Build an $800 Gaming PC

ThinSkin writes "Building a computer that can handle today's games doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg. In fact, you can build one for less than $800, especially given that many hardware manufacturers have cut costs considerably. Loyd Case over at ExtremeTech shows gamers how to build an $800 gaming PC, one that features an overclockable Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 and a graphics-crunching EVGA 260 GTX Core 216. The computer exceeded expectations in gaming and synthetic tests, and was even overclocked well over spec at 3.01GHz."

Comments

all that power...

[MeatBag PussRocket]

Yeah but can it run windows7?

  i kid i kid!

Re:all that power...

[msormune]

Yeah, but can it run linux and work with modern eye candy enabled in X11 without any lockups?

I'm not kidding.

Re:all that power...

[bored_engineer]

Don't kid too much! Can it run Windows XP under Windows 7? Nope.

Re:all that power...

[Kokuyo]

I AM running Windows 7 on a Core 2 machine (1.8 GHz-ish) with 2 gigs of RAM. So far, everything works surprisingly well.

Re:all that power...

[Korin43]

Pretty much anything with a recent video card can do that..

Re:all that power...

[jo42]

I AM running Windows 7 on a Core 2 machine (1.8 GHz-ish) with 2 gigs of RAM. So far, everything works surprisingly well.

Well, duh!

The question is if it will run well on a 2.4 GHz P4 with 256MB of RAM and 40GB hard disk. Something XP and Linux do very, very well.

Re:all that power...

[Schemat1c]

The question is if it will run well on a 2.4 GHz P4 with 256MB of RAM and 40GB hard disk. Something XP and Linux do very, very well.

XP with less then 512MB? Not so well.

Re:all that power...

[hardwarejunkie9]

The real question isn't whether or not it can run Linux, but whether or not the drivers are entirely compatible. It's never fun to spend money on a graphics upgrade to find out that the drivers for your equipment are hopelessly under equipped for the job. Also, if you're a dire Linux fan you may not want to run the blob drivers rather than the open source variants, which could put a hitch in your step.

Re:all that power...

[Korin43]

Get an nVidia card. It'll work. I heard that the ATI drivers are getting better now too, but I've never actually had an ATI card..

$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Check these cheapies out. They are only Cheeto encrusted.

Around $300
Around $500
Around $200

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Check these cheapies out. They are only Cheeto encrusted."

But many of the games are lame and dumbed down for the crowd of gaming bottom feeders... *ducks*

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[MeatBag PussRocket]

i have the one around $500 and its great, only thing is i cant do spreadsheets, email, /. , etc with it. so thats my gaming rig but i still need a whitebox (like the one i'm typing on now) that doesnt always work for everyone

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[alvinrod]

They're not gaming PCs. The only one that comes close is the PS3 which could run Linux, but since it can't actually access the GPU it's not exactly going to be a gaming behemoth.

I know that consoles are a perfectly legitimate gaming platform, but posting about their cheap cost in article about PC gaming is like posting about the specs of a high end PC in a thread about console gaming.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Bageloid]

Erm, it runs linux ya know.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[MeatBag PussRocket]

as does the ps3, ya know.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Bageloid]

Great, i misread your first comment... i need sleep...

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be his point...

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[CronoCloud]

The only one that comes close is the PS3 which could run Linux, but since it can't actually access the GPU it's not exactly going to be a gaming behemoth.

True, it can't access the RSX under Linux, but it's still a PS3. One:

ps3-boot-game-os

in a terminal and it boots right back into GameOS so you can play your PS3 games or in my case, my PS3/PS2/PS1 games.

And even under Linux you can still play games, there's always Nethack, or Jools, or Megamek, or Epyx Rogue under Dosbox, or the PC version of Diablo under QEMUized Win95.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[MeatBag PussRocket]

though the two are coming very close to merging in some way. there was a time when i would NEVER consider a console for games, but considering where the development has gone, i find very few appealing titles that are exclusive to the PC- most i can get on my console and not have to worry about compatibility, framerates etc. at an $800 price point you could get a PS3 and a netbook and do everything that gaming rig does, but do it better, have a laptop and a gaming rig and not really have to worry if the console breaks (not likely - save for the RROD on the360) you still can do your work on the laptop. it really is a valid counter point to a gaming rig, an i think to have a conversation about gaming hardware and not acknowledge the alternative is just ignorant. if you cant rationally consider that then you probably have no business spending $800 on a toy

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[masmullin]

parent deserves modded up... not offtopic at all.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[masmullin]

so get a netbook to surf/email/spreadshit... Xbox360 + netbook has got to be cheaper than 800!

and seriously, spreadsheets are so 90s!

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[passiveNecro]

but how much is x360 + netbook + tv?

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[BikeHelmet]

But then, it really depends how much money you want to spend on your games.

I pick all my games up on Steam when those 75% off sales come around.

TF2 - $10
Left4Dead - $20
Assassin's Creed - $10
Universe at War - $5

I imagine by the time I've bought 20 games, I've saved money by spending more money on a gaming PC.

But y'know, if you have no morals(or are a college student), PC games cost nothing! :P

most i can get on my console and not have to worry about compatibility, framerates etc.

Plus, you know, it's a PC, so you never have to worry about framerates like you do on a console. Have you seen the shit FPS a lot of those games get? I sure can tell when they drop below 60! At least with 25% of my computer's budget being spent on the GPU, I know it'll never lag for this generation of games.

And besides, I couldn't live without my mouse and keyboard. :) I imagine if I played Left4Dead on XBoxlive, I'd sorely miss all the accusations of aim hax.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[artor3]

Ah, but you're not spending $800 on a toy. You're taking a purchase that you would have made anyway, and upgrading it to also act as a toy. Those upgrades (graphics card and maybe a better CPU than you'd otherwise get) cost around $300.

I upgraded my old college desktop to a gaming rig 4 years ago, at a price of $350, and still have no problem playing modern games. I'd say it's about even with consoles in terms of bang for your buck.

On the other hand, there are those who always have to have the latest hardware and the best framerates, and end up dropping $2 grand on a PC every year or two. I could never justify that sort of cost, but then, I don't see the allure in collecting model ships or fine tuning my car either.

For the record, I also own an Xbox 360, and I greatly enjoy it as well (when it's not blinking those three accursed lights at me).

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[hack slash]

and seriously, spreadsheets are so 90s!

That doesn't make them any less useful.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Greg_D]

How much for gaming rig + cinema display?

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[bemymonkey]

A gaming rig that does what a PS3 can do isn't all too expensive. Say 700 Euros (probably $700 US over there) including a 200 Euro TFT...

If all you need for your computing needs is a netbook, sure, going with a console isn't such a bad idea. But if you're going to be spending $500 on a new PC anyway, you might as well stuff in $50 more for a decent graphics card and game on that...

For instance, I've never gotten into console gaming because I don't need to - I've always had decent PC hardware for reasons other than gaming (video encoding, real-time audio apps), so PC gaming was the logical way to go. If you don't need a powerful PC for stuff like that, a console might not be such a bad idea.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[tepples]

I know that consoles are a perfectly legitimate gaming platform, but posting about their cheap cost in article about PC gaming is like posting about the specs of a high end PC in a thread about console gaming.

Then why don't more PC game publishers make console-style multiplayer games to be played on PCs connected to TVs?

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[tepples]

I pick all my games up on Steam when those 75% off sales come around.

In fact, a 75% off sale is the only time when PC games are actually cheaper than console games. Typically on a PC, you need four copies of the game for four players, unlike on a console where you need one copy of a game such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl for you and the three friends visiting your home.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[pdboddy]

This is a specious argument though. Sure, you only need one copy of Super Smash Bros. But that means all your buddies have to come to your place to play. Where as the four people each with their own game can join in from where ever they are. Party games don't have to mean everyone in one place.

There's a time and place for everything.

Seriously though, the computer game vs console game argument is about as useful as MacOS vs Windows, Fedex vs UPS, and so on and so forth. Consoles have their advantages, as do computers.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't need a cinema display to play a PC game. a 1680x1050 monitor is going to give an imagine quality that is hard to tell from a hd tv for gaming purposes.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[MeatBag PussRocket]

2 words... Game Stop.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[tepples]

This is a specious argument though. Sure, you only need one copy of Super Smash Bros. But that means all your buddies have to come to your place to play.

But they already are at my place for other reasons, such as they're under 18 and I'm babysitting them, or their parents are here for an annual family reunion. Their parents won't let them just pack up the family PC and bring it to my place to play a game.

Where as the four people each with their own game can join in from where ever they are.

What game still runs well over dial-up? I have relatives who live out in the country, where an 0.05 Mbps v.90 connection is considered "high speed". And how would I talk everybody into buying a copy of the same game?

Seriously though, the computer game vs console game argument is about as useful as MacOS vs Windows

No, Mac OS X vs. Windows is closer to Xbox 360 vs. PS3.

Consoles have their advantages, as do computers.

So what do I do when I want one advantage of consoles (games that don't need a separate machine, a separate monitor, and a separate copy of the game per player) and one advantage of PCs (game mods and indie games)?

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do I do when I want one advantage of consoles (games that don't need a separate machine, a separate monitor, and a separate copy of the game per player) and one advantage of PCs (game mods and indie games)?

Buy both and STFU?

Or market your own solution that has the advantages of both and make $$$ if you can sell it.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Buy both and STFU?

But their games are still disjoint. I own a Wii and a PC and games for both. The titles for Wii happen to lack moddability, and the titles for PC happen to lack shared-screen multiplayer. Or where do I get moddable shared-screen games?

Or market your own solution that has the advantages of both and make $$$ if you can sell it.

As a programmer, where do I find the artist and the businessman?

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, i could either spend $400 on a PC which can play crysis, or i could spend $400 on a PS3 which can play fucking Diablo and nethack? Yeah I see your point, the PS3 is obviously completely relevant as a "gaming pc".

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[pdboddy]

What game still runs well over dial-up? I have relatives who live out in the country, where an 0.05 Mbps v.90 connection is considered "high speed". And how would I talk everybody into buying a copy of the same game?

