View Full Version : Your dream system under $1000
Bootsiuv
09-30-2007, 09:14
Hello fellow .orgers.
I've come here because I've begun the initial planning for the upcoming year of what I'm sure will be awesome PC games (As a PC GAMER subscriber, I'm feeling pretty good about PC gaming for 2008), and I have to decide if I should keep my current system and upgrade, or buy an all new rig.
I'm looking forward to playing games like Crysis and Hellgate: London, and I want a machine which is capable of doing it to at least a playable degree.
My only caveat....I only have access to $1000 for the upgrade or new rig.
My current rig is something of a joke between me and my friends. It's an E-Machines for one thing, which I've heard bad things about. I bought it in 2004 for $500 but have upgraded the Ram, video card, and sound card a few times already.
My latest acquisition is a VisionTek Radeon 1550X 256 MB video card. At $90, I think it was a great buy. Every game I own is now on high settings, but I'm sure the games of the future won't pan out the same way. As far as other important stats, it's a Celeron 2.7 GHZ with 768 MB of ram. Is the processor worth keeping for another year or two? Will a 512 MB video card and a gig of good ram allow me to play games like World in Conflict and Hellgate: London seamlessly? I've heard bad things about Celerons, so I thought I would ask the experts.
Anyways, my real question is as follows: If you had $1000 to build a "dream machine" (and I use that term loosely, as a real dream rig is $3000-7000 and I'm aware of that), what would you buy? Would you hang onto the Celeron 2.7 GHZ or does that lack the muscle to play the games of next year?
One last thing to remember though, is that a new computer will automatically give me Vista and DX10, whereas, if I keep my old rig, I'll be buying Vista the old fashioned way, and it isn't cheap. DX10 looks well worth it for a hardcore gamer like me though. :yes:
Sorry for the long-winded post.
Thanks for your time.
Bootsiuv
Bootsiuv
09-30-2007, 10:51
After doing a little research, I think I'm just going to have to do away with the old....it's going on 3 1/2 years old, which is a good life for a computer methinks. :yes:
So, I'm thinking something like this....
Motherboard: EVGA 680i $205
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Conroe 2.33GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor (Is it really worth $100 to get the 3.0 GHz? I can probably overclock to 2.8 and play just about any game that will be out within the next year.)$175
Video Card: GeForce 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported HDCP Video Card $300
RAM: CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 $105
That's roughly $800 right there. Should I look into an aftermarket cooling system, or will the processors own fans suffice. Remember that I plan on overclocking at least .5 GHz, so I assume at least a fan set-up will be required.
One last thing, what about a power supply. I can probably find a decent case (hopefully with fan controls) affordably enough, but I've never had to shop for a new power supply.
Thanks for your help.
Bootsiuv
EDIT: As far as sound cards go....I have a fairly new Creative Audigy which has sufficed for me so far (albeit, it is on the cheaper side of sound cards, I only bought it because GTA: San Andreas requires a sound card to run), and I'll likely recycle that one if I can, so I'm not including that. I will also be recycling the mouse, keyboard, game controller, joystick, and widescreen monitor, all of which are relatively new (less than a year, except for the joystick, but do any games actually even use a joystick anymore?)
Sounds similar to my system that I built not too long ago- except I went for an AMD based system instead of Intel (to save more money).
You pick out a case yet? I went with the Antec Sonata2 (http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=15139). The case itself is great, but out of an abundance of caution, I got a beefier power supply than it came with for it to feed my 8800 GPU. The case looks really nice though, and is extremely quiet.
For cooling, I'd say you're fine with stock until you decide to getting serious about overclocking.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-02-2007, 03:51
Those seem to be all wise choices. For a case, I personally recommend the Apevia X-Plorer. It has a fan controller, room for one 120mm and four 80mm fans (you can get a six-pack of good Ultra 80mm fans for about thirty dollars), and good airflow. It's also quite a good deal for what you get. It doesn't come with a PSU - I'd recommend getting a better PSU than the sort that usually comes with the case anyways.
Bootsiuv
10-02-2007, 04:34
Thanks for the input, guys....it is greatly appreciated.
As far as cases go, I have been browsing, and I do like the X-Plorer with it's built in fan controls, but that Sonata2 does look nice as well.
For cooling, I'd say you're fine with stock until you decide to getting serious about overclocking.
Is it wise to overclock past .5 GHz? I always assumed it would generate too much heat, and I REALLY don't want to mess with water-cooling after spending this kind of money and doing something wrong and ending up with a very wet, very expensive paperweight. I'm interested in hearing your experiences with overclocking (my buddy overclocked my last system, and it overheated....I'm doing this one for the first time, but I won't be taking it lightly, and if I feel it's beyond me, I'll get it done by someone else).
I haven't really considered an AMD because I'm always confused as to what speed those things actually go at....the names are confusing for a faithful Intel user like myself.
As far as cases go, why not treat yourself to something nice? (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/04/26/Antec_P182_case_review/1)
-edit-
The kids at NewEgg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16811129025), they can't get enough of it ...
Bootsiuv, two things never to skimp on. RAM, and a good PSU. There are many problems which are hard to diagnose which can often directly be traced back to a faulty or low quality PSU putting out bad power, or shoddy RAM. For your system that you've suggested, you're going to be looking at a 500-600 watt PSU to ensure enough power.
Bootsiuv
10-02-2007, 18:14
Thanks for your help, folks....It is greatly appreciated. I'm considering going AMD for a change, but I'm really not sure what AMD makes that is comparable to the intel processor I've chosen.
Any thoughts? Is one superior over the other?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-02-2007, 21:47
I much prefer Intel, and there's always the new Intel Quad and Extreme processors. AMD has been second to Intel since the Core 2 Duo, in my opinion.
I much prefer Intel, and there's always the new Intel Quad and Extreme processors. AMD has been second to Intel since the Core 2 Duo, in my opinion.
In terms of pure performance yes, but in terms of value, it's debatable. :yes:
Thanks for your help, folks....It is greatly appreciated. I'm considering going AMD for a change, but I'm really not sure what AMD makes that is comparable to the intel processor I've chosen.
Any thoughts? Is one superior over the other?I always just go to the benchmarks whenever I'm looking to buy hardware. Figure out how much you're willing to pay and find out what will get you the most bang for your buck. I usually start with Tom's Hardware (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html), since they make easy to read charts that can compare a wide variety of CPUs at a glance.
The top of the heap is pretty much dominated by Intel chips, so if you want top of the line speeds with no compromises go with Intel. However, if you look at top of the line AMDs and compare them with similarly performing Intel CPUs, the AMD chips are substantially cheaper than their Intel counterparts. So, if you want good performance without emptying your bank accounts, AMD is a reasonable choice.
Bootsiuv
10-02-2007, 22:41
There actually is a dual core made by AMD now....but I'm not sure how it compares....once again, AMD names are a little confusing to me, and they rarely speak about their speed in good old reliable GHz, which I understand to an extent.
That's why i have never really gotten into AMD.
I had an AMD at 800 MHz that I bought used in '01, but went back to Intel in '04 (my current system), although it's a CELERON based processor, and I've heard a lot of negative feedback about those.
I do know that it runs circles around my last computer at 2.7 GHz.
That's sort of why I was wondering if my processor was still adequate....the new processor I'm currently looking at would actually appear to be slower than the one I have now, but I assume having two processors speeds things up considerably.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-02-2007, 22:49
There actually is a dual core made by AMD now....but I'm not sure how it compares....once again, AMD names are a little confusing to me, and they rarely speak about their speed in good old reliable GHz, which I understand to an extent.
Indeed there is, yet I still believe my statement above is true. Xiahou is right about AMD giving you a little more value, but I personally would go up a little bit in price to get a high-performance processor. It really depends on how strict that $1000 budget is, and how much money you've spent already.
Bootsiuv
10-02-2007, 23:01
Not super strict....I could go over.
It's just that I have kids and would rather keep things which are really only for entertainment value to a reasonable amount.
