Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dooom

should I order this PC for flying?

54 posts in this topic

someone move this to support forums because they have a better idea of which way to direct you on your new pc choices.

hangar guys r just dumb jocks :)

seriously you will get better answers over there S!

Shutaaaup you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The memory bug I mean is the WWIIOL memory bug. 32bit OS system will only use about 2GB and 64bit OS sytem will only use 4GB. So, having a 8GB is waste of time/money once your OS will not use this amount of RAM.

I don't think you are making yourself very clear in that statement. 32bit Applications such as WWIIOL can only use 2GB of ram, unless they declare themselves as large address aware then they can go up to 3GB on 32bit windows, and 4gb on 64bit windows.

XP 32bit itself is limited to 4GB of ram (that includes Video card ram, thats why often you will only see 3.5gb-ish of ram available).

XP 64bit is artificially limited to 128gb, but the 64bit processors could in theory address 16 exabytes, but I believe that current 64bit processors only have a 48bit memory address bus and so only support 256gb of ram.

I myself have 5GB of ram, running on 64bit XP, which I must admit is the best Windows I have ever used (I was a big fan of 2000 pro and was a late converter to XP, waited for SP2). A few things here and there don't run, such as Diablo I and things of that age, 64bit driver support is pretty ubiquitous on anything that has been made in the last 4years. Also as all the system processes are 64 bit, most viruses and trojans made for XP do not work, as they try to hook into explorer and other system processes, but as the processes are 64bit and the viruses are not, they cannot run as a 64bit process cannot run or load a 32bit dll etc.

Having 4GB of ram or more has its advantages, as your computer will not use the page file very often so you do not get that annoying HDD stutter. If you have a multiple monitor setup like I have, 4GB or more is essential. If you are playing a game windowed, or want to open a browser on another screen there is nothing worse and having your machine have to page viciously to the HDD to pull something out of the page file and into ram and page the game from ram to the page file, and then reverse the process to go back to the game. Something that can be grueling slow.

Graphics card wise, I would avoid the GX2, I personally don't trust Nvidia to give it another driver support after the poor support for the 7950GX2. I would always build my own gaming rig rather than buying from a company.

Quad cores, if you have the cash to splash, then do it. For WWIIOL its not essential atm (as far as I am aware, its a fairly single threaded game?). If you are going to be playing other new games, like Crysis, Half-Life 2, etc they will take advantage of your quad, otherwise spend the money on a faster clocking Duo, or buy a cheapy and overclock it, and save the cash for awesome flight gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.2 Ghz

Intel MOBO DG4510

8GB DDR2 RAM

500GB SATA 300 HD 16MB, 7200rpm

LG 22x SATA DVDRW

NVIDIA 9800GTX 512 MB DDR3 PCIe 2.0

Integrated sound

Vista 64bit

Ethernet/Firewire/8 USB 2.0 ports

550Watt power supply.

You'll never get it off the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By now there's no real reason not to wait for Core i7.

Core i7/X58/6GB will be my next system.

The 8800gts 512 stays.

Vista 32

audigy 2

Not sure when though, the 2.66 GHz Core i7 is previewed at about 360 eu.

EDIT: actually it seems to be more like 400. That's a bit steep for a cpu, I may wait a bit. OTOH, that's also my work pc, so I don't necessarily have to pay all the taxes for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Dooom!

- 4gb RAM is more than necessary. You'll never use that 8GB nowadays. You'll keep getting memory bug with 8GB, for example. Windows doesn't work with that amount of memory.

8GB ftw if you use photoshop, probably overkill for flying in this game. RAM is cheap tho and tbh you can never have too much :)

Windows can use 8GB with 64 bit quite happily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at that and i aint even in front of my trailer and my car on blocks

that aint me if n i aint in ma front yard.. hell they even kut the grass at that thar place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please have a look and tell me whether it is worth 1200$

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.2 Ghz

Intel MOBO DG4510

8GB DDR2 RAM

500GB SATA 300 HD 16MB, 7200rpm

LG 22x SATA DVDRW

NVIDIA 9800GTX 512 MB DDR3 PCIe 2.0

Integrated sound

Vista 64bit

Ethernet/Firewire/8 USB 2.0 ports

550Watt power supply.

I neeeeeeeed to get back in game soon - I'm freakin out over here.