Heh, so if they're out in the country, it's cheaper in gas to have them drive in all the time for a night of Wii sports?

So what do I do when I want one advantage of consoles (games that don't need a separate machine, a separate monitor, and a separate copy of the game per player) and one advantage of PCs (game mods and indie games)?

Suck it up and buy both?

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[pdboddy]

I think this post takes the thread. :)

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[tepples]

What game still runs well over dial-up? I have relatives who live out in the country, where an 0.05 Mbps v.90 connection is considered "high speed".

Heh, so if they're out in the country, it's cheaper in gas to have them drive in all the time for a night of Wii sports?

I'm not coming just to play video games. I happen to be at their home or vice versa for some other reason.

So what do I do when I want one advantage of consoles (games that don't need a separate machine, a separate monitor, and a separate copy of the game per player) and one advantage of PCs (game mods and indie games)?

Suck it up and buy both?

If I buy both, then the console game still won't be moddable, and the PC title game won't have shared-screen multiplayer.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[MrAngryForNoReason]

In fact, a 75% off sale is the only time when PC games are actually cheaper than console games.

That is hardly the case. Most pc games are half the price of the console version on release. Left 4 Dead was £22 on release on PC and is still £40 on the Xbox in most places.

Super Smash Bros Brawl is one of very few games that have everyone playing on one view. Normally four player means hoping the game supports split screen and then putting up with a quarter of the tv, and reduced graphical fidelity to keep the frame rate playable.

I am not saying that split screen isn't fun, just that it isn't available on all games and doesn't offer the full game experience.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[tepples]

Super Smash Bros Brawl is one of very few games that have everyone playing on one view.

Bomberman and Gauntlet are other examples you might see cited. If they did support LAN play, all the machines would be rendering the exact same picture to all the monitors anyway.

Normally four player means hoping the game supports split screen and then putting up with a quarter of the tv, and reduced graphical fidelity to keep the frame rate playable.

That or each player's view is ordinarily taller than wide, and an 8:9 or 4:9 view for each player fits fine inside the 16:9 frame of an HDTV. That's the case for Tetris or Dr. Mario.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[CronoCloud]

Let me say again, a PS3 with a Linux install is still a PS3, meaning it can still play PS3 games when you boot into what SCEfoo calls GameOS: Resistance, MGS4, Fallout 3, Oblivion, The Orange Box, Killzone, whatever. It's kind of like, but not exactly like dual booting between Linux for day to day uses and Windows just for the games.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[pdboddy]

Ok, now you're stretching things quite thin. Since neither can satisfy you, don't buy either. :) Get a pack of cards and a chessboard instead.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[MikeBabcock]

I buy most of my console games used from the local rental place. Most of my PS3 games cost me between $15 and $25. That may not be $5, but its not like everyone pays full bang.

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[s1lverl0rd]

You use your $$$ Playstation 3 to play DOS games? I could have given you something that plays DOS games for half price (evil grin)

Re:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[Chosen Reject]

I believe the most relevant terms that you don't seem to be grasping is Gaming PC. You seem to get the gaming part, but you are missing out on the PC part. IOW, this article is about building a "gaming PC" for $800. It is not about being able to play games for $800. It is about building a PC, specifically in order to play PC games. As the PS3 cannot play PC games, it does not fit in well as a PC gaming machine.

HTH. HAND.

Yay, overclocking!

[Culture20]

That $800 PC will be worth much less soon when the CPU fries.

Re:Yay, overclocking!

[cenc]

First, most of the overclocking taboo today is just marketing gimic.

Yea, you can fry out your processor being stupid with it, but the vast majority of people will be able to OC their processors in a very stable way for long periods with no problems. Chances are unless they are doing really crazy crap, the processor will be outdated (like by the time it got out of the box) before it looses any life from an OC.

The AMD black edition for example. Yea, AMD does not endorse it but they are actively marketing a processor for overclocking. The MB makers are providing all the tools including on many motherboards the auto features that stop newbies from burning it out. point and click over clocking, with an edge of danger to get people to do it without really doing it.

I even buy my low end workstations at my office with the intent of overclocking them when they start to reach their end of life. Gives me another year out of them, when I would have replaced them anyway. At that point I got nothing to loose. Well, at least it gives me something cool to do with them before retiring them to spare parts.

Re:Yay, overclocking!

[toddestan]

I even buy my low end workstations at my office with the intent of overclocking them when they start to reach their end of life. Gives me another year out of them, when I would have replaced them anyway. At that point I got nothing to loose. Well, at least it gives me something cool to do with them before retiring them to spare parts.

What's the point in that? I don't see why I would risk crashes/corruption/instability on a machine I count on for a job. Plus, I don't see how overclocking old hardware really makes a difference anyway - does overclocking your P4 1.8Ghz to 2.2Ghz really mean much when a new machine is going to be far faster than either?

Sure will

[Mr EdgEy]

It's not the same core as the 3GHz models or anything, oh wait

Re:Sure will

[hedwards]

Most of the time when Intel or AMD underclocks it, there's a good reason. That's not to say that it can't be done in a reliable and safe fashion, but often times it's because the chips aren't guaranteed to work reliably at the designed frequency.

Sort of like how the tri-core Phenoms are quad-core Phenoms with one of the cores inoperable. Yes, sometimes they have in the past down clocked them just for supply and demand reasons, but I'm not aware of that happening in recent memory.

Re:Sure will

[PitaBred]

Except not. They need the lower binned parts to supply people who can't afford the faster ones. A lot of times they have great yields, but they just can't sell enough CPU's at $300/ea so they disable a core and sell it as an X3, or clock it down. Really... only on the very first runs of a new process is it more likely to be the scenario you propose.

Re:Sure will

[hedwards]

You'll have to forgive my skepticism. But wouldn't that be a pretty blatant violation of anti-trust rules? Not producing enough of a processor is legitimate, but deliberately mislabeling or manipulating produced ones to make a false scarcity is pushing the limits of anti-trust regulations if not actually violating them.

Re:Sure will

[artor3]

Of course not. It's called dividing up the market (I'm sure there's a technical term for it), and it's completely legitimate. If someone can't afford your top product, you make a scaled down version for them. You can't just give them the top product for a lower price, because then no one would pay that higher price. But at the same time, there's no reason to waste development money purposefully making a worse design. So you just modify the existing design to be worse.

Consider TV or internet services. There are tiered plans, not because the Cable company runs out of premium packages to sell, but because they know that not everyone wants to fork over the dough to 2000 channels.

Re:Sure will

[BikeHelmet]

No it isn't, because of the nature of how the consumer demands they price their CPUs.

Lets look at the P4 to C2D jump.

They still need money for R&D, so what are they supposed to do? Charge $100 for a 3.6ghz Pentium D(R&D all paid up), and $800 for a 1.8ghz Core 2 Duo? Good luck selling that to consumers.

Nope. We demand prices based on the performance we get - not the realities of the product. If a P4 costs $100 then an equivalent performance C2D must cost close to that - lets say $150 - or we won't buy it. Intel would clearly have no choice but to sell a higher performing part for more money, to cover the R&D costs - but how can they do that without selling lower performing parts?

Answer: They can't. And there you have the reason it's not anti-trust. Consumers demand that that companies supply a product for a competitive price. It's up to the company to figure out how the heck they balance their books.

Now...

Lately I've noticed both Intel and AMD are targeting overclockers. First Intel with their hugely overclockable C2D's, and now AMD with their core unlockable Phenom II's. Near as I can tell, just about every tri-core Phenom II is a working quad. :O I must admit, they've got my money this time around!

Re:Sure will

[PitaBred]

It's not a false scarcity. It's no different than a farmer selling some of his corn to supermarkets, and the stuff he can't he sells as cattle feed. It's the exact same product, it's just that he's meeting the demand of it. Anti-trust isn't selling your stuff at a loss, or selling something better as something lower class. Anti-trust is when you do it to lock out other competitors. It's just good business sense to sell what you have rather than making them all uber-expensive chips. Do you really think a Lexus costs THAT much more than a Toyota to build? Or that it's that much higher quality, other than a little nicer finish and better electronics?

Re:Sure will

[cskrat]

Overclocking is still a gamble. And given that we don't actually know how many chips are binned down artificially vs. the number that are binned down for a reason, there's no way to know the odds of taking that gamble. Getting your hopes up on buying a cheaper chip and overclocking it is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

That being said, why do I never see anyone reviewing an overclocked system report on the actual ambient temperatures during the test? I'm sure there's a difference in what speed you can hit depending on whether you're in a 70 or 100 degree environment. Unfortunately, I cannot finish this paragraph without leading into a rant filled with run-on sentences.

Let me just say, if you're trying to build a budget PC then there's a good chance you don't have the extra cash (or the inclination to spend it) to replace a burnt out system. However, if you have time and money to burn and a spare computer to get you on Newegg to replace the one you're screwing with, go for it.

Re:Sure will

[mgblst]

Exactly, it is called segmenting the market.

You might as well complain that Microsoft sell different versions of Windows, they all cost the same. They all have the same media, box, it doesn't cost any extra to burn a different image.

Re:Sure will

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. It's called dividing up the market (I'm sure there's a technical term for it),

Market Segmentation.

Re:Sure will

[Chabil Ha']

Segmenting is not 'anti-trust'. You'll find that many electronics manufacturers create the same electronics, just disable special features for a product family because it is cheaper to fab one kind of part than it is to manufacture 5 different pieces of electronics with similar function but different features. It is much, much cheaper to 'cripple' hardware by limiting what the software will allow.

I bought a DV camcorder a few years ago that was a model step below the 'premium' one (difference of a few hundred dollars) and hardware-wise it was an exact duplicate, just missing some firmware and drivers. A few clever hacks later, I had the premium camera in hand, along with the money I had saved.

Re:Sure will

[melstav]

You misunderstand the situation.

They're not manipulating produced chips to produce a false scarcity.