I figured 1000 was good. It isn't breaking the bank, but it seems like it should be enough to get a decent rig, as long as I build it myself.
Is the 2.33 inadequate to play certain games....I always thought anything over 2.0 GHz was somewhat superflous for today's games, as RAM and GPU's seem to be more important.
Even M2:TW only requires a 1.5 GHz, and that game is fairly graphic intensive.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-03-2007, 01:18
I don't think 2.33 should be a problem, and I hear they're fairly easy to overclock, but there are much more experienced people here, so I'd wait for one of them to back me up or prove me wrong. :book:
Uh oh! Here we go! En Garde! :beam:
In terms of pure performance yes, but in terms of value, it's debatable. :yes:
I don't agree, Intel is pound for pound, almost as cheap as AMD, AND you also have almost a guaranteed .5ghz overclock on the cpu with stock cooling no matter what. Once you take that into account, I think Intel has a significant lead on AMD right now (unfortunately) in terms of price, performance, and overall value.
I always just go to the benchmarks whenever I'm looking to buy hardware. Figure out how much you're willing to pay and find out what will get you the most bang for your buck. I usually start with Tom's Hardware (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html), since they make easy to read charts that can compare a wide variety of CPUs at a glance.
Ugh, not Tom's Hardware. They're so biased it's not even funny, I stopped reading their reviews years ago. Intel basically owns them.
The top of the heap is pretty much dominated by Intel chips, so if you want top of the line speeds with no compromises go with Intel. However, if you look at top of the line AMDs and compare them with similarly performing Intel CPUs, the AMD chips are substantially cheaper than their Intel counterparts. So, if you want good performance without emptying your bank accounts, AMD is a reasonable choice.
Again disagree, due to the inherent fact that even our grandmothers can overclock a C2D or C2Q and get 10-25%+ more performance with little to no effort. AMD chips suck more power and run hotter right now, and the triple core CPUs are a joke as I understand. It's basically a quad core with one processor disabled, because they couldn't get true quad to work in a stable manner.
YMMV, IMO, etc. I wouldn't go with AMD at all right now, not until they've got some time to really get back into the game.
The way I see it, if you want the best performance, go Intel- no question about it right now. However, if you're looking to buy a good, but not top of the line CPU, AMD can be attractive. For example, the E6600 performs pretty similarly to the FX/2 6000+ in many benchmarks while the AMD chip costs about $65 less. Overclocking will naturally add to the performance of a stock CPU, but whether or not that's enough to justify the additional cost is something for the buyer to decide. :shrug:
Back when I built my current system last Spring, I went with AMD and took the cash that I saved there and put it into a better video card than I probably would have gotten otherwise. The CPU I got (4400+EE) was far from top of the line, but it was hugely better than what I currently have. I bought it with the understanding that I would buy a faster CPU once prices fall enough to make it a worthwhile upgrade. I knew going in that Intel was the performance leader, but I still feel I got very good value for the money I spent.
Bootsiuv
10-03-2007, 07:09
That's interesting.
I remember a few years ago hearing so many people talk of the superiority of AMD, but it seems the tables have turned, yes?
Thanks for all of your help guys, I think I'm just going to go with the 2.33 GHz Intel. I appreciate all of your feedback.
I remember a few years ago hearing so many people talk of the superiority of AMD, but it seems the tables have turned, yes?Yup, they most definitely have turned. :beam:
AMD chips suck more power and run hotter right now, and the triple core CPUs are a joke as I understand. It's basically a quad core with one processor disabled, because they couldn't get true quad to work in a stable manner.
If you're talking about their new K10 chips, I read AMD denied that they're quad cores with one disabled core so maybe they're some sort of native triple core design.:dizzy2:
That's sort of why I was wondering if my processor was still adequate....the new processor I'm currently looking at would actually appear to be slower than the one I have now, but I assume having two processors speeds things up considerably.
:shocked2: :inquisitive: :grin:
Man, I assure you, new core2duo is extremely fast. With 1GHz it will be faster than 3GHz pentium4, overclock it to 3,0+ GHz with stock cooler, and it will be just monster.
