Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Best Gaming PC Money Can Buy

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the don't-we-post-this-every-few-months dept.

SlappingOysters writes "Gameplayer has gone live with their best PC hardware configurations for Q1 2009. They've broken it into three tiers depending on the investor's budget. And while the prices are regional, it is comparative across the globe. The site has also detailed the 10 Hottest PC Games of 2009 to unveil the software on the horizon which may seduce gamers into an upgrade."

3 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The thing about these machines is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your eyes can only pickup 80fps anyway; you wouldn't know if it was 100 or 10,000 fps unless the fps counter didn't say.

    It doesn't matter what your eyes can see. It's about responsiveness. Faster rendering makes the game more responsive. See, we live in an analog world which has essentially infinite FPS. The closer a game gets to that then the better it feels because it will respond at the exact microsecond you do something. It does make a very real difference.

    Now granted many people don't care otherwise there wouldn't be people like you that think "80 FPS is enough for anyone." Gunny how that number keeps creeping upwards. First it was 24 FPS (because that was all the eye could see), then 30, then 60, now you're saying 80. LOL

  2. What games don't run in 64-bit Windows? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, I'm honestly curious. I'm a huge PC gamer and I run Vista 64-bit. All 32-bit Windows apps, which accounts for most games made in the last 10 years or so, seem to run great natively. For older DOS games, well those don't run well in 32-bit Windows. You get no sound, video problems, etc. The NTVDM isn't really good fro games. So what you do is fire up DOSBox, which runs them great. However that runs just as well in 64-bit as it does in 32-bit.

    Thus far, I don't see any gaming problems with a 64-bit OS. So if you know of some, I'd be interested in what they are.

  3. Re:The thing about these machines is by wgaryhas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    depending on the monitor's refresh rate, 80 fps may be the best a monitor can do: 8 ms response time = 125 fps 12 ms = 83 fps 16 ms = 63 fps And many monitors have response times of 12 ms or more. So if you aren't paying attention, you could build a system that updates faster than the monitor can display.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken