I need your opinion(s) on a new computer I plan on getting.

lotus_j wrote:This really depends on the Forum. The biggest problem with Forums today is that Manufacturers and Vendors both know of them and believe it or not actually pay people to post on them and mainly misinform. Dell, Apple, Nvidia, and HP are 4 companies I know of that do this. It's sad. So it's hard to find the best advice sometimes sadly.

That's because some companies charge for Tech Support... I know HP use to {maybe still do}, after your warranty ran out, they wanted like 20 bucks a call or something like that... I don't know about any of the other companies, I only had to use HP one time when my Printer was giving me an Error Code that wasn't covered in the Manual and they told me that my warranty had ran out and wanted me to pay for the answer to a simple code...

Anyone wanna know what the code was {which I found out free from Best Buy's Techs}??? The Print Heads needed cleaning, which the machine is capable of doing... But there is no explanation of the code in the Manual... So all I had to do was hit 3 buttons, Menu, Maintenance {Tools}, Clean Print Heads... Error went away, Printer worked for another 2 years before I felt it was getting too old and slow and I replaced it...

But they wanted 20 bucks for that answer...

lotus_j wrote: Well the DDR3 at $320 is actually pretty good memory. DDR3 as a rule is more efficient than DDR2. The latency of "bad memory," is much better than DDR2. So the total cost difference is $260 Australian (MB and memory difference) of the gear I'd suggest using. The question really is for Joel. If that isn't a big deal then he should go for it.

A year ago you're probably right about the same amount of cash in DDR2 outperforming the same amount in DDR3. That isn't the case today. The difference is the MB costs. Still if you're investing serious cash the extra $260 for the MB and RAM is definitely worth it for performance and future proofing.

Fair enough... in which case he might as well go with DDR3 then.

Joel, if you are happy with 4GB then you are pretty much set... but beware that with most Motherboards only have 4 DIMM slots. So your ideal solution now would be 4x 1GB sticks. However, if you wanted more RAM eventually you will have to move up to 2GB sticks and if I recall they are still hellishly expensive (or even non existent) in DDR3 (confirm?). So if you want to plan ahead to eventually get more than 4GB, then 2x 2GB for now might be another option. Expensive now, but a little better in the long run.

Difference between 4 and 8GB... in XP: squat, in Vista: quite a bit, especially as it takes better advantage of superfetch (which speeds up the opening of frequently used software). But if you plan on using it for just games then 4GB is plenty for now. Content creation would probably benefit from 8.

-Cub. =o)

Cub: Since I intend on running the latest Vista, could 8GB be worth it just for future proofing? Or is it still a little extravagant?


Thanks again to everyone else I've checked out the recommended links and i'm beginning to understand. As I was saying to Cub in some MSN chat before, my biggest challenge will be pairing up the right motherboard with the right processor. Video and RAM pretty much speaks for itself and doesn't take a lot to get right when doing the required research.


I'm still stuck in the middle of either getting 1 X GTX280 (1GB) or 2 X GTX260 (1GB each). Tom's Hardware rates the GTX280 as the stronger card...the sales guy thinks that the latter configuration is better both for current gaming and future proofing. I do want a computer that will last 18 months without any kind of tweaking, so I don't mind going those extra steps. But as someone said earlier on in this thread, there never is a guarantee given how rapidly technology is transforming.

lotus_j wrote:


Go for the Quadcore 9550. It has some multimedia extensions the 9450 doesn't have. It is also faster and in the states costs $10 more. It's worth it. MAKE SURE:

Hey Lotus, I did some research on Tom's Hardware, take a look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk ... 2182%5D=on

It's a benchmark of the Quadcore 9550 and Quadcore 9450...in many ways, i'm finding that the 9450 does actually perform better in a lot of cases, including games. iTunes is a biggie for me too as I compress A LOT of music for my iPod and it seems to work better on the 9450. 9450 also seems to deliver better performance on blu-ray playback.

Let me know if i've tested that incorrectly, but from what I can tell, I think the 9450 might be the way to go.