I haven't read hard-news for a while, but I think things aren't changed drastically. So :
GeForce 8800GTS 320MB $300 ~:thumb:
RAM: CORSAIR XMS2 2GB DDR2-800 $105 ~:thumb:
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Conroe 2.33GHz 4M $175 ~:thumb: maybe E6750
Motherboard: EVGA 680i $205 :inquisitive:
Of course new PSU 600 W from Thermaltake for ex.
For those games you listed this won't be enough for max settings, and you know, for other adequate stuff like 19" high quality LCD, power sound system, new harddrive, ......... you need to spent another $1000 ~:handball:
Geezer57
10-03-2007, 14:51
I'm not particularly fond of Tom's Hardware anymore, either. Back in the day, they were one of the few overclocking sites. Now, they've lost their luster.
Some good system guides:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2100159,00.asp (]http://techreport.com/articles.x/13218[/URL)
[URL=]http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/fall_2007_pc_build_guide/
From techreport.com
Component____Item_________________________Price
Processor______Intel Core 2 Duo E6750_____________$194.99
Motherboard____Asus P5N-E SLI___________________$116.99
Memory________Corsair VS 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2-667__$73.99
Graphics_______eVGA GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB______$289.99
Storage________Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB___$114.99
Enclosure_______Antec Sonata III w/500W PSU______$129.95
Total__________________________________________$1032.88
Memory : throw away DDR2-667 and get DDR2-800
PSU : 600 W HighQuality! PSU (500W will be ok for those fouls who don't want to overclock system)
Memory : throw away DDR2-667 and get DDR2-800
Why? I read the speed increase of DDR 2 800 above DDR 2 667 with Intel CPUs is about 2% or so but they cost significantly more.
Bootsiuv
10-03-2007, 19:14
What's wrong with the EVGA 680i? I've heard good things about it. I admit, I'm clueless when it comes to motherboards, and got that one from reading various forums and customer reviews.
Is the Asus superior, and if it is, then how so? Perhaps it's more affordable?
Thanks for your help.
What's wrong with the EVGA 680i? I've heard good things about it. I admit, I'm clueless when it comes to motherboards, and got that one from reading various forums and customer reviews.
Take a look at this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=92483.
I own the eVGA 680i A1 retail boxed mobo, and love the heck out of it. It's been outstanding for overclocking and stability, and the components are arranged in such a way I was able to shoehorn some obscene amounts of after-factory cooling in my case. My friend and I did some extensive reading on good, stable overclocking bases for several weeks, and we eventually decided on that board. There's a few forums, overclockers.net, and some others that escape me now, but you should find that the eVGA 680i is universally well liked and non-tempermental.
Why? I read the speed increase of DDR 2 800 above DDR 2 667 with Intel CPUs is about 2% or so but they cost significantly more.
Actually, Charge's comments have merit, but it's not obvious. Yes you're certainly correct, the speed increase is going to be minimal, better than 2% but certainly not major. The hidden point is that DDR2-800 seems to be the sweet spot now for RAM that can be moderately to heavily overclocked. Of course there are hundreds of brands and variants that come with a base 800 speed rating, but if you sort by price in Newegg on DDR2-800, towards the top you'll start to see a large number of the enthusaist level quality sticks that are built for OCing. You can spend $200-300 and get a very nice matched pair that will be good for some significant speed increases. So in short, provided you're willing to spend at least a certain amount, odds are that he will be buying something that he can work with to this end.
:balloon2:
Maaan, don't underestimate OC merits. Few time ago you can bought E2160 with cooler for ~$100 and overclock it so he will be faster than $1000 X6800 Extreme! And even overclocked comp will live longer than you need it...
About mobo, generally ASUS offers more quality for additional price. As for 680i, I think its too expensive. Personally I had looked for Asus Commando few months ago, but when in I'll buy new comp in '09 it will be completely different system.