The X3 chips, just like the original Intel Celerons were born because somebody said "Gee, we've got all of these chips that *mostly* work except for one of the cores / the cache / XX feature. If we use some microcode to work around the dead portion of the chip, we can still sell them!"

When they run out of the "defective" chips, either because of high demand or because their process improves to produce fewer of them, they have to choose between saying "oops, sorry. we're out of them" or taking perfectly good chips and lobotomizing them.

 

Re:Sure will

[amoeba1911]

Call now to order HBO and Showtime! Don't delay, supplies are limited!

Re:Sure will

[FlyingBishop]

*cough cough* Windows 7 *cough* Starter *cough*

Honestly, that's every Windows OS since XP.

Yeah, sure, it's software. But it's essentially the same scenario: rather than creating a lower-power but equal cost imprinting of the processor (a Pro disc also costs exactly the same as a Home disk) they just disable shit and sell you the same thing at a lower cost.

Re:Sure will

[Anonymous Coward]

I marked you down because using *coughing* in writing is just dumb.

Re:Sure will

[Hatta]

You might as well complain that Microsoft sell different versions of Windows, they all cost the same. They all have the same media, box, it doesn't cost any extra to burn a different image

Why is that not a valid complaint?

Re:Sure will

[PitaBred]

It's a valid complaint. It's just not illegal.

Re:Sure will

[MikeBabcock]

Some people bothered complaining back when Windows NT 4.0 Server and Workstation were only a few bytes different from each other, but it didn't do them any good.

you dont need this shit

[Anonymous Coward]

spend $400, get one thats 90% of this speed, in a year sell it for face value on craigslist, rinse and repeat.

I've been getting free upgrades for many years now.

Re:you dont need this shit

[JumperCable]

What's your suggested build?

Re:you dont need this shit

[Anonymous Coward]

800$ CAN and you have a good PC (only box/PS/HD/CPU/VidCard/Ram).
800$ US is more than enough to build a decent system that run the lastest game at high settings (Perhaps not highest... but high)
400$... you'll have only shitty pieces of hardware that doesn't always fit well together... (Ex: Lowcost Asus board with 95w max for cpu.. GRR).. at least you need to be careful and READ specs before buying. But it's not impossible :D

Re:you dont need this shit

[LordLimecat]

Go to newegg and add the stuff with 1600 5star ratings to your cart. Throw in a little common sense and 5 minutes of research and youll hit that $400 mark.

This has worked for many years now.

Re:you dont need this shit

[StuffMaster]

Face value? Really? I'd upgrade more often if I could get a decent return for the used system. Perhaps I'll try that.

More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

are there any PC games left worth playing that aren't 4-5 years old?

Seems every company has abandoned the market, you might as well buy a 360 or PS3 and be just as well off.

Re:More to the point

[freedom_india]

Yes:
Civilization III
Company of Heroes: MP
Age of Empires 2: MP
Democracy 2
Political Machine.
There are lots.
You just need to see beyond the hype.

Re:More to the point

[Omestes]

Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console. I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs. Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out, and to be able to download patches for buggy games, and extra content for the expandable ones. Consoles also suck for RTS games, as in there aren't any to speak of.

Also PCs are cheaper to deal with, once you have one for gaming. Throw in a $80 video card every 2-3 years and your good to go. This seems to be slowing down as well, so I wouldn't doubt it if your 4-5 year old card works fine.

Right now a decent video card gets you better graphics than on a console as well. As consoles age their hardware gets dated, and can only look modern by software tweaks.

Yes, more expensive to begin with, but it does more than just sit in your living room and collect dust.

Also, why the heck would I want to buy a console with either a 50% failure rate (360), or one that costs a heap more than its functionality warrants? Neither of which even come close to a computer when you don't pony up $1500 for a new TV graphics wise.

Also, can you play Dwarf Fortress II or Nethack on your big fancy PS3, out of the box?

Re:More to the point

[Kokuyo]

Perhaps I am missing something, but Civ III just MUST be older than the parent's 4-5 year spectrum.

Re:More to the point

[majorme]

And Age of Empires 2 was released back in Feb 1996, which makes it 13 years old now.

doh, why do I even bother. He's going to be modded 5 and I'll be -859365834 troll for speaking the truth :)

Re:More to the point

[bronney]

yah matey, I totally agree. PC gaming just beats consoles, just look at GTA4 and other genre you mentioned.

I do have some consoles around for the "gatherings" and occasional chick visits, you know, like in Sims 3.

Re:More to the point

[LKM]

There are definitely reasons for preferring a PC, but some of yours don't make much sense :-)

Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console. I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs.

It takes some getting used to, and you'll never be as good with a controller than with keyboard and mouse, but it's not as bad as many PC gamers pretend it is. Besides, lots of good FPS never make it to PCs.

Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out,

True, but on the other hand, nothing prevents you from also using a laptop, netbook or iPhone while playing a game on a console.

and to be able to download patches for buggy games,

In my opinion, that's not a plus, it's a minus because the main result of this is that games are released in what is essentially an unfinished state. Unfortunately, the PS3 and Xbox now also allow patches for buggy games, so some console games are released with gameplay-killing bugs, too.

and extra content for the expandable ones.

The same applies to consoles.

Consoles also suck for RTS games, as in there aren't any to speak of.

That has changed in recent years. Even the Wii has a neat little RTS with Swords & Soldiers.

Also PCs are cheaper to deal with, once you have one for gaming. Throw in a $80 video card every 2-3 years and your good to go.

The PC update race is slowing somewhat, but on average, console hardware is still cheaper (although games tend to cost more).

Re:More to the point

[Jartan]

How exactly are you going to get good "PC games" on a console? There are still entire genre's that are just ass on a console. For the action types a console just isn't any good for FPS and RTS games. For MMO's you go PC or you don't play at all. Consoles have some good strategy games in the tactics style RPG's but the deeper strategy games like Civ 4 or Gal Civ are ignored on consoles for the most part.

Really if you are a PC gamer there is still no way you can just dump your PC and survive on console games alone.

Re:More to the point

[Verunks]

And Age of Empires 2 was released back in Feb 1996, which makes it 13 years old now.

dude age of empires 1 is from 1997 and 2 is from 1999

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I just finished warcraft 3 for the first time last week. I had loads of fun.

about 2 months before that I had a go at Simon the sorcerer 1 and was very happy playing it.

next games: heroes of might and magic 3 & 4

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

You're actually going to be modded -859365834 for failing at sarcasm

Re:More to the point

[freedom_india]

Hmmm...
Considering i have a 38.4MBps connection to the 'net supplemented by a backup connection (from another ISP) of 2Mbps, both of which are NOT throttled in any way, and i have the freedom to download anything anytime i want, plus indian equivalent of FCC actually man dating net neutrality as per law and sending to jail company execs that don't obey their advertised speed limits, and the fact i can buy a 9800GTX+ in the next door PC shop, AND got Spore one day earlier than released in US, yeah i guess we are pretty backward.
BTW, how's comcast treating you now?

Re:More to the point

[majorme]

true, the game was released a few months before StarCraft. slashdot wouldn't let me edit my post, though.

Re:More to the point

[bemymonkey]

I'm guessing most people on Slashdot have an internet connection... they just don't feel the need to brag about it. Learn to recognize humor ;)

As for your government agencies "man dating", I don't even want to know what that's about... :p

Re:More to the point

[Fred_A]

Bragging that you can get better connectivity pretty much anywhere in the world other than the US is a bit like racing a legless kid. It isn't done in polite company.
(at other times of course...)

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

to be able to download patches for buggy games

Console games try the other approach, which is to test the games before they are released and fix the bugs.

Re:More to the point

[c6gunner]

Considering i have a 38.4MBps connection to the 'net supplemented by a backup connection (from another ISP) of 2Mbps, both of which are NOT throttled in any way, and i have ...

Well I guess you have to have SOME way to make up for your tiny penis ...

And you added me to your enemies list! Ouch! I'm hurt :( I think I'll go cry myself to sleep while hugging my USRobotics 2400 baud modem.

Re:More to the point

[LiquidFire_HK]

You know the same argument can be applied to consoles, right?

Name a few console-only titles worth playing then.

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously as to not override moderation...

Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out, and to be able to download patches for buggy games, and extra content for the expandable ones.

I've played a number of games where alt tabbing out of the game would cause it to freeze up. It's actually one of the reasons I like Steam, as the shift-tab overlay comes away from the game cleanly and allows you to manipulate outside the game window. The extra content is a bit of a BSish reason. With harddrives standard on consoles you can download content to expand the games. You just don't have all the access to user-generated content like Bethesda games do.

Re:More to the point

[Talderas]

MMOs have been featured on consoles thanks to Square-Enix. Final Fantasy XI has been released for both the PS2 and the 360. I suspect you can play it on a PS3 as well. I know with the PS3 there's no real limitation that would make it inadequate to run an MMO client. You can connect a keyboard and mouse via Bluetooth or USB.

Personally, I think PC gaming will and has been going into decline. The last remaining genre that will hold out on PC gaming will be strategy games, but even those will go away. People say that FPS are superior on the PC, I agree, but it is the very reason why they are superior on the PC that makes them unbalanced. The mouse. When you introduce a new style of mouse, it completely upsets the balance. Those that can afford or even use that superior style start to quickly outclass those that can't. That is why I think console FPS are the way to go. You provide uniform hardware with standard inputs that all players have. It also makes it easier on the developer. You have one hardware configuration to work with, instead of a virtually unlimited set of configurations.

Re:More to the point

[pdboddy]

Supreme Commander
Demigod
Left4Dead

Team Fortress 2

Re:More to the point

[linzeal]

You bastard, comcast sucks for us Americans stuck with it.

Seriously though, as a grad student I can pull 4-5 gigs of data a day when at home and comcast throttles me for 12 hours afterwards it is ridiculous to not be able to use netflix when I pay for it. If I could pay 200 dollars a month for a 20 meg connection unthrottled I would.

So in September I am moving to a place with Verizon FiOS and I am going to tell my apartment manager why when I collect my deposit.