Joel wrote: Cub: Since I intend on running the latest Vista, could 8GB be worth it just for future proofing? Or is it still a little extravagant?

Well thi9nk about it this way: less than 2 years ago 2GB was the normal amount of RAM you needed for high performance gaming. But since Vista, and games like Crysis and other high end titles 4GB appears to be the niche. I would imagine 8GB being very practical in less than 2 years from now... so it is up to you whether you get 4GB now and get 4 later to save money, or go all out.

The reason why I went for 8GB straight off that bat was because I use my PC as a multimedia workstation, but for gaming I would not need more than 4. thankfully though, unlike XP, Vista will take advantage of what is not in use via Superfetch and other memory based optimisations, so essentially you will always benefit from more and it's not overkill... unlike XP which hit a wall at 3.5GB.

In this case Joel, if you can afford it, go for it. If not, just make sure you will actually save money in the long run by adding more later.

-Cub. =o)

Cubase wrote:

Joel wrote: Cub: Since I intend on running the latest Vista, could 8GB be worth it just for future proofing? Or is it still a little extravagant?

Well thi9nk about it this way: less than 2 years ago 2GB was the normal amount of RAM you needed for high performance gaming. But since Vista, and games like Crysis and other high end titles 4GB appears to be the niche. I would imagine 8GB being very practical in less than 2 years from now... so it is up to you whether you get 4GB now and get 4 later to save money, or go all out.

The reason why I went for 8GB straight off that bat was because I use my PC as a multimedia workstation, but for gaming I would not need more than 4. thankfully though, unlike XP, Vista will take advantage of what is not in use via Superfetch and other memory based optimisations, so essentially you will always benefit from more and it's not overkill... unlike XP which hit a wall at 3.5GB.

In this case Joel, if you can afford it, go for it. If not, just make sure you will actually save money in the long run by adding more later.

-Cub. =o)

Actually, that wall is for all 32-bit SOs, XP 64 also uses more than that, but who in their consious mind will install XP 64?

Joel wrote: I'm still stuck in the middle of either getting 1 X GTX280 (1GB) or 2 X GTX260 (1GB each). Tom's Hardware rates the GTX280 as the stronger card...the sales guy thinks that the latter configuration is better both for current gaming and future proofing. I do want a computer that will last 18 months without any kind of tweaking, so I don't mind going those extra steps. But as someone said earlier on in this thread, there never is a guarantee given how rapidly technology is transforming.

I can't stress enough that all the people I know in the gaming industry are telling people to go ATI right now. The ATI cards are FASTER and much more EFFICIENT. A 4870X2 (2 GPUs on one card) is around $70 to $80 more Australian than a nice GTX280 card. I've seen real world applications with both and the ATI has much more potential. In fact some companies are starting to program specifically to take advantage of some of their benefits.

I know it has been awhile since ATI made a better card than Nvidia, but it is the case currently.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/rad ... 07-14.html

Take a look at those scores. First thing you notice is that the 280GTX X2 (2 gpus on one card) is the fastest. It is faster than the 4870 by 3.1 Frames Per Second. Now look at the stats. The GTX has 2X512 MB RAM and 2 GPUs. The 2nd place finisher is a single GPU 280GTX with 1GB of RAM. It is 2.8 FPS better than the ATI. Look closely at the numbers. The Nvidia is using 1GB of RAM for less than a 10% real life performance increase over the ATI. The ATI is using 512MB of RAM.

The ATI with the right MB and chipset will even outscore the Nvidias on that test. The Youtube link I put up is using a Quad Core unit and the 48x chipset.

Tom's Hardware has yet to test a 4870X2 or 4870 1GB or 4870 2GB model (the latter two are coming out next month). I've seen a 4870X2 score over 50 FPS in that mode on Crysis under the same conditions. The 4870X2 has 2GB of DDR5 Ram on it. The unit is blistering fast. The 1GB models will be faster than their 1GB 280GTX counterparts as well.

As that link shows, the ATI is much more efficient than the Nvidia.