And memory: you aren't looking for a $3000+ system, so you need OC. Correspondingly to that you need DDR2-800, as it not expensive, but really needed for overclocker. Do you want 60 fps in crisis? you need OC for both proc and video card. Even more fruitful will be thousands and thousands units in TW! :grin: as you get 50+% to processor power. ddr-667 may not allow you to reach those heights...
Hi Charge
If you want a solid, stable platform for OCing Intel CPUs, there is no better platform than a good quality 680i board. Intel's Badaxe2 series boards are decent, but don't have as many features and stability as the 680i when at higher speeds. The 650i boards I can't comment on too much, we didn't really research those as they didn't have all of the features we were looking for. The only reason to get an ATI chipset board is if you intend to do Crossfire, but that would not be adviseable right now given ATI's offerings and relative performance.
Also, regarding Asus. It would be fair to say that in general Asus offers "better" quality and support than most mobo (but definitely not all) manufacturers. However, they are reputed for stability at stock speeds, not overclocking, and over the past few years have apparently had more than a few issues related to their mobos "disagreeing" with multiple makes/models of RAM specific to the changes they've made off of the reference design. The eVGA/Foxconn board is for all intents and purposes the reference design, with some small changes. Our second choice would have been the Asus 680i board, but changed our minds after reading into it more. What one chooses would therefore depend on what goals the individual is looking to accomplish.
Ah well, I never overclocked so I also never considered that.:sweatdrop:
Bootsiuv
10-04-2007, 01:04
I've never overclocked a system either, but I fully intend to do this one....either myself or someone else.
Kekvit Irae
10-04-2007, 02:06
I managed to score myself a 436 dollar computer from Dell, custom made Inspiron, Athlon 64 Dual Core, 1g memory, etc. I chose not to get a video card with it, since I trust installing and buying those myself from newegg, and I chose the minimum amount of memory since they wanted 100 dollars more for just a single gig more. I got a nice 130 dollar Geforce 8600GTS card and 30 dollar 1g memory chip from newegg, so I'm happy. It's in no means a dream computer, it accomplishes the primary goal I had when looking for a computer: something cheap and able to play Oblivion on High.
Bootsiuv
10-04-2007, 18:01
Aaahhh....Oblivion.
That's a game I have never even played, believe it or not. I've actually never played any of the ES series. I always assumed my computer couldn't handle it, and I hate buying a game that you find out is too much for your computer to be playable....you can't return open video games. So I never bothered.
I do fully intend to at least get oblivion when I get my new rig....maybe it will even be pretty cheap by then.
Kekvit Irae
10-04-2007, 20:34
Daggerfall is the best of the Elder Scrolls series. You should give it a try, bug-infested and all.
Bootsiuv, when you going to buy all this?
Bootsiuv
10-05-2007, 01:05
Within the next few weeks....although I could wait if there was a good reason.
If you were referring about my comment of a cheaper oblivion...the game isn't very high on my priority list, so I don't see myself buying it until it comes down in price.
Bootsiuv
10-05-2007, 03:01
On a completely unrelated note....does anyone know if adding ram to a laptop is extremely difficult. I've never had a laptop before, so I'm not too familiar with them.
I haven't had the desire to open this one up and screw something up....but with 512 MB RAM and Vista, things run a little slower than I would like.
512MB and Vista? I hope you didn't buy it like that. :sweatdrop:
The only notebook where I ever added RAM just required me to losen a screw underneath to get access to the RAM slots, was quite easy.
Soon nvidia will replace 8800gts 640 with new version, and add 8800gt.
I'm a bit confused about 8800gts 320. It will remain in prices?
EDIT: Crap, it will be removed. Choice now really depends on what display and resolution you will use. If around 1280, better if you speed up and get gts-320, if larger wait and get gt-512 to save money, or gts-640 for better perfomance...
Soon nvidia will replace 8800gts 640 with new version, and add 8800gt.
I'm a bit confused about 8800gts 320. It will remain in prices?
EDIT: Crap, it will be removed. Choice now really depends on what display and resolution you will use. If around 1280, better if you speed up and get gts-320, if larger wait and get gt-512 to save money, or gts-640 for better perfomance...
