Good day.
If you could build the ultimate PC...for gaming ect...how would you build it(what are your proposed specs)...and let us say you had no financial restriction? I'm in the process of upgrading my computer, so all ideas please?
Thanks in advance!
Jump to Postquad core processor running @ 4.0 GHz (intel builds them specifically for gaming)
2Gb SLI graphics card (2 running @ 1Gb each) i think nvidia's got some of those...
8Gb RAM
blu-ray rom
windows XP (Vista is too crappy for gaming)
4Tb hard drive (so …
Jump to PostThe new iMac looks real cute.
Jump to PostMacs are overpriced...
They look nice from a distance but up close you see the cheap plastic, the poor workmanship, etc.
The same spec hardware (and in many cases the same exact hardware) in a standard case running FreeBSD (on which MacOSX is based) costs you maybe a quarter of …
Jump to Postquad core processor running @ 4.0 GHz (intel builds them specifically for gaming)
How well are gaming engines taking advantage of multiple cores these days? I know writing an engine to do that is a pain...
quad core processor running @ 4.0 GHz (intel builds them specifically for gaming)
2Gb SLI graphics card (2 running @ 1Gb each) i think nvidia's got some of those...
8Gb RAM
blu-ray rom
windows XP (Vista is too crappy for gaming)
4Tb hard drive (so you can store as many games as you want)
bluetooth wireless adapter, to increase your gaming experience...
and loads of money to buy all of that...
The new iMac looks real cute.
Macs are overpriced...
They look nice from a distance but up close you see the cheap plastic, the poor workmanship, etc.
The same spec hardware (and in many cases the same exact hardware) in a standard case running FreeBSD (on which MacOSX is based) costs you maybe a quarter of what Apple charges for it...
quad core processor running @ 4.0 GHz (intel builds them specifically for gaming)
How well are gaming engines taking advantage of multiple cores these days? I know writing an engine to do that is a pain...
i don't know, but, the higher the number of cores, the higher the performance...
try playing Crysis in a computer with the specs i wrote... it must be heaven!!!
i don't know, but, the higher the number of cores, the higher the performance...
Ah, the typical effect of good marketing (remember the P4 and "higher clock rate = better performance"?). If you have a single-threaded game engine (as most were, at least up until a couple years ago), multiple cores are a waste of silicon. You'd do better with a single 6GHz core than a quad-2.0GHz core (assuming equal work per clock tick). However, when you're running several apps, or multi-threaded apps (as many programs are moving to), the multiple cores give you a greater advantage at lower clock speeds.
Unless software is specifically written to take advantage of multicore processors it won't do so to any great degree.
So for most games today the only advantage you'll see is that Windows background processes will get shifted to one core and the game to another.
That may or may not make a huge difference depending on how you use the machin (what's running on it) and how CPU hungry the game is.
Few games (but getting more) are optimised for multicore systems at this stage, and most that are don't make optimal use of more than 2 cores.
8Gb RAM
windows XP (Vista is too crappy for gaming)
Can XP handle 8 Gb RAM?
I haven't looked at the specs, but I have at least heard (I can't comment on the reliability of the source) that it can't handle more than 2Gb.
Edit: Sorry make that 4, but effectively only about 3.5.
Can XP handle 8 Gb RAM?
I haven't looked at the specs, but I have at least heard (I can't comment on the reliability of the source) that it can't handle more than 8Gb.
Edit: Sorry make that 4, but effectively only about 3.5.
XP 64bit can handle up to 64 GB of ram pretty efficiently.
On what type of system I want...
Just ask Dani what her computer is. I'll take that.
On what type of system I want...
Just ask Dani what her computer is. I'll take that.
rofl
How well are gaming engines taking advantage of multiple cores these days? I know writing an engine to do that is a pain...
my dads core2 overclocked to 3.4ghz kicks the ass off my Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (overclocked to 3.6ghz) in games performance.
also, Xp 3 can handle 4gb ram max. There is PAE but its a bit of a hack. For 90% of apps themax is 2gb.
XP 64 can handle a hell of a lot, but still - most apps arent compiled to take advantage of ore than 2gb
my dads core2 overclocked to 3.4ghz kicks the ass off my Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (overclocked to 3.6ghz) in games performance.
Given the architectural differences, your dad's underclocked C2D would probably school his P4, and with one core turned off. Hell, my 1.6GHz Centrino schooled my 3.2GHz P4 Prescott pretty badly. Note my previous reference to P4 clock rate and actual efficiency.
yeah.
whats interesting though is that the P4 extreme kicks the ass off the Celeron D and early pentium Ds (the later ones used tech backported from core - these later ones kick the ass of everything apart froma core2)
Ok...thx for all the comments. I'm in the process of getting all the parts to build the PC. Just a quick question. How much difference will I notice between using a quad core vs a duo core...example...4. AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition Processor ADX6400CZBOX - 3.20GHz, 2 x 1MB Cache, 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) FSB, Windsor, Dual-Core, Retail, Socket AM2 (940), Processor. VS AMD Phenom 9600 Processor HD9600WCGDBOX - 2.30GHz, 4MB Cache, 1800MHz (3600 MT/s) FSB, Agena, Quad-Core, Retail, Socket AM2+, Processor with Fan. I know it depends also on which game...but what's the difference like? Thanks.
I'm debating and AMD quad or Intel quad.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.