Tom's Hardware was using a poor MB choice for the ATI cards (the 38X version of the Asus mb I suggested to you vs the 48x) and honestly a bad CPU. A Quad Core would improve those scores on that page for both sets of cards.

Joel wrote:

lotus_j wrote:


Go for the Quadcore 9550. It has some multimedia extensions the 9450 doesn't have. It is also faster and in the states costs $10 more. It's worth it. MAKE SURE:

Hey Lotus, I did some research on Tom's Hardware, take a look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk ... 2182%5D=on

It's a benchmark of the Quadcore 9550 and Quadcore 9450...in many ways, i'm finding that the 9450 does actually perform better in a lot of cases, including games. iTunes is a biggie for me too as I compress A LOT of music for my iPod and it seems to work better on the 9450. 9450 also seems to deliver better performance on blu-ray playback.

Let me know if i've tested that incorrectly, but from what I can tell, I think the 9450 might be the way to go.

In the tests that are done by second, you want the one that takes LESS time, not more. Thus the 9550 does better than the 9450 in that test. Sometimes the smaller number is better. So in the case of the iPod the 9550 won.

The main thing is the bigger numbers on the processor tests for arithmetic, multimedia, etc. The 9550 is faster. Meaning that if used right it should outperform the 9450. In tests where it doesn't it may be software related.

The big deal here is that I'm positive that the Blu Ray test wasn't done with software taking advantage of the 9550's multimedia extensions, because some are specifically for BD playback. So the 9550 is better for Blu-Ray. Most of the software packages are coming out with updates that take advantage of the newer chips. It's about a 20% increase in performance (over the same chip without using the extensions).

The 9550 scores better than the 9450 all around by your link with a few exceptions. In those cases I'm sure something in the software is up. The 9550 is a better chip than the 9450. It's also only $10 American more.

Cubase wrote:
Fair enough... in which case he might as well go with DDR3 then.

Joel, if you are happy with 4GB then you are pretty much set... but beware that with most Motherboards only have 4 DIMM slots. So your ideal solution now would be 4x 1GB sticks. However, if you wanted more RAM eventually you will have to move up to 2GB sticks and if I recall they are still hellishly expensive (or even non existent) in DDR3 (confirm?). So if you want to plan ahead to eventually get more than 4GB, then 2x 2GB for now might be another option. Expensive now, but a little better in the long run.

-Cub. =o)

The memory I quoted for prices in Australian is 4GB in a 2X2 configuration for both PC 8500 (DDR2) and the DDR3 memory. So it's $260 more Australian for a DDR3 based motherboard and 2 sticks of 2GB DDR3 Memory. 2 more sticks would be $320 Australian.

I'd suggest 4GB now with the 2X2 configuration. The other 4GB can be bought in 18 months for much less and give his PC a performance boost that should help keep it up to date even then.

I love the sound of tech talk in the morning.

Sounds like. . .victory.

lotus_j wrote:
I can't stress enough that all the people I know in the gaming industry are telling people to go ATI right now. The ATI cards are FASTER and much more EFFICIENT. A 4870X2 (2 GPUs on one card) is around $70 to $80 more Australian than a nice GTX280 card. I've seen real world applications with both and the ATI has much more potential. In fact some companies are starting to program specifically to take advantage of some of their benefits.

I know it has been awhile since ATI made a better card than Nvidia, but it is the case currently.

I agree... being a nVidia dude for a long time (the only ATI card I've owned was a 9200... yuck) I have always found nVidia's offerings ahead of the game... since the FX series that is (I had an FX-5950 Ultra for a time sadly). But I am extremely underwhelmed with the current GTX 280/260 cards. Especially seeing as I would've though we'd have seen big things from the 512-bit bus.

-Cub. =o)

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3372

I wanted to find a review of the 4870X2 that showed what I've seen in real world apps. The important thing to remember is that game companies are starting to program from Crossfire products (Which the X2 is) and these games show significant boosts over the competition.

One question none of us asked....

What kind of monitor is this going to be hooked up to?