Help a brotha out - should I pull the trigger on this? I can have it in 4 days....

S!

If this will get you back in game: yes. Buy it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Integrated Sound? No No No

I used to be off the camp that Integrated Sound was good enough, but that changed after I spent some dosh on a sound card and good headphones, if you are a serious gamer, get a proper sound card like a Creative X-Fi, and a really good pair of headphone, I personally use Sennheiser HD-555, just make sure you set them up as a pair of stereo speakers rather than headphones else they sound like crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it simply, get this:

System12.png

I can guarantee that layzboy would pick almost the exact same components. Though he might try and get you to go with the 7200 ;)

Depends on how comfortable you feel overclocking. Some of those components like the RAM might not be available in the US so just go with the closest you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah man ... i hate overclocking - i like to run a really clean machine.

After reading all this i am thinking about getting the box. The card has good reviews and is easily replaceable. Vista 64 doesnt seem to be kicking wwiiol arse anymore and the ram issue is really so cheap I may as well get the 8gb for video and picture processing.

No apparant reason for quad core = unless anyone knows if IL2 BoB storm of War will use quad core???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@darg: 2GB of ram is not enough. You need at least 4GB, but also have no real need for any more than 4gb either. (unless you have multiple screens, then its more the merrier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 gigs is plenty if you're going to run xp. However, a 4 gig kit is about another 40-$50. If you buy a 2 gig kit you'll be taking up 2 slots out of 4 on your MB already. Any additional amount of ram will fill up all your ram slots on your MB since it should always be bought and installed in matched pairs of chips.

You won't stay on xp forever. When you go to vista 64 you'll want 4 gigs of ram. Just get it now so you don't have to deal with it later. Also if you get a 4 gig kit you'll have 2 slots empty on your MB. MB's generally run cooler and overclock better with less memory slots full. You'll also still have room to upgrade.

As has been said in this thread, if you want to perform well fps wise in ww2ol and most other games it is basically irrelevant how many cores you run. What most games care about is clock speed. If you look at what clock speed you can get for your money the e8500 is the best deal cpu wise on the market right now. Spend the same on a quad core and you'll get a much slower default clock speed and less fps. In addition the e8500 once overclocked is capable of outperforming everything else on the market fps wise. I don't care if you spend $1,600 on just your cpu. A e8500 near 4ghz will outperform it in games, especially in ww2ol.

I'm a cheap bastage. I just upgraded. I choose my purchases to get the best performance on the market without paying for it. Overclocking is about saving money and still getting top of the line performance. I don't know why people don't understand that? They think it's some goofy hobby for nerds. I bought the e7200 for $119 since it's the cheapest wolfdale core with a decent amount of cache. I have it running at 3.8ghz 1600fsb right now and it's idling at 19 degrees. It is smokin fast. An e8500 would probably go higher. 4ghz is really common.

I like darg's machine with a few minor changes. Get 4 gigs of ram. Get the Asus P5Qpro. It's only a few bucks more than the standard P5Q but it supports dual video cards. I would take the corsair TX650 over the HX620. The TX 650 features a single 40+amp video card 12volt rail. The HX620 is an older design with multiple 20amp rails and modular connections. Some people like modular. I'm switching back to standard because I don't like the idea of 2 connectors on every power lead. You get twice the voltage drop across connections and twice the possibility of a bad contact on a connector.

If you're going to get an intel chipset MB, which I highly recommend, you should think about running an ATI video card. Intel chipset MB's only support ATI's dual video card setups, not SLI for nvidia. If you're an nvidia fanboi then get an nvidia chipset MB if you plan on ever running dual video cards. The HD4850 and 4870 are great buys. If you run really high resolution go for the 4870 with 1 gig of vram, so you don't run out of room for big textures at 1920x1080 res.

Tom's hardware ran some stats on quads compared to overclocked dual cores in games. I snagged them while I could. As you can see a clocked up wolfdale dual can put the hurt down on the top of the line quad core pretty severely. Also look at where the e8500 places stock. 5fps behind the top of the line quad that is priced near $1,500. I really can't see spending an extra $1,325 on a QX9770 to gain 5fps over the e8500. Heck, it's only a little over a 1 fps difference in UT2004.

wolf3.png

wolf.png

Quads are for video rendering/editing, CADD, and crunching numbers. If you play games get a wolfdale. FPS/per dollar there's no comparison. Those duals are no slouch at video rendering and the like either. My dual core at 3.8ghz will transcode dvd's so fast I can hardly believe it. I transcoded a 2hr movie from fairly high quality .wmv to dvd in a little over 9 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Integrated Sound? No No No

I have my sound onboard and never had problems with that.

