Slashdot Mirror
The Best Gaming PC Money Can Buy
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."
Budget machine has a quad core? And is almost a grand?
Tom's Hardware does these, and the budget is usually closer to the $600 mark, with the mid range around $1200.
And the fact that they put two optical BD burners on the extreme one (one on each page) makes me think that this article was slapped together instead of fully investigated. Where's the benchmarks? The proof that you built a good machine?
Looks like a buncha kids opened up newegg and built themselves machines in their head...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
These PC's are low-end when compared to my overclocked Commodore 64.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
last time i checked, the i7 boards had 6 ram slots, for an easy 12GB. Also im pretty sure its possible to find boards with atleast 3 PCI-E slots, so they are missing an extra graphics card there. 6 SATA slots is also do-able, so with one to the BD burner, that leaves 5 for a raid 5 SSD config to give 1TB of SSD. And only one screen? 3 cards means 6 screens, i feel they missed some obvious extras
In 1 years time, it will be worth 40% of what they paid for it. That's an investement, isn't it? Heck, it's not even a bad investement these days.
There is nothing wrong, per se, with buying such things; but the notion that you are "investing" in them is patent nonsense.
This. You put central air/heat into your house, you're investing it. You put money into a company, you're investing it. You fork out about $3000 to build a computer that is completely overkill, you're NOT investing it. An investment is when you'll see some sort of profit from it, so unless if you're a professional gamer and it will make your frag count increase by 23.2%, it's not an investment.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
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
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.
Perhaps their belief that it's "investing" is an indication of why we're currently in the middle of an economic crisis.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's articles that really do pc gaming a disservice. All you need to get pc gaming at reasonable resolutions is a decent mid range card like a 9600 or 9800. I have an 8800 GTS 512 and even on the absolute newest games I still achieve great framerates on good looking settings.
You can easily tell the difference between 100fps and 10000fps by looking at high contrast fast motion. Human eyes don't see in frames, but the point where increasing framerate won't cause any perceptible difference is probably in the thousands of fps.
Here's a good explanation of the issues of motion reproduction:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx
An investment is when you'll see some sort of profit from it, so unless if you're a professional gamer and it will make your frag count increase by 23.2%, it's not an investment.
So I take it you put a fairly low value on personal enjoyment and satisfaction? BACK TO THE SALT MINES WITH YOU, SLAVE!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
While I agree, the counterpoint is that you get a lot of diminishing returns for your PC investment. Depending upon what you get, maybe $800 well spent (not counting the monitor) will get you 80 fps.
Bump your PC spending to $1800, and the extra $1000 gives you better graphics, maybe 120 fps, maybe 200, whatever. But unless you have money to burn, that extra grand wasn't well spent. Just put it into the bank, and buy another $800 machine in 3 years.
See, we live in an analog world which has essentially infinite FPS.
The Planck time allows for only around 1.86x10^43 fps, which is nowhere even close to infinity.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The Planck time allows for only around 1.86x10^43 fps, which is nowhere even close to infinity.
Holy frak. What sort of high-spec machine is our universe running on then?
64.0 fps should be enough for anyone!
If investing for you means exclusively monetary returns, then you forgot the reason you need money in the first place. You failed to invest in your life.
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