Re:More to the point

[Hubbell]

I built my current PC for 350 (75$ mail in rebate from newegg dropped it from 425, but I also had to pay 140$ for XP64)

GEForce 9500 GT OC AMD 2.8GHZ Dual Core Athlon 300GB HDD DVD Burner 4GB RAM KSI Mobo or some shit (I forget exactly) Runs most games great. Bioshock at full graphics, Mass Effect at just under full graphics, any game slightly older at full graphics. Works wonders.

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

13 years is without a doubt outside the 4-5 year timeframe posed in the question. Parent neglected to specify newer than 4-5 years, although it was obviously implied.

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ALT-TAB? Use Playxpert!

http://www.playxpert.com/

Re:More to the point

[rodrigoandrade]

And how was your last dinner at Outback??

Oh wait...

Re:More to the point

[nolife]

I did roughly the same for about $440 after a rebate. I skimped on the CPU but spent a little more on a video card. I got full versions of Call of Juarez and Call of duty WOW included for free as well. Nothing great but it works for the games I play.

        Western Digital Caviar GP WD7500AACS 750GB 5400 to 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - OEM
        Item #: N82E16822136150
        $59.99

        OCZ Platinum 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ2P10664GK - Retail
        Item #: N82E16820227298
        $59.99

        LG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner Black SATA Model GH22NS30 - OEM
        Item #: N82E16827136152
        $24.99

        HEC 6K28BBX585 Black 0.8mm SECC Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case 585W Power Supply - Retail
        Item #: N82E16811121004
        $64.99

        ASUS M3N78-VM AM2+/AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 8200 HDMI Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail
        Item #: N82E16813131318
        $72.99

        AMD Athlon 64 X2 7750 Kuma 2.7GHz Socket AM2+ 95W Dual-Core black edition Processor Model AD775ZWCGHBOX - Retail
        Item #: N82E16819103300
        $58.99

        XFX GS250XYDFC GeForce GTS 250 512MB Core Edition 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail
        Item #: N82E16814150357
        $134.99

Re:More to the point

[Junks Jerzey]

Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console. I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs. Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out, and to be able to download patches for buggy games, and extra content for the expandable ones. Consoles also suck for RTS games,

This is just the same old argument that sounds like it's from 2000. Funny thing is, everyone owns a computer regardless of whether they own a console or not, so there really isn't anything as a "console only" owner. As such, people tend to not be nearly as defensive about their consoles as the PC-only die-hards are. Anyone with a "big, fancy PS3" can go buy an RTS for their computer if they want to.

But PCs as full replacements for consoles isn't flying for a couple of big reasons:

* Hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured annually into developing console games, so if you care about games at all, then you're missing out by boycotting consoles. There are good PC games and ports, too (like Fallout 3), but they're in the small minority. Consoles are where the action is.

* Mobility and, as a result, low power consumption are driving PC sales. Most people would prefer a slick laptop with 6 hours battery life over a thousand-watt gaming rig.

Honestly, a console--or a handheld game system like the Nintendo DS--is relatively inexpensive, so there's no reason to over-justify your insistence on only playing PC games. Just pick up a $130 DS and you can get some amazing experiences. And I'm seriously glad I own an Xbox 360, because some of the best games in recent years are for that system.

Re:More to the point

[Saysys]

These games are much more than 5 years old, which means they do not fall in the range of 4-5 years.

Re:More to the point

[amoeba1911]

TA Spring

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

That has changed in recent years. Even the Wii has a neat little RTS with Swords & Soldiers [nintendolife.com].

Some game genres just aren't well suited to consoles. People are trying, but the controls limit what you can do. Strategy games just won't have the depth on a console that they do on a PC. Granted, the Wii is a bit better because it has a pointing device, but its usefulness is limited in a complex strategy game. Things could be improved if you added a keyboard, but now we've reinvented PC gaming. Oops.

Posting AC because I've moderated. Just wanted to point this out.

socrplayr813

Re:More to the point

[freyyr890]

You both are forgetting the best thing about PC games: mods. Counter Strike would not exist without the help of Half-Life and Valve Hammer.

Re:More to the point

[Nar Matteru]

It takes some getting used to, and you'll never be as good with a controller than with keyboard and mouse, but it's not as bad as many PC gamers pretend it is. Besides, lots of good FPS never make it to PCs.

For me, it is more horrible than you can imagine. Consoles need to just give up on strafing, it doesn't work well with a controller at all and just makes turning awkward, they will never turn that second josytick into a mouse. Also, consoles are made for TV's which you watch from a slight distance, which is fine for me for third person games, but for fps I like to be closer to the screen. I've yet to see a good console exclusive fps.

and extra content for the expandable ones.

The same applies to consoles.

Actually consoles are the ones getting more exclusive content these days, so I'm not quite sure where he was going with this. PC still wins at user created content tho. I know there's ways to get mods for some console games, but that's always been a PC niche and probably always will be. (this sucks for games I prefer on consoles that have active modding communities like GTA)

The PC update race is slowing somewhat, but on average, console hardware is still cheaper (although games tend to cost more).

Lots of people don't have HDTVs still, so choosing a console also means buying a new TV if they want to play at anything higher than 480p whereas they can play up to 1600x1200 on even older monitors. It doesn't help that most console games aren't even rendered at full HD anyway, scaling helps but still. I'm gonna agree with you on raw cost tho, however, comparable pc hardware gets cheaper the longer the console has been out, decent hardware putting the 360 to shame is less than half the cost of a 360 now. ---

Especially if you have to buy four PCs at once, one for each player. Online play doesn't help when your friends are visiting your house.

Directinput supports up to 64 controllers connected to the same PC. (you were going to play with a controller anyway since you favor consoles, right? ;)

Re:More to the point

[Nar Matteru]

and of course i didnt preview to see that my quotes and responses are all fubar'd

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The mouse. When you introduce a new style of mouse, it completely upsets the balance

What the hell does that mean? Oh you mean the new style mouse that reads my mind and moves my units accordingly or the new style mouse that enables cheat codes. Dude a mouse is a mouse.

Re:More to the point

[Darkness404]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Tales of Symphonia
Final Fantasy XII
The New Super Mario Bros.
Fire Emblem
Super Mario Galaxy
The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time
Star Ocean: The Last Hope
Etc.

If you are a J-RPG fan, or a fan of platforming games, then the console is really the only way.

Re:More to the point

[KDR_11k]

It's just Spring RTS these days.

Re:More to the point

[DavidTC]

That's what I did about a year ago. (I already had the Vista copy, the DVD-ROM, and the SATA hard drive, so it was cheaper.)

But it's a 32-bit AMD triple-core Phenom. And, of course, being 32-bit, I only put 2 gigs in it. (I might add another one some day.) An nVidia 9600GT, about 160 dollars.

All this stuff about super-fast gaming machines is nonsense. I can run any game I've ever tried at maximum settings. Spore, Fallout 3, NWN2, whatever Ive tried. Scores a 5.9 in Vista on everything but processor, which is a 5.3.

People who build $1000 water-cooled computers or even things in this article for $800 to play games are like people who buy Monster cables.

Buy a ~$150 video card, a midrange processor, a midrange motherboard, fill it with memory, and buy generic crap to fill out the rest. (No, a game's performance doesn't depend on the speed of the hard drive or even the DVD-ROM.)

And you're done for at least three years, at which point the newest games will start requiring you to turn down settings. Boo hoo.

With the money you saved, buy a Wii for casual multi-player gaming. And a cheap stereo to use as an amp and speakers.

Re:More to the point

[Hatta]

Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console.

You know, you can have both. This computer vs console flamewar that always comes up is as ridiculous as the Nintendo/Sega console wars of the early 90s. Can't we agree that there are pros and cons for each, and it's really a matter of personal preference?

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Pf I play FFXII using pscx2 and it runs perfectly I am at the bahamut thing or whatever its called! The exception here is that I have no gamecube / wii emulator

Re:More to the point

[MrAngryForNoReason]

You obviously haven't played many console games recently. There have been many examples of games with serious bugs that needed patching immediately or glitches in games like Gears of War 2 which meant the multiplayer was dominated by cheaters for months after release before a patch came out.

Other games have been patched but still have issues Saints Row 2 is full of bugs which vary from falling through the world into other areas to hard locking the console requiring a reset.

Some of these bugs are hard to spot without exhaustive playtesting but some are obviously a result of a rushed release schedule and should never have seen the light of day.

Re:More to the point

[Endo13]

MMO's *may* have the potential to eventually lend themselves well to consoles, but there is one thing that may prevent it. And that is communication with random players. Chatting efficiently requires a keyboard of some sort, and an on-screen keyboard used with the controller is just too cumbersome. VOIP could work, except who wants to hear the voice of every jackass playing an MMO? And yes, while FFXI is a console MMO, it plays like ass. The only reason it's got any significant number of subscribers at all is because it's the *only* MMO on consoles.

You're wrong about PC gaming though. PC gaming isn't going anywhere, any time soon. The reason for that is because almost everyone has one now. And with advances in gaming performance hardware trailing off so much over the last few years, most of the ones currently in use are also perfectly capable of playing most games out there, and most of the games coming out in the near future. At worst, they might require a $50-$100 graphics card to make it happen. We've finally reached a point where average new PCs from 3 years ago are still viable for gaming. And look at this article. It wasn't so long ago that you would have had to spend twice the $800 price tag to build a kickass gaming rig capable of playing any game at max settings at say 1280x1024 resolution. This $800 rig will manhandle any game at that resolution. And for probably half that, you can build one that will run any game at at least medium settings (graphics that still look better than any Xbox 360 or PS3 game) and run at a perfectly acceptable frame rate.

And while FPSs can be lots of fun on a console, until you have an actual mouse for it, it just won't work as well as on a PC. For a RTS you'll need both a mouse and a keyboard.

The only realistic conclusion that anyone can draw is that we're going to be using both consoles and PCs for gaming for quite some time. While there is definitely some overlap, overall they really are two different tools for two different jobs. For myself, I own a decent PC, a Wii, and a DS. I would also have a PS3, except there's been too many other things demanding my money.

