Budget Gaming Suggestion..

[gazz9496]

agree completly the 6 series cards are good but not really a great deal better than the 5 series, the avid gamer may be waiting for the 7 series cards but i wouldn't rush out and get anything to expensive right now.

given i play crysis 2 on extreme with a 4870 1gb 1920x1080 avg of 50 fps i'd say you should have no problem at all with the 5 series listed for you.

amd may be seen as the budget option for cpu's but they aren't that far off their intel counterparts at the same price range and are worth the money you spend on them.

 

[A Leopard]

Hmm, Seems all good then! Just a matter of blagging for the parts, and an agonising 2 month wait. :'(

 

[Fumz]

amd may be seen as the budget option for cpu's but they aren't that far off their intel counterparts at the same price range and are worth the money you spend on them.

I must respectfully disagree.

Whether or not an AMD is a good value depends on the game(s) you're playing. If the cpu can't push the gpu to it's limits, then it's value diminishes. How much depends on the game.

It's true that "most" games are gpu bound; however, there are titles that just do a lot better with a stronger cpu, and if they're games that you like, then it's well worth it to spend the extra coin to make sure they run ok.

I picked up The Witcher 2 yesterday. In part because I heard the fellas say how good it was/looked... also in part because I had heard it was very demanding and I was curious to see how my system could run it.

I was literally shocked to find out just how poorly AMD's ran this game: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings GPU & CPU Performance > CPU Scaling and Performance - TechSpot Reviews I don't think I've ever seen a more clear demonstration of the differences between AMD and Intel. I'm getting, literally, triple the fps of a 3.2GHz X2 and twice as much as a 3GHz X4.

Crysis is another game where cpu really matters: Crysis 2 GPU & CPU Performance Test > CPU Performance - TechSpot Reviews

 

[A Leopard]

Wow, That is actually quite a major gap.. But from my point, a dip from 70 fps (An FPS I've never had in any modern game) to 50 (Still, one I've never had) won't make all the difference, 50 is plenty playable in my degree!

 

[JaidynM]

If you simply cannot be bothered putting the computer together (like me), I'd go for a complete system of Ebay. They have great custom built computers with even greater prices. Sure, it might be a bit pricier than building it, but that's what I did and I'm younger than you.

Take a look at my system specs. I have a pretty decent computer, which I often play Minecraft on (wonderful game by the way) and I bought it for $480 AUD. I'm probably more strapped for cash than you and I managed to get a great buy off Ebay.

I will soon be buying a $145 graphics card but it's worth it. Even with my current card (integrated though), Minecraft plays well. Anyway, I've started a search for you on Ebay.co.uk so take a look, change the variables on the right hand side of the page, and try it out.

Desktop Computer System | eBay UK

 

[Fumz]

Wow, That is actually quite a major gap.. But from my point, a dip from 70 fps (An FPS I've never had in any modern game) to 50 (Still, one I've never had) won't make all the difference, 50 is plenty playable in my degree!

True, but what's important to take away from the article isn't what they've show, but what they haven't: minimum fps.

My biggest gripe with most review sites is that they don't show what the minimum fps is... and minimum fps is really all that matters. Like you said, 50 or 70 fps makes very little difference, both are great. However, you dip below 30 and things will start to suck, fast. Yes, a fast cpu pumps out faster frames, but it also increases minimum fps so when you're in that firefight, you're not the one lagging (read: dying and shouting expletives).

Also, all this was done in single player... just like all video card reviews. Multiplayer fps is always lower than single player because there are just more objects and variables to deal with. You can't forget to factor that into the equation.

 

[A Leopard]

Very True, As long as my rig can run Minecraft, Runescape and BF3 / Assorted games, I'm fine really. I don't expect to run stuff like witcher just yet

 

[Fumz]

BF3 is going to be every bit as demanding as The Witcher 2... more so online with 64 player goodness.

 

[A Leopard]

Yeah, But I'm just praying. Don't ruin my dreams :'(

 

[Fumz]

I'm not trying to ruin your dreams; I'm just making sure you don't cry foul when I blast you in the face... understand, this is all about me!

 

[A Leopard]

Never!

 

[Fumz]

I'm coming for you man... watch out!

 

[A Leopard]

Not if my butler Chives says so!?

 

[Fumz]

pffff... poor ol Chives is going on my potato!

http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Buttered-New-Potatoes-with-Chives-231888

 

[seekermeister]

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive $45
Newegg.com - Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

This is the one item in the list that I definitely would avoid. There are plenty of other drives in the price range that would be far better.

 

[essenbe]

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive $45
Newegg.com - Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

This is the one item in the list that I definitely would avoid. There are plenty of other drives in the price range that would be far better.

Yhe 7200.12's are supposed to be much better than the previous one.

 

[Wishmaster]

I was thinking the 7200.12s were the ones with a abnormally high failure rate ... I might be mistaken.


I do know the last 2 Seagates I had started the click of death after about 3month of use.
I since switched to Western Digital for all my Mechanical drives and have been fine.


But do not get me wrong.
Im not saying all Seagate Drives are bad, as I do know many use them and love them.

But I certainly had bad luck with them at the time I tried them which has left me reluctant to try them again, or even recommend them. If you know what I mean.

 

[seekermeister]

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive $45
Newegg.com - Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

This is the one item in the list that I definitely would avoid. There are plenty of other drives in the price range that would be far better.

Yhe 7200.12's are supposed to be much better than the previous one.

My objection to Seagate is not just because of their 7200.11 lemons, it is because of the way that they are handling the problem. If you RMA one of those, they simply send you a re-certified drive of the same model, which will fail within a couple of months, and when you RMA it, the same continues to happen, over and over. Therefore, I no longer will buy Seagates of any model. I still have one of their 7200.11 re-certified lemons in the closet, that is eligible for warranty, but I don't feel that it is worth the cost of shipping it.

 

[Wishmaster]

This is the one item in the list that I definitely would avoid. There are plenty of other drives in the price range that would be far better.

Yhe 7200.12's are supposed to be much better than the previous one.

My objection to Seagate is not just because of their 7200.11 lemons, it is because of the way that they are handling the problem. If you RMA one of those, they simply send you a re-certified drive of the same model, which will fail within a couple of months, and when you RMA it, the same continues to happen, over and over. Therefore, I no longer will buy Seagates of any model. I still have one of their 7200.11 re-certified lemons in the closet, that is eligible for warranty, but I don't feel that it is worth the cost of shipping it.

Ahhh .. it was the 11s?
Seems those are what I had that started clicking after 3 months.

Not sure why I was thinking 12s were the problematic ones.

At any count, I agree which is why I feel the way I do about them.

 

[A Leopard]

Well, Honestly, A hard drive's always been a Hard drive to me, never gotten into RPM speeds or failure rates, because, Mine have always lasted 'cos they were normal hard drives

So.. A 7200.12 is what to go for then? And also, Can someone dumb down RAID settings and the benefits of say, having 2x74gb rather than 1 x 150gb?

EDIT - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-Bar...KCLS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1307875084&sr=8-3

Just found that.. Basically the same as my current one, but with the magical all-might '.12' on the side

AND, AND AND AND, My rig of what you've suggested..

http://www.amazon.co.uk/registry/wishlist/3SYZYDWER08CZ