PS: I was an ATI fan. Now I have a 8800GTX and prolly will stay with nVidia for a looooong time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dual core is fine. The E8500 is cheap and easily overclocks if you want.

4 gig is plenty for XP or Vista in a game box

You need a bigger power supply for todays video cards, 600w is min, that Corsair is a good one, although I like their 750w better. (single rail and my pc stays up even when the lights dim/blink in a storm)

The Gigabyte DQ6 is and excelent MB, rock solid and overclocks nicely, excellent integrated sound, one of the few good ones. Bit on the expensive side however.

Antec 300 is a good case, 900 is sweet and silent.

After looking at video cards again I think a NV260 with or without a little overclock is probably the best bang for the buck in a single card solution. (guru3d.com)

If you have your heart set on your list, you really only need a bigger power supply and thats it. It will work and be fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the GTX260 is a great buy for running a single video card, but if you have a Gigabyte DQ6 and you're into computer parts you have to maybe be thinking running dual video cards is a possibility. You can't run dual GTX260's in that MB as far as I know. It's an intel chipset. The 4870 is very close if not identical in performance to the GTX260 and how much difference is it in price really? They're about the same. If you go 4870 you can potentially run dual video cards in that board. It depends on what game you bench but the 4870 can outperform the GTX260. These are from techspot.com

4870.png

48703-1.png

48702-1.png

There's more benches where the 4870 pulls ahead. The two companies have a slightly different theory on how the cards performance is stacked, so it depends on the application which one pulls ahead. So, what you'll find is review sites that like nvidia run reviews featuring games they excel in and leave games that ATI does well in out. You can slant a review either way you want depending on what you bench with.

Since the 4870 and the GTX260 perform very close I don't think it's worth giving up dual card support in an intel chipset MB simply to run an nvidia video card. ATI makes nice cards. If you look at these benches and how cheap the 4850 is you can see it's an amazing bang for buck deal. I run one.

You could go for an nvidia MB, but I really like those intel P45's and X38/48's if you got the cash. Intel MB's are just better. That kinda makes your video card brand decision for you if you ever want dual cards since nvidia won't let mainstream intel mB's support SLI. Nvidia made the best MB's for the AMD processor but it seems intel just knows their processors better and since AMD bought ATI that whole nvidia/AMD chipset thing is over. Nvidia hasn't quite gotten back to form building intel MB's.

I do like the TX750 it's got the beefier 60 amp 12 volt rail and it's only 10-20$ more than the TX650. If you're thinking high top end video cards then the TX750 might be a good idea. I don't think anything bigger than that is necessary. You can spend more on a PSU if you want but it won't give you a single fps over the TX750 and they've ran dual GTX280's without issues. Check out the net. The TX650 corsair has the video rail output of most manufacturers 800watters. It's much beefier than anything else below 700 that's for sure. I have one and I'm not going to break a sweat when I hook it up to any video card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have my sound onboard and never had problems with that.

PS: I was an ATI fan. Now I have a 8800GTX and prolly will stay with nVidia for a looooong time.

Onboard doesn't have near the directional awareness of a true hardware accelerated xfi card. If you play the ground game and listen a lot for enemy close up and in the distance on headphones onboard just plain is not as good. Don't be fooled by the cheaper sound cards that are actually software driven and no better than MB sound. If you just fly onboard might be fine and you can always buy a soundcard later.