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

he got spore, and has badass bandwidth, and ...

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Photography/Images/POD/g/ganges-bathers-508574-sw.jpg .. bathing in the ganges. What a steal!

Re:More to the point

[CronoCloud]

I consider amateur developed mods to be a bad thing in certain ways, in that I believe they encourage developer laziness. Perhaps Valve would have finished Half-Life a lot sooner if they knew fans weren't all busy playing counter-strike and clamoring for a new game. Perhaps other developers would actually finish their games and not release buggy/incomplete crap if the modding community wasn't out there to pick up the pieces and fix things for them.

Re:More to the point

[Talderas]

Trackballs are far faster and more precise than the normal mouse. Since turning speed tends to be limited by how quickly you can move the mouse rather than any artificial game imposed limit, the trackball with its freespin can let you do some ridiculous tricks.

Re:More to the point

[Fallingcow]

are there any PC games left worth playing that aren't 4-5 years old?

There are still a couple really amazing releases every year, even if you don't count the indie stuff. Just about anything from Valve, for instance (Portal, HL, L4D, etc.) The PC still gets at least one or two very good RPGs a year that are either exclusive (The Witcher) or so much better on the PC that it might as well be (Oblivion, which only nudges up out of "mediocre" territory, through "good" and in to the edge of "very good" when heavily modded). Strategy games, of course, continue to be very nearly a PC-only genre, as do sim-type games (flight sims, etc.)

Re:More to the point

[CronoCloud]

I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs.

Fallout 3 isn't an FPS, it's an RPG that looks like an FPS. You don't need super accurate aiming since you're supposed to be using VATS most of the time. It takes time to get used to a dual analog controller, at first you won't have the fine manipulation skills to be able to use the right analog stick properly, but give it some time.

Consoles also suck for RTS games, as in there aren't any to speak of.

There's a few, mostly PC ports or RTS's developed simultaneously for console and PC like Warzone 2100. Red Alert 3 is the most recent one I know of.

Neither of which even come close to a computer when you don't pony up $1500 for a new TV graphics wise.

More like $600 or $700. You can pay less if you go smaller or settle for 720p/1080i. Mine is a 19inch 720p/1080i model which sits on a desk, since I often boot into Linux on my PS3.

Also, can you play Dwarf Fortress II or Nethack on your big fancy PS3, out of the box?

There's no Dwarf Fortress for Linux on PPC. I couldn't play Nethack on my big fancy PS3 right out of the box, but I had Yellow Dog Linux install media ready and as long as you have that, you can install Linux on your PS3 right out of the box. Then I could play Nethack, the quickest way being

telnet -8 nethack.alt.org

or:

sudo yum install nethack

Though I personally did a source compile since I use some patches.

Re:More to the point

[Talderas]

1. I'd rather not have to tweak my graphics settings or even run a tool to choose the graphics settings best suited for my machine.
2. Full sized keyboards can be attached to the PS3 at least. I have a full sized Bluetooth keyboard and mouse that I use when typing out messages instead of the software keyboard. I haven't bothered to try to connect my Bluetooth mouse yet, but I believe you can.

Here's how I look at it. I can throw down $400 for the newest gaming system, and be assured that the graphics setting will be just as good or only slightly worse that the highest end gaming PC. I don't have to worry about patches breaking the system or making the game not work, heck I don't even need to worry about manually downloading and applying patches and updates the game will check for them when I put it in and ask me if I want to install it now or later. I can attach a keyboard, mouse, and voice communication microphone all via Bluetooth, meaning I can replicate the same gaming environment that a PC would provide.

As a developer I don't have to worry about whether the game will work on Windows XP, Vista, 7, 2000 or 98. That's not even considering making it work for Macs or Linux.

There are only two advantages that are still left in the PC's ballpark and that is being able to put the entire game on the hard drive and custom user modifications like with TES. The hard drive is only going to help with load times and it is honestly something I'm willing to put up with for less hassle. The custom user mods will be the biggest savior for PC gaming, until console can figure out how to provide for it. So far people are stuck with mods and extensions only available through the xbox and playstation stores.

Re:More to the point

[Chabo]

Not only that, if there are bugs in the console version, the patch has to be sent to Microsoft or Sony first, and from the time the developers release the patch to when it's pushed out to the customers is generally at least a month.

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

You said "man dating"

Re:More to the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the changes that happened to it.

Me and a friend used to play this all the time, then SupCom FA.

We went back to play it again because we played SupCom to death, and the mods were terrible. (and the count of mods at that)
We found an update, updated it, what the HELL did they do to it? The game used to be fantastic, simple, and nice GUI, now i get hit in the face with some terrible crap that looks like it came from pre-90s crapware. (not insulting ALL games, just the crapware)
And this was before the piece of crap decided not to even work, crashing repeatedly. (on the exact same OSes from the previous plays)

If only i hadn't deleted my older copy of it. Is there any old versions anywhere?

Re:More to the point

[Omestes]

Fallout 3 isn't an FPS, it's an RPG that looks like an FPS. You don't need super accurate aiming since you're supposed to be using VATS most of the time. It takes time to get used to a dual analog controller, at first you won't have the fine manipulation skills to be able to use the right analog stick properly, but give it some time.

Fallout might have been a bad example. To be honest, I'm getting bit old for twitch gaming, it seems. Well, maybe not too old, but the genre seems to be a bit less fulfilling than it was in the mid-to-late 90's. There hasn't been a game with the "wow" factor of Quake 3 Arena, or UT.

For some reason, this is opinion take it with salt, it seems like consoles are holding back the FPS genre. Developers seem to be making games for console hardware and porting it to PC then, which leads to rather sad graphical leaps these days. That and someone decided that Halo was actually an exemplar of the genre, which should be emulated, which pretty much means that FPS makers are shooting for mediocre now.

There's a few, mostly PC ports or RTS's developed simultaneously for console and PC like Warzone 2100. Red Alert 3 is the most recent one I know of.

I'd still take those two game on the PC, over the console. Its about the control scheme.

More like $600 or $700. You can pay less if you go smaller or settle for 720p/1080i. Mine is a 19inch 720p/1080i model which sits on a desk, since I often boot into Linux on my PS3.

So, you can build a gaming rig for 800+Monitor, which runs around $200. So, $1000 for a decent gaming rig, or $400+$600 for a PS3 and a TV to utilize it, which also is $1000. Factor in, then, that PC games are still $50, while PS3 games are $60, and with services like Steam you can grab new games cheaper from time to time on the PC. And if your unscrupulous, PC games are free.

There's no Dwarf Fortress for Linux on PPC. I couldn't play Nethack on my big fancy PS3 right out of the box, but I had Yellow Dog Linux install media ready and as long as you have that, you can install Linux on your PS3 right out of the box. Then I could play Nethack, the quickest way being

Thanks for reminding me why I love Slashdot.

Re:More to the point

[Omestes]

I wasn't really claiming one was better than the other, I was addressing the OP who claimed that consoles are the way (and only way, was implied) to go.

Get what you want. I personally would rather spend money on the hardware I already have and use daily, than go buy another piece of hardware that does the same thing, without all the useful features. Yes, I have a Wii for parties, since it works better for that than my PC.

I'm not boycotting anything, I just haven't found a reason to get more than a PS2 yet. With my TV I can't tell the difference between the "next gen" and the PS2 or 360. Games haven't functionally changed enough to warrant it, either.

Yes, laptops are big in the entry PC and college markets now. I can see this making some difference. I personally prefer, when at home, to stare at my 48" flat panel, than hunch over my 17" laptop though. I went for laptops for awhile in college because they were more convenient sounding, and I got sick of messing with hardware. But eventually I decided that being able to do incremental hardware updates was better than watching my laptop slowly sink into obsolescence (yes, thank god for Linux, keeping old cruddy computers running long after their prime, like zombies).

It always boils down to taste.

Re:More to the point

[Endo13]

1. You're in luck then. Most quality PC games auto-detect your hardware and choose the optimal settings for you. Install the game and fire it up.
2. Sure they can. But that doesn't mean most people have one.

Here's how I look at it. I can throw down $400 for a good PC and be assured that the graphics will be as good as or better than any gaming console out there, and for another $400 I can throw together a system that makes any console look like last year's breakfast. And not only that, I can also use that same PC for a bazillion other things. In fact, chances are I already have that $400 PC for those bazillion other things and at most I need to throw down $50 for a graphics card upgrade.

Sarcasm aside, people like you are the ones that keep perpetuating the pointless debate. You obviously entirely missed the point of my previous post. It really makes me question your reading comprehension. Let me sum it up for you in one convenient sentence: There is no competition between consoles and PCs.

And you're wrong about the patches and updates. In fact, the more consoles try to replace PCs, the more patches and updates are going to become the norm.

You also missed one other huge advantage PCs have over consoles: repairs and upgrades. If your Xbox 360 gets the RROD, you have exactly one option: wait for Microsoft to fix it or send you a new one, while you wait 1-2 weeks without your game system. Yawn. If my PC has a hardware failure, I can go buy a replacement part (usually for about $50-$100) and replace it immediately. If the failed part is still under warranty, I have the choice to either wait like the Xbox owner for a replacement from the manufacturer or replace it myself and then stash the replacement from the manufacturer for a spare. When it's time to upgrade, you have to wait for the console manufacturer to decide to build a new model. Then you have to replace the whole thing all at once. You may also have to replace all your games. You might even have to replace your TV. Who knows? It's entirely up to the console manufacturer.

As long as PCs exist, people will code games for them, and consumers will buy and play those games. It's just that simple.

Re:More to the point

[inmytaxi]

The freedom to steal movies faster, cool.

