Custom Computer.

Parts for my make-believe computer!

  • Total voters
    10
Odale

Odale

Active Member
A recent assignment in one of my classes made me want to build yet another computer for myself, I have build 5 in the past but I have fallen off of the computer world, so I don't know what is good and what is not as good (and the forums have been somewhat dead recently...).

So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to build another GAMING computer, what parts should I use, or should it even be.... dare I say... a MAC?!? Give your opinions on all aspects of the computer... IE: the case, fans, keyboard, monitor, mouse etc..

Please vote for the above options. You can choose more than one option, but please give a reason and I would like for your decision to have a logical foundation...

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
waaaay too many things left out. What games do you want to play? What is your $$$ level? Do you have any carryover parts or is this a totally new build?
 
Intel and AMD are CPUs.
ATI and Nvidia are Video Cards.

But Hescominsoon is right.

You could ask what is the preferred PC for the type of games you play, Odale.
 
I always go with nvidia because ATI has been severely lacking in the driver department (particularly with their linux support, though this may change soon with them releasing the card specs to allow developers to write drivers).

I really like my 2 AMD64 procs, they were cheap as dirt when I bought them and have decent performance. The new phenoms look really good IMO, as the gap narrows performance wide I will probably stick with AMD (particularly on my servers as the Intel Core2s have some security issues with the architecture that could allow an overflow).

For the chipset, usually the nforce will yield the best performance, but the VIA chips aren't really that bad. For the most part you probably wont notice the difference. Obviously if you want to waist money on Nvidia's SLI tech then you need a compatible Nforce chipset.
 
I prefer ATI because they are faster and better, but I dislike them for the same reason as you VK, and that is why my next card will be nVidia...

AMD FTW...
 
ATi's cards have not been faster than nvidia for over a year now. they have also drawn more power for that slower performance. Also ati's drivers use the .net bloatware. All in all nvidia has all of the plusses right now.
 
hardocp and many others have a differing opinion. ATI's image quality is not that much better if any than nvidia. so given the small difference in quality but the large difference in performance in every other category i stand behind my statements.

The articloe sums it up in a couple of places nicely:
If you’re a hardcore gamer, would you be willing to take a major performance hit in order to render your game experience just a wee bit more shiny and colorful? We didn’t think so.

and then:
The good news for anyone shopping for a new videocard is that you don’t need to sacrifice image quality for performance. Based on our blind tests, the GPUs from both AMD and Nvidia deliver similar visual quality with games, high-definition video, and digital photos.

AMD has some catching up to do.
 
I'm curious, Odale, are you thinking of getting a Blu-ray burner instead of a DVD burner?

My co-worker got himself a Blu-ray burner, as well as a $250 X38 Motherboard, 8GB DDR2 ram, a Geforce 9500 GT, Intel Dual Core 3.0 Ghz and Vista Ultimate.

If I was going to get a gaming machine, I don't think getting a Blu-ray burner would help much.

Currently, only movies and PS3 games are on that format, no PC games.

Also, the cheapest Blu-ray is about $230 US while a DVD burner is less than $25 US.

Though, I can agree for sure, he has a extreme hardcore gaming machine.

Do you think PC company games will go to Blu-ray?

But, Odale, if you are going for a Blu-ray instead of DVD on your custom computer, thats entirely up to you.
 
I wouldn't get a Bluray DVD player until they drop in price, or when Bluray players are necessary for gaming (thats the reason my current gaming PC has a DVD player in it... HL2...).

It is gonna be a while until I build my next gaming PC.

When I build a new PC, I usually reuse parts from the previous PC, these are parts that don't go obsolete so quickly.... such as DVD drives and power supplies... although it may be time to get a new PSU. This one is in its 3rd computer!
 
Last edited:
I need to buy a computer for my wife... so that we can both play World of Warcraft. I've biult a few computers myself, but (Correct me if i'm wrong.) you can get a Full setup for fairly cheap these days... found a decent one the other day for 760, that included a 20" WS Monitor... Anyways, figured i'd chime in.
 
I don't like buying off the shelf computers because they always cut corners somewhere, whether it is in cooling, horrible chipsets, or proprietary hardware.
 
inkelis said:
What do you guys think of this setup. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227043


Edit - I'm looking for a computer for my wife to play wow. Would this get the job done efficiently? Not too familiar with vista.
Click to expand...

vk will say its crap but so far i have found onjly 1 complaint with vista and that is the fact it (64bit version) did not support my hp 450c designjet plodder and was kinda a hassle. linux using the gimp didt work well with it either so yeah. but yeah vista is fine and yes it will run wow really well.
 
Vista is a resource hog, plain and simple...it looks good and has some good features, but it sucks at least 10 times the resources XP does...if you have low end specs such as 1GB of RAM or under 2.4GHz CPU or 256MBs GPU, Vista will kill you...now, if you play nothing but WoW, you may not notice, WoW does not use much resources, but anything else would suffer... I suggest 2GBs (4GBs Recommended), 2.4GHs Dual CPU (2.6 Recommended), and 512MB GPU (768MB or SLI Recommended)... My Vista machine that I barely use, has my suggested specs and it runs like crap, I put XP on it to see if it was Vista...guess what, it was, when XP was on there it ran wonderfully... Recently I put Vista back on and it runs like crap again... Don't get me wrong, I like many things about Vista, but I do not see the sense in using such a resource hog...

That computer would run Vista alright...HOWEVER, One, Vista is being replaced by Windows 7 by the end of next year, and two, again, you are meeting minimum requirements on the machine for Vista (Not what MS says, what I say)...I would have to say NO...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top