Yeah, the 8800GT is going to be Nvidia's new baby in the $200-300 price range and will come in 256meg & 512meg flavors. The 8800 GTS 320meg is going bye bye and Nvidia is rehashing the 640meg model with some more streaming processors to set it apart from the 512meg 8800GT. So far it seems the 8800GT is going to be a single slot solution but there is some concern about heat issues, I expect many of the non-stock versions will sport cooling solutions that require two slots.
The good news is that ATI's upcoming RV670 cards based on the .55nm process (2950 Pro, XT, XTX, etc.) are rumored to be surprisingly fast and extremely competitive in terms of pricing. Nvidia may finally have some serious competition in the $200-300 range in late Fall/early Winter. Since the threat from ATI's original 2900 XT fell apart Nvidia's entire 8800 line has been annoyingly overpriced. Now that ATI seems to have its act together we should see some great deals this holiday season.
Kekvit Irae
10-05-2007, 17:19
On a completely unrelated note....does anyone know if adding ram to a laptop is extremely difficult. I've never had a laptop before, so I'm not too familiar with them.
I haven't had the desire to open this one up and screw something up....but with 512 MB RAM and Vista, things run a little slower than I would like.
Echoing Husar, most laptops now have RAM placements on the bottom, where you need to remove a screw to get inside. Once you do that, it's simply a matter of putting in your new RAM chip and putting the cover back on. Easy, which is one of the reasons I bought an extra 512mb chip for my laptop (that, and my laptop is running at 256mb currently).
So far it seems the 8800GT is going to be a single slot solution but there is some concern about heat issues, I expect many of the non-stock versions will sport cooling solutions that require two slots.
It's a 65nm design, unlike the old ones which are 90nm. I also read it got 10,769 points in 3DMark06, which sounds rather weird considering that Tom's Hardware shows the 8800GTX gets less than 6000. :inquisitive:
It's a 65nm design, unlike the old ones which are 90nm. I also read it got 10,769 points in 3DMark06, which sounds rather weird considering that Tom's Hardware shows the 8800GTX gets less than 6000. :inquisitive:
65nm design or not it appears the single slot stock cooler design Nvidia chose for the 8800GT might not be terrible effective in systems where ventilation is usually lacking. This is all rumor so it means nothing right now.
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/13321
Early GeForce 8800 GTs suffer from overheating?
by Cyril Kowaliski — 9:24 AM on October 4, 2007
Reports regarding the most minute attributes of Nvidia's upcoming GeForce 8800 GT graphics cards have been appearing on rumor sites by the truckload lately. Based on those reports, we know 8800 GTs have a single-slot cooler, a 65nm graphics processor dubbed G92, and that they're expected to launch on October 29 in the $199-249 range.
The latest news is that early 8800 GT cards may be suffering from overheating problems. A new report by The Inquirer says Nvidia sent an "urgent letter" to PC vendors asking them to send in systems for "thermal analysis." The Inq says it heard the same story from several PC vendors, who added that Nvidia gave them roughly a week to comply without providing any further explanations. Since the G92 GPU is expected to be smaller than the G80 found in current GeForce 8800-series cards, The Inq speculates that the culprit is the 8800 GT's cooler, which may not be performing adequately on production hardware.
In related news, Fudzilla has word that Nvidia will retire the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB once the 8800 GTs launch. The 8800 GTS 320MB should be replaced by an 8800 GT with 512MB of memory, the site says.
Ja, 3DMark scores are always an oddity. You have to pay attention to the systems specs otherwise those numbers could mean anything. Anyway 3DMark is a synthetic benchmark that has been subject to all kinds of shenanigans by 3D chip makers throughout its history; the most notorious being clever driver workarounds by Nvidia and ATI to make the benchmark score higher for their cards. It's much wiser to pay attention to actual game benchmarks than something like 3DMark. Look at enough actual game benchmarks and you can get a much better idea what a 3D card is capable of. Remember, you can't 'play' 3DMark so it's nothing more than a glorified demo.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.