Re:More to the point

[freedom_india]

I pay $106 per month, 50GB traffic free PM (extra chargeable), and 24x7 access. Its so fast that rapidshare had to block my ip for 2 hours when i was downloading a... "classic non-copyrighted HD movie." Each 200MB file was opening up 5 simulatenous connections to RS and Flashget was having 4 files being downloaded at same time: which translates to 5x4= 20 connections to RS from same ip at speeds exceeding the rate at which i could write to a USB 2.0 drive. They banned me for 2 hours and warned me that if i try again my ip would get a permanent ban.
Damn those RS bastards.
Now i download 2 files at a time and open up 2 connections for each file. My speed varies between 1500KBps to 1829KBps.
To assuage myself i download from torrents, although those seeding torrents can offer 256KBps max...

But i was able to download Windows 7 RC1 (3.8 GB) in 20 mins 13 seconds flat ! Flashget really does work!
Oh, BTW, if my connection goes down and i get a ticket number. i don't pay any rent for the down day.
This sucks majorly for the ISP, so they are maniacal in repairing any faults. When i shifted from one room to another the first guy screwed up the wiring and my speeds were about 4Mbps. I called, got a refund for those days and had a technician the next day at 8AM at my door. That guy forced me to sit with him until 12.30 while he fixed the bad wiring, made sure my connection was triple-wired (the ISP's internal network can't handle the speeds they offer, so they wire together 3-4 connections into a single one for me) and tested thrice at speedtest.net to make sure i got what iam paying for.
Only then did he get my "completion" signature so that the ISP could start billing me in full.
Tell, is there any other excellent premium file sharing service like RS? No other services comes as close with its massive amount of files (all of which are legal)

Re:More to the point

[freedom_india]

So you saying that US connectivity is a legless racer? Wow! And i always thought US was the forerunner in internet & broadband...Guess we have to compete against Korea which has insane speeds.

Re:More to the point

[Fred_A]

And i always thought US was the forerunner in internet & broadband...

Um, you must be new here... ;)

Guess we have to compete against Korea which has insane speeds.

Yes, or Japan. Pick your poison...

Re:More to the point

[freedom_india]

In terms of innovation, US is still king. They were the first to introduce Cable in 1995 and FiOS.
It's just that Verizon, Crapcast and AT&T don't want to adapt to progress and instead prefer to throttle instead of grow...
Speed alone doesn't count as US showed in its first trails as covered by TIME magazine in 1995-96 issues.

Yes, or Japan. Pick your poison...

I would rather prefer a 3rd term abortion than prefer Japan. Those guys are still racists who make the Nazis look like saints.
I have numerous incidents to count.

Re:More to the point

[__aarzwb9394]

Well, my last dinner at Outback was significantly overpriced, in a noisy &poorly decorated restaurant, and with too-large servings of mediocre food. And with no decent beer. How was yours?

Re:More to the point

[freedom_india]

The freedom to steal movies faster, cool.

I have been waiting for a long time to ask this:
What exactly do you mean "steal"? Do i walk into showroom and flick a few DVDs without paying for them?
Does my unpaid downloads cause a revenue loss for Universal and others? In what way? Did they think i was going to pay for their DVDs?
Did i "steal" an original film and cause a revenue loss for Universal?
Kindly explain what do you mean by "steal". If you cannot, shut the fcuk up.

Didn't we already have this story?

[the_raptor]

I am sure we had a story like this the other week. I am pretty sure we have it every couple of weeks. Considering this has been (more or less) the way of things for probably about five years (I have been following the 'good enough' philosophy for that long, from a Radeon 9600xt, through a GeForce 6800, to a Radeon 4850 today), it isn't news to any nerd. You stopped needing a top of the line computer for gaming around the turn of the century when clock rates stopped doubling every 12-18 months and ATi got good enough to really compete with nVidia.

Re:Didn't we already have this story?

[interkin3tic]

I am sure we had a story like this the other week. I am pretty sure we have it every couple of weeks.

Yeah, but the last article I remember was $500. So this is new news because they're spending $300 more and not promising to run crysis. In the summary anyway. Oh, it's overclocked too.

Re:Didn't we already have this story?

[tygerstripes]

Absolutely.

Seriously; this article, the person who submitted it, and the editor who deigned it front-page-worthy, can fuck right off.

This is not news, not useful - christ, it's not even interesting. The interwebs are totally awash with articles of exactly this nature, and have been for fucking years. 90% of /.ers are already perfectly capable of building a PC to a spec which suits their unique requirements, cheaper than this, and don't need or want to read this. The other 10% can fuck off and learn a thing or two about technology before commenting.

I ask you: HOW THE FUCK DID THIS BECOME A FRONT PAGE ARTICLE??!?.

I know this is a surly rant, but I have karma to burn and I'm frankly pissed off that shit like this got through. I mean, why don't we have a "How to write HTML" article, while we're at it?

Christ.

Re:Didn't we already have this story?

[Anonymous Coward]

You stopped needing a top of the line computer for gaming around the turn of the century when clock rates stopped doubling every 12-18 months and ATi got good enough to really compete with nVidia.

Agreed, I've used ATI cards almost exclusively since the late 90s, always staying a year or more behind the "next big thing" in graphics cards, and I've barely even glanced at the system requirements tag since the first Hitman game.

Re:Didn't we already have this story?

[teh.f4ll3n]

Christ.

When did you come back?

Oversucking

[deathtopaulw]

Overclocking no longer means what it did before. It's basically intel and the motherboard manufacturers graciously allowing you to use the actual power of the processor you paid for. That's not overclocking, its reversing underclocking. I laugh every time my idiot roommate claims his computer is overclocked, when he did nothing but say "do it" in a manager program in windows.

Re:Oversucking

[ArsonSmith]

Mine's way cooler, it's got a "Turbo" button on the front that switches it from 8Mhz to 16Mhz. It's freaking awesome!!!

Re:Oversucking

[Shadow of Eternity]

I finally got rid of mine, mostly because the boat anchor case finally rusted itself apart.

Re:Oversucking

[Crunchie Frog]

My original 485DX33 box had the old 'turbo' button on the front to switch between 8 and 33 Mhz. The thing would never boot if it was set to 33Mhz, always froze after POST, but once booted in 8Mhz 'mode', you could happily press that button and feel that 33Mhz power blowing your hair...

Never did work out what the problem was.

Re:Oversucking

[Allicorn]

Man, those were the freaking days doing support. I lost track of how many times various reports of "my PC is too slow" were magically remedied when it was noticed the turbo button had been accidentally poked/kicked/nudged.

Simpler times!

Re:Oversucking

[hedwards]

I realize you're being funny, but the "Turbo" button was always a bit of a misnomer. It was meant to be on by default and actually slowed down the computer. Basically so games and such that weren't programmed right could be run on a faster computer. I remember being unable to get King's Quest IV to run properly without turning off the turbo. I can't really recall the exact issue, but I think it had to do with the sound not working properly.

Re:Oversucking

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine's even cooler:

Has 3 speeds!

4.77 MHz, 8 MHz and 9.54 MHz.

I can still play "Ancient Art of war at sea" (due to it's orange Hercules monitor the sea is... orangish!), Conan the Barbarian (I can duel my brother for hours!), and a lot other cool games.

Can you guess what it is? Here's a small hint: Let's say it can be considered an ancestor of the Asus EEE Keyboard LOL!

Re:Oversucking

[indi0144]

I have one of those Pentium 100 MHz, hangs if the turbo is turned on at boot. Does yours have Via Apollo chipset? Also AT keyboard can be the issue. Anyway :) Anyone knows a good use for a machine like that? 100 MHz Mb(?) it has video and audio cards on ISA. Linux for kids distro?

Impressive machine by it's time, think I have to document it.

Re:Oversucking

[baegucb]

So you gave up on that whole water cooling thing, eh?

Ars Technica System Guide

[Warlord88]

The April 2009 version of Ars Technica System Guide covers three systems priced at $700, $1600 and $12,500. The link is http://arstechnica.com/hardware/guides/2009/04/ars-technica-system-guide-april-2009-edition.ars Tweaking the first two systems here and there should cover requirements of most users.

Re:Ars Technica System Guide

[tux0r]

Heh - without having read the Ars guide, I recently built a system including either the recommended parts or a mentioned alternative from their Budget Box spec. The parts I got came to $1080 Australian, which is ~$850 USD. Not bad at all.

Re:Ars Technica System Guide

[poopdeville]

Yup, I built pretty much that same box, with an e5200 Wolfdale instead of an AMD X2 (it was in the sweet spot when I built), and no monitor. Came to about $560. Just fine for my file serving, dev-boxing, hide-in-a-cupboard uses.

Wow cool, thanks for the tip!

[Anonymous Coward]

I built my computer for $500 and it runs Crysis on High at 60 FPS steady. There's literally no reason to spend more than this on a gaming computer. Save money now by buying what you actually need instead of stupid crap and spend that money down the road on upgrades. Make your gaming computer last 5-7 years. Easy.

A $500 system is good enough...

[__aaclcg7560]

My top of the line system is about $500. (More than what my 1994 Pontiac Grand Prix is worth.) That's good enough to run Quake at 500 FPS. :P

Re:A $500 system is good enough...

[RingDev]

Same here, I rebuild every other year and give my 1-year-old PC to my wife. We keep the same cases (I hand made a wood case that is built into my desk), peripherals, and monitors. So I just pick up a new mother board, memory, CPU, and graphics card. Every once and a while a new hard drive. $500 gets me a bitching machine.

-Ric

I Just Don't Get It...

[JoeSixpack00]

I don't understand why gamers have this die hard loyalty/borderline bias for Intel. Granted, they are better than AMD hands down - they're a bit of an overkill. Unless you're an extreme gamer, you'll never actually need the extra power, and to recommend the Q8400 over the Phenom II X4 940 is odd considering they're usually priced within $5 of each other.

I build a new computer almost exactly a year ago. 4 Gigs of DDR2 800 Low Latency memory, 7200 RPM SATA II hard drive with 32mb cache, an Athlon X2 5000 BE (I just bumped the multiplier from 13 to 15 to get it at 3ghz) and a HD 3870. With the exception of the CPU, everything is is running at stock speeds. These are the games I play:

Call of Duty: World at War
Fallout 3
Race Driver: Grid
NBA 2K9
Drakensang

I was sure my computer would be sluggish, but it runs all these games just fine with excellent graphics at a 1680x1050 resolution. The point? At the time of my building, all of the mentioned games were (for the most part) considered "current generation", and my CPU was lumped into the scrap heap with the "only if you have to" parts. When I actually started playing games, I soon realized that my performance was exactly what people said I wouldn't achieve.