The HD4800 series ATI cards put an end to the 8800's dominance. ATI/Nvidia are on about even footing performance wise now. It was really just that 1 generation of cards where nvidia got a lead for a while. For 90% of their history ATI has made just as good of a card, sometimes better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they are close, but the 260 has been overclocking to near 280 speeds for many so I still contend it a better single card solution for the buck. Dual cards it changes, although dual cards have their own issues from time to time while waiting for a driver patch to get them running again. I admit I thought long and hard about buying the Intel MB knowing it wouldnt SLI Nvidia gear, but stability won out in the end, as it should. I'll also admit I'm an old codger that ran many an ATI board in the past and wouldnt run another one if it was free., so my bias is on the table also.. :) Both are good cards by all accounts so it comes down to price, preference, and future upgradeability as far as dual modes. Personally I prefer single card solutions. Even the X2 Nvidia offerings have had issues with some games until patched, but I would prefer that over dual ATI's. (and theyre Canadian you know) :)

http://www.guru3d.com/category/vga_charts/

vgacrysismt4.png

vgacod4qm8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that 3dguru actually put out call of duty4 benches (A game ATI does well in). Dual 4870's totally stomps dual GTX280's in that game. He's be set up to run that with an intel chipset MB.

Check out how well dual 4850's does. They outperform dual GTX280's at the lower resolutions for so much less money it's not funny. On the last video card buyers guide I read at tomshardware their top recommendation was dual 4850's. They claimed buying more than that just wasn't worth the money for the gain in performance. If you shop around you can find 4850's on special for $139. Goof just bought a pair. I know another friend that just built a machine with two. It runs freakin great in vista32 playing AOC and a few other newer online games.

What's your reason for bias towards nvidia? I've ran nothing but ATI in my own machines since 2000 and I've never had problems with any of my cards. They all ran great for the games at the time. You just have to know exactly what models to buy. They've made some really crappy mid and low range model cards and some people that got stuck with them started hating ATI. All their high end cards rocked. The 2900xt was only slightly lackluster compared to the 8800's. I always recommend ATI when I build and only use nvidia at the insistence of the one who's buying. Crysis is a game nvidia runs a little better in.

I've owned:

Rage128pro All-in-Wonder 32meg

Radeon8500DV AIW 64meg

Radeon9700pro 128meg

Radeonx800xt AIW 256meg

Radeonx1950pro 512meg

RadeonHD4850 512meg

They all still run in various relatives and friends machines to this day. All on the stock fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I'm old. I had some ATI crap back in the day (90's) and I have this thing about getting burned more than once and saying never again. The drivers just sucked and they did nothing to fix them. I never had a problem with Nvidia gear and they have been fast enough that I could occasionally skip a generation change before I needed to buy again. Today, the high end cards are all blindingly fast so the difference is minimal in most games. In fact both border on overkill at low resolutions. I have a 26" 19x12 Doublesight LCD, and the Nvidia gear handles the higher resolutions a bit better as a single card solution. I am happy ATI is competitive, they hold Nvidias prices down to a reasonable level. Otherwise it would be 3Dfx all over again.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would welcome a new company. It would be refreshing to have even more choices. I wish 3dfx was still around. I want a new Voodoo 12! I didn't get into computer building until 1999-2000 so I think I missed out on the whole ATI driver fiasco. I've never had any significant issues with ATI drivers since I started using them that they didn't fix in a fairly timely manner. Some of you computer guys hold a grudge forever. A company makes some bad drivers in the 90's and they still suck in 2008.. =) I gave up my Asus grudge and bought a new P5Qpro.

My buddy picked up the top dog Radeon card when they first hit the market in 2000 and it stomped *** at the time all over the gforce. That's what first got me into ATI. The 9700 was a great card too that was really ahead of it's time, the 3rd generation radeon.

If you looked closely at the design of the current cards from both companies you'd probably pick ATI. ATI has shrunk down to the 55nm manufacturing process on their GPU's. The 4850 series GPU is the first one to perform over 1 teraflop in folding@home. Nvidia's gtx280 GPU can't do it (800gigaflops). The 4870 does 1.2tflps. Nvidia's rely on a superior shader unit and stream processor architecture tweaked to some applications to pull their cards ahead. ATI is stacked with raw GPU power. That shader design and the current nvidia GPU are way more expensive to build and that's why nvidia's GTX series was priced so much higher than the 4800 series.

The ATI 4800 series is a much more efficient and clean design than what it's competing with. I've heard that nvidia is nearly losing money on every card it sells right now just to remain competitive. They had such deep pockets from selling 8800's like hotcakes and being first on the market with the current generation of cards.

I just hope that AMD can mount a good comeback in the gaming cpu market or ATI might falter. Intel has been beating AMD handily for over 2 years now. They need to pick it up and make things interesting again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.