be overkill though.

But if you are playing on a monitor less than 19x12 res, say, 16x12
and 22", then just grab the $200 nvidia card, the 9800 whatever
(forget offhand).

Even smaller monitors will benefit for gaming, with more powerful GPUs or
multiple GPUs like SLI or crossfire. *It's basically how much money do you
want to spend? *OTOH, I agree that most people would be pretty happy with a
~$200 nvidia chipset graphics cards from one of the better online vendors..
That should work great for gaming use.


But I think it's overkill. SLI for a 22" 16x10

Finally, build your own system. I did it for the first time last year.
PIECE OF CAKE!

I agree, but not all people feel that way. *They are intimidated. *The
hardware itself is like a puzzle with about 10 pieces, and hard to get
"wrong" if you -read- the motherboard manual. *What trips up first time
builders is usually related to OS install and driver issues (and sometimes
BIOS issues). *In other words, building the computer is somewhat easy, but
getting all the software/firmware to a useful state can be a challenge. *
I recommend people have a COMPLETE, working computer system with Internet
access handy during a build. *It makes it easy to pop online to research
problems or ask for help places like this, etc.


Yes, it can be intimidating, especially if you've never opened a case
before. But if you are like me, and have switched out video cards,
hdd's, ram, etc., it's really not all that bad. It's time consuming,
but compared to what it probably was like more than 5 years ago, today
it's pretty much plug-and-play. You don't have any of that IDE IO COM
crap to worry about anymore for the most part.

No need for soundcard either, really. UNLESS you play in a 5.1
surround sound environment.

Even then, most reviewers seem to think that built-in sound is OK now. *I'm
still skeptical. * *-Dave

heh Well i've bought Soundblaster cards for a long time and never
liked onboard audio up until about 5 years ago. But I think onboard
audio has finally caught up. When it comes to gaming, I don't need to
have perfect 5.1 sound. But that's me.

In all cases, if you have the money, then yeah, get a Quad, SLI, etc.
But I'm just speaking from a more.... frugal ..... viewpoint. ;-)

True. OK let me rephrase - I think that Quad IMO is only good if you
are gaming and using a lot of other processor intensive apps. But if
you just load up 1 game and play that, even if you use media player to
listen to music and have some web browsing apps open, you still don't
need Quad.

Yup. Most dual core processors would be more than capable to keep up,
assuming all other components could keep up and not drag it down...


It's not possible to throw too much GPU power at a gaming system.


It can be overkill though.

Yup. Beyond a certain point, do you really want to spend an extra hundred
bucks or more for a few measly fps? Still, if someone has the bucks,
who am I to say that they don't need 3 or 4 ultra high end video cards?
Yup, I said 3 or 4. Until I started researching my next build (soon), I
wasn't aware that there were motherboards and video cards that allowed more
than 2 video cards to be installed (cooperatively, at least) in one personal
computer system. I ALMOST decided to buy a motherboard that could handle 3
(cooperative) video cards. Not that I was planning to run 3 video cards.
It's just coincidentally, this board had pretty good features for the price,
and was DFI (one of my favorite brands). I later ruled it out, don't
remember why.

But I think it's overkill. SLI for a 22" 16x10

Perhaps. I guess it depends on how serious you are about gaming. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that many people do indeed do SLI or
crossfire on relatively small monitors.


Even then, most reviewers seem to think that built-in sound is OK now. I'm
still skeptical. -Dave

heh Well i've bought Soundblaster cards for a long time and never
liked onboard audio up until about 5 years ago. But I think onboard
audio has finally caught up. When it comes to gaming, I don't need to
have perfect 5.1 sound. But that's me.

I heard a rumor that Creative was going bankrupt, mainly due to onboard
sound being so good. I suspect I might be happy with onboard sound. But
the add-on sound card habit is hard to break. I don't feel a system is
complete without one.


In all cases, if you have the money, then yeah, get a Quad, SLI, etc.
But I'm just speaking from a more.... frugal ..... viewpoint. ;-)

Well most people aren't going to spend two grand on a system (pre-built or
homebuilt) when good systems start at less than a grand. But hey, my
viewpoint is...if someone has the cash, and asks for advice, I will try my
best to point them to hardware that is good quality for the money, and that
will meet their goals for how they want to use the system.

The OP's tigerdirect system is overpriced by at least $400. Other than
that, it doesn't look too evil for a pre-built. I'd even bet that it will
be a decent gaming system. But I'm still suspicious about the power supply,
seeing that the only description (that I saw) on the tigerdirect listing was
"800 watt". Is it really 800 watt, or is it a crappy 500 watt (labelled
"800W") that someone built with cheap capacitors and no protection circuits
and is guaranteed to die 12 hours after the warranty expires, killing your
mainboard, CPU and hard drive as well??????????????????????? -Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...


For low or mid-range system, you will spend the same amount of money
either way. But you'll always end up with a better system if you build it
yourself. And, For high-end, it's usually cheaper to build yourself.


In my experience, it's as cheap or cheaper to buy a entry level PC than
build it (certainly in the UK). I've just build one for somebody, and it was
around £20 more expensive (not a lot I know) than an off-the-shelf
equivalent from a respectable brand. I suspect the main reason is because I
couldn't bring myself to buy bargain basement hardware. I bought cheaper ram
but is was still Corsair. I bought cheaper a cheaper PSU but it was still
Enermax. And I bought a cheaper case, but it was still a decent, well built
Antec case.

My point is, that if you are the kind of person to build a machine, you are
more than likely NOT the kind of person to use generic, white-box
omponents - which is what most entry level PCs will contain.


No need for soundcard either, really. UNLESS you play in a 5.1
surround sound environment.

Even then, most reviewers seem to think that built-in sound is OK now.
I'm still skeptical.

I've survived with onboard at various times, but I'd still advocate a
discrete sound card if you are gaming. It makes sense that a discrete card
would be faster, but I can't say I've ever noticed a difference. But there
is a difference in quality of sound, which is great for atmosphere in games
but also makes a difference to gameplay (if you can clearly hear footsteps
coming from behind etc).

[I'm recommending the ASUS Xoner DX2 if anyone is interested - I'll never
buy creative again!]

CJM wrote:


[I'm recommending the ASUS Xoner DX2 if anyone is interested - I'll
never buy creative again!]


Thats next on my shopping list. The reviews of the card (particularly
under Vista) are almost all outstanding.

"Shawk" wrote in message
...
CJM wrote:


[I'm recommending the ASUS Xoner DX2 if anyone is interested - I'll never
buy creative again!]


Thats next on my shopping list. The reviews of the card (particularly
under Vista) are almost all outstanding

Hey, it works... beats Creative hands down!