Re:I Just Don't Get It...

[ascendant]

You were lied to.
Additionally, you are attributing vastly more responsibility to your CPU for the performance of all of these games. Why don't you underclock your CPU and see how much effect it has on your framerates? Yes, even to 2GHz and below.

The HD 3870 was released in October 2007, Fallout 3 was released in November 2008. Those other games, around the same time. Barely a year apart, those games were designed to run on those exact games: not the 4870 which was released barely months before.

On top of that, the 3870 was almost the top of the line card for the 3000 series. It's no surprise that it can handle those games. The people that develop them are not stupid. They do not expect people to buy a new graphics card just to play their game. It will run on the cards released not even a year ago, and it will run well. Expecting it not to is foolishness.

Sheesh

Re:I Just Don't Get It...

[MalusCaelestis]

I don't understand why gamers have this die hard loyalty/borderline bias for Intel.

Then:

Granted, they are better than AMD hands down [...]

Then:

Unless you're an extreme gamer [...]

How many times can you answer your own question in the same paragraph?

[...] it runs all these games just fine with excellent graphics at a 1680x1050 resolution.

If you're only gaming at 1680x1050, then you don't need top-end gear to play games. For those of us on 1920x1200 or higher, beefier components are necessary in order to achieve playable framerates.

Re:I Just Don't Get It...

[tedgyz]

I used to preach the AMD mantra. Unfortunately, there are ALWAYS some issues when building an AMD system. I am just tired of discovering the obscure incompatability. For example, most of my old AMD systems had USB issues. My Athlon X2 system had major dual-core issues with certain games.

My last build is 2 years old - an Intel core2 duo system. The whole system is flawless - it plays all the games I want and runs my multimedia center on my home theater. I never have to worry about it.

I WANT to support the underdog, but I can no longer accept the consequences.

Re:I Just Don't Get It...

[miscz]

Joesixpack00 probably meant that Intel has the performance crown (i7), but when it comes to bang for buck in more reasonable market segments AMD wins, especially with Phenom II processors.

Re:I Just Don't Get It...

[rgviza]

With a single GPU it's not about your CPU speed, within reason. You only need the latest and greatest processors to be able to push the frame rates high enough to feed multiple GPU's frames to render.

If you have a single GPU card you can get away with a less than top of the line latest greatest CPU. If you had a 3870 X2 the bottleneck *might* move to your CPU.

Remember that CPUs push the stuff to the GPU to be rendered. If you over spec CPU or GPU, you see very little benefit. For best bang for the buck, you should match the CPU's capability to push the frames to your GPU's capability to render them.

It sounds like you are in "the zone" with your box. If you buy a latest gen video card or one with 2 GPU's, or add a couple you may run into a CPU bottleneck but maybe not.

I definitely agree though. It's kind of stupid to pay for a top of the line intel chip, especially if you are only running one GPU. It does very little for you since if you buy a recent CPU, the bottleneck will almost always be the single GPU card.

You are more or less wasting your money in this case by buying Intel's latest quad core.

-Viz

Re:I Just Don't Get It...

[DavidTC]

The people that develop them are not stupid. They do not expect people to buy a new graphics card just to play their game. It will run on the cards released not even a year ago, and it will run well.

In fact, it will run perfect on cards released a year ago, considering that's what they developed the fucking game under.

Sometimes, very rarely, they can implement features that just assume a generally faster card. Like the game runs with all settings maxed at 1680x1050, but you'd have to turn them down to get a higher resolution, and it's possible a faster card, which exists by the time the game is released, will let you run on them at max also. (And, of course, updates can add stuff.)

But in general, games do not use all the abilities of video cards that exist when they are released.

And most of them aren't even targeted at the high-end that existed during development. They're targeted at the ~$150 dollar cards. The ~$150 dollar cards that existed a year ago. I bought at a $150 nVidia 9600GT a year ago, and I suspect the next game I get, for the first time, I won't be able to max everything 1680x1050.

And, yes, computer salespeople, crazy gamers who don't know any better, and gaming magazines just blatantly lie about all this.

And they're all lying about CPU speed, which has almost no effect on game speed at this point.

Re:I Just Don't Get It...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why gamers have this die hard loyalty/borderline bias for Intel. Granted, they are better than AMD hands down - they're a bit of an overkill. Unless you're an extreme gamer, you'll never actually need the extra power, and to recommend the Q8400 over the Phenom II X4 940 is odd considering they're usually priced within $5 of each other.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

Short list of websites with similar guides

[daemonenwind]

anandtech.com
tomshardware.com
maximumpc.com
pcmag.com (hard to find, though)
arstechnica.com
sharkyextreme.com

I mean, really....does anyone think it's hard to find this stuff?

You can even find sample builds on amazon.com and on newegg.com if you look around a bit.

Re:Short list of websites with similar guides

[LordLimecat]

Dont forget the 4chan tech section, if you pester them enough people will actually build you a machine there.

Why Quad Core?

[ffejie]

I don't understand why you would go with a Quad Core. If you're looking to trim costs, get a Core 2 Duo and overclock the hell out of it. Spend your money on a better graphics card if it's for gaming. I have a quad core and it really only gets utilized for video encoding.

Re:Why Quad Core?

[Anonymous Coward]

FINALLY somebody said it! quad cores are being sold to suckers every day because people have the belief more cores are better. problem with quad cores is most programs (and os's) are not yet designed to utilize quad cores. so they probably use 2 of those cores which are now slower because you wanted to have a "4" on your chip.

Re:Why Quad Core?

[Clinkster]

-Quad cores don't go for much more than dual core processors do. The price between one Q6600 and a E8400 is approximately $20, so not exactly a tremendous price gap there.

-Given that, the quad core is a very viable option if you wish to future proof your PC. The clocking speed shows a lower number, but you're essentially given twice as many pipelines for information to go through. Right now, that's a substantial boost if you multitask.

-Not good enough? Even for gamers, quad core would be a better option. Sure, right now you're going to see dual cores cranking out the numbers because most games have really been optimized for use with two cores. But you said it yourself, video encoding delivers results due to utilizing all four cores on the quad core. It's only a matter of time until the standard for game developers include optimizing for more than two cores. When that time comes, those people will start wishing they bought that quady.

-By the way, this same argument used to take place when dual core was introduced. Some gamers suggested buying single cores due to their higher clock speeds, but those recommendations were short lived once the software caught up.

Re:Why Quad Core?

[Aceticon]

Tomshardware just recently did an article where they measure performance of games in PCs with different numbers of cores (link: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280.html).

Their conclusion is that at the moment, for the current crop of games the ideal number of cores is 3.

Re:Why Quad Core?

[iainl]

For a single-threaded task, though, an E8400 will be a fair bit faster than a Q6600. I just saved myself a shedload of cash and dropped down to the E7300. Sure, I now find I'm blocked from using XP mode in Windows 7 on it, but I've still got a perfectly good copy of VMWare for the rare times I need XP stuff, and don't entirely trust that XP mode not to make a hideous mess of things anyway.

Re:Why Quad Core?

[Spatial]

-Quad cores don't go for much more than dual core processors do. The price between one Q6600 and a E8400 is approximately $20, so not exactly a tremendous price gap there.

It's still crap value. That CPU is built on a 65nm process: older, slower, hotter and uses more power. The E8400 is a 45nm part. Unless the computer is a video-encoding machine, it's absolutely senseless to buy the Q6600 (and you should get a Q9300 anyway, it's faster and 45nm).

-Given that, the quad core is a very viable option if you wish to future proof your PC. The clocking speed shows a lower number, but you're essentially given twice as many pipelines for information to go through. Right now, that's a substantial boost if you multitask.

No it isn't. I have a quad core upgraded from a dual core, and there's no perceptible speed difference except in video encoding. Selling it on multitasking is just marketing.

You can't future proof a PC without wasting a ridiculous amount of money. Buy a quad core now and you already sacrifice real-world performance and value for money in exchange for a potential benefit in a few years except in specialised uses. By which time any game that actually needs it is released, your old quad will be obsolete. You can just buy a dual core, save money, and get higher performance right now and for a few years to come. It's obviously the more sensible choice.

-Not good enough? Even for gamers, quad core would be a better option. Sure, right now you're going to see dual cores cranking out the numbers because most games have really been optimized for use with two cores. But you said it yourself, video encoding delivers results due to utilizing all four cores on the quad core. It's only a matter of time until the standard for game developers include optimizing for more than two cores. When that time comes, those people will start wishing they bought that quady.

This is terrible advice. The vast majority of games aren't even CPU limited, and only now, years after their release are dual cores becoming widely used. And of course, 'future proofing' was pointless: early dual cores are obsolete now unless you spent a ridiculous amount of money back in the day.

-By the way, this same argument used to take place when dual core was introduced. Some gamers suggested buying single cores due to their higher clock speeds, but those recommendations were short lived once the software caught up.

Single -> dual isn't the same transition as dual -> quad. The first has other benefits, like a single program being unable to bog down the OS, and even single threaded programs benefit a little because all the background processes can use the other core.

Re:Why Quad Core?

[toddestan]

By the way, this same argument used to take place when dual core was introduced. Some gamers suggested buying single cores due to their higher clock speeds, but those recommendations were short lived once the software caught up.

That doesn't seem like a big deal, anyone who is comfortable building their own PC can swap their CPU. So it would make sense now to go with a cheap dual core now, and then switch to a quad later if it becomes advantageous to do so. Just make sure whatever board you get also supports quad cores (which should be pretty much all of them I would think).

In that sense though, getting a Core 2 chip may not make much sense. The sun is setting on LGA775, and Intel hasn't given us any indication that they plan to release any faster Core 2 chips than what we have now. It might make more sense to get an AMD board if you were build right now in anticipation of even faster quad chips you could drop in later (are the Phenom II X2's out yet?).

Re:Time is not free

[Ihmhi]

What the hell do you get paid, $500 an hour?

PCs are not hard to put together. Even if you got every little screw and piece not assembled, it wouldn't take more than 3-4 hours.

Re:Time is not free

[interkin3tic]

But here on /., fiddling with computers is supposed to be your hobby! And sex life!

Gonna go cry now and comfort myself by trying to install linux on my nintendo DS...

Re:Time is not free

[Anonymous Coward]

How much worth of your time was this post ?
And how much worth of your time is spent reading slashdot ?

Re:Time is not free

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont think it will take you 114h to build it

CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will)

[ls671]

I had a friend working at an AMD factory. He toll me the manufacturing process isn't precise enough to produce specifically 3GHz, 2GHz or 1GHz CPUs. Or at least this model helps in diminishing costs, they could probably make the process precise enough but it would raise costs.

So how do they do it ?

They produce 3GHz, 2GHz and 1GHz CPUs in one process all at the same time, there is no difference between the manufacturing process for each speed.

They then test each produced CPU to see how much clock speed it can handle then classify them with regards to this criteria.

When demand for higher clock speed CPU goes down and they have too many CPUs that can handle 3GHz on shelf, they just stamp "2GHz" on them and sell them as "2GHz" CPUs to diminish their inventory.

So overclocking would seem like a gamble, it might work perfectly because the company actually sold you a CPU that was rated for a higher clock speed. It may also not work because the company sold you a 2GHz CPU that was rated to handle only 2.000352 GHz.

Don't take for granted that because your friend or blog posters successfully overclocked a given CPU model, you will automatically have as much success.

Re:CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will)

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a (+1, No Shit) moderation option??

Re:CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will)

[TheLink]

Nope. Mod me "+1, No Shit".

Oh wait...

Re:CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will)

[Anonymous Coward]

When demand for higher clock speed CPU goes down and they have too many CPUs that can handle 3GHz on shelf, they just stamp "2GHz" on them and sell them as "2GHz" CPUs to diminish their inventory.

When does the demand for *faster* processors ever go *down*?

Woah! My PC is so fast I'm getting a nose-bleed; I think I'll fit a slower processor.

Re:CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will)

[NeoSkandranon]

Uh, cost maybe?

Re:CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will)

[ls671]

>When does the demand for *faster* processors ever go *down*?

Especially in though economic times when people want to pay less for their computers. Also, overclockers never buy the fastest CPUs ;-)

Look around a bit, you will find your answer; a whole lot of people don't buy the latest/fastest CPU bit and settle for something at half the price. In fact, the fastest CPUs sells are only a fraction of the market.

I for one never buy the fastest processors because I get less for the buck.

By the time I buy a 2GHz processor, the company already has its manufacturing process producing 3GHz CPUs. This way, I figure that I have saved quite of money in my life period (CPUs used to double their speed in a short period back then) and my needs were entirely fulfilled.

This factor has faded although because the technology has almost reached the possible limit for CPU speed. Like other posters mentioned, nowadays the principle also translate into selling 4 core CPUs as a 3 core CPUs because one of them is faulty, same principle; they are all tested and rated after being manufactured in bulk.

Multiple cores CPU were born because companies can't make faster cores, we are closer to the technical limit, at least in order to maintain the current speed/price ratio. A 20GHz single core CPU would be more efficient than a 4 X 5GHz. It makes the architecture much simpler and you save at run time because of the absence of time to switch applications from one core to the other.

Re:CPU speed explanation (Re:Sure will)

[Gr8Apes]

Heck, I just built a 4 core 4GB RAM 1TB PC for less than $400, with DVD+-RW, case, and 500W Power Supply. All are name brand parts. (AMD, ASUS, Corsair, WD, LG, CoolerMaster, OCZ and integrated 8300 NVidia graphics) It will allow photo/video editing, email, and web browsing for the parents for years, replacing their current P4 and AMD Athlon 2800 CPU systems. No, it won't play the latest games in their full glory nor is that a desire.

Multiple core CPUs were born because there are advantages to a multi-core CPU over an SMP system. The second reason was that upping the clock speed ran into limitations with current "cheap" production techniques. A 20GHz single core CPU is not necessarily more efficient than 4X 5GHz cores. It would be for a single thread process. Anything that allows or demands parallelism would be much less efficient on a single core, even if that single core is faster.

After all, even using these "cheap" fab processes, we've had CPUs clock over 8GHz, which is way way faster than 2 GHz. It's just not efficient nor practical to run that fast, so we've not hit the physical maximum yet.

$1021 on newegg (I have a DVD and HD already.)

[F34nor]

LIAN LI PC-V350B Black Aluminum MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case
DFI LANPARTY JR X58-T3H6 LGA 1366 Intel X58 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
2x MSI R4770-T2D512 Radeon HD 4770 512MB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card
FSP Group ZEN 400 400W ATX 2.2V SLI Certified CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Fanless Power Supply
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80601920
Crucial Ballistix Tracer 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory with LEDs

Re:$1021 on newegg (I have a DVD and HD already.)

[Max Littlemore]

Teeheehee! I've got a Porsche

Or to put it another way, isn't the whole point of TFA to spend less on a worthy gaming rig? How on earth does that turn in to an excuse to flop out your more expensive penis extension?

Re:$1021 on newegg (I have a DVD and HD already.)

[crazypip666]

That power supply can't handle an i7 920 and two 4770's even if you ignore the rest of the components.

Re:$1021 on newegg (I have a DVD and HD already.)

[teh.f4ll3n]

Good luck getting your system through POST with that PSU ))

Re:$1021 on newegg (I have a DVD and HD already.)

[F34nor]

Oh contraire mon frere, according to two reviews some Tom's Hardware and this bad boy http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp it will just fit. 398 watts to be exact. Plus this PSU has a little room to spare.

Re:$1021 on newegg (I have a DVD and HD already.)

[F34nor]

Actually my point was that for $200 dollars more you can have a machine that blows away any other graphics system per dollar and have a MB based on a next generation platform. It was not dick waving my any stretch of the imagination. Plus if you're that cheap get a Lenovo netbook on the Ion platform.

Once you know, you NewEgg

[Anonymous Coward]

For $600 off of NewEgg I built a computer with; a 2.9 GHz AMD Phenom II X4, an ASUS AM3 motherboard, an ATi Radeon HD 4870 1Gb, a 750 Watt PSU and 8Gb of 800 MHz DDR2.

The only thing I reused from my old computer was the hard drives and the chassis.

Re:Time is not free

[npoczynek]

I feel like we should be paying you for that comment if the time was really that valuable. Then again, I can't help but feel... In the time it took for you to browse through TFA and comment: I probably could have popped the CPU in, mounted the cooler, inserted the memory, and started to screw the motherboard into the case. You're practically done! Granted, I'm not denying the convenience of a prebuilt machine. But to me, building my own systems and tinkering with them is a hobby. I don't envy whatever your profession is if you can't find the time for a bit of nerdy leisure.

Re:Time is not free

[Anonymous Coward]

Place your geek card in the shredder and don't let the door kick your ass on the way back out to PHB land.

Re:Time is not free

[Prien715]

...and the 2 hours it takes me to uninstall all the crap Dell puts on my box or reformat and reinstall is free?

Granted, OCing is a bit much, but it's pretty trivial to put a system together in an evening...assuming you know what you're doing. If not, congrats, you've just saved yourself a $300 community college course;)

In India...

[freedom_india]

You can build it a lot cheaper with branded components that cost way less: Here's my rig and prices translated into USD at INR47:$1
M2N-E-SLI mobo: 189
AMD Athlon X2-63 bit dual core 4200+: 96
9800GTX+ AND 8600GT (yeah two): 189
LG 17" monitor LCD: 93
Case: 20
OCZ Vanquisher cooler: 35
Point of View PSU: 170
Total: 792
Hell, the shops here will fix it up, assemble and home deliver free if you spend this much amount at one shop.
I got a free MS Natural keyboard, Microsoft Mouse and a 8GB JetFlash card free

Re:In India...

[freedom_india]

I forgot to mention that it includes 4GB RAM

Re:In India...

[Animaether]

Well sure, if you take into account wages, standards of living, infrastructure maintenance, laws and regulations regarding work, laws and regulations regarding pollution, etc. and so on and so forth, then you can have things for cheap*

Heck, as it is, things in the U.S. tend to be cheaper than in Europe.

'Unfortunately', not everybody lives in Poland / India / China / whichever place happens to be cheap because, well, they're cheap, at the time.

So any comparison there is absolutely moot unless one can actually -order- these things -from- India, and have them delivered to them, still for cheap, with support. But try that and in most countries you get a huge shipping fee and import duties and taxes applied - if they don't just send it back altogether because of import prohibitions.

Re:In India...

[freedom_india]

Actually only some of the reasons you have said above is applicable in this case. Because:
1) Imports are from China which is a lot closer to India than China to US.
2) No import taxes or duties or that crap on computer products.
3) Profits these guys earn is about 10% max. The cost of setting up a new IT shop and starting ti import is a LOT cheaper than setting one in San Mateo, California.
4) Pollution? What pollution? These resellers only emit Carbon-di-oxide when they wax lyrical about their products. You mean E-Waste, naahhh here people still repair their 20-year radios and TVs and PCs. They don't waste anything.

Re:In India...

[Anonymous Coward]

naahhh here people still repair their 20-year radios and TVs and PCs. They don't waste anything.

This crap you keep spewing about how everything is cheaper there throughout this discussion has become borderline annoying already. Nobody cares that you can do it cheaper in your country. If things were cheaper, then why are people still repairing 20-year radios instead of buying the new one for $1? Perhaps because you make $4/hr that it costs "cheaper" (792 instead of 800) meaning you have to work even harder and longer just to buy the same damn thing

The title of your post says it all "In India..." nobody cares. You came to a US website to brag about India? Response to your other posts: nobody cares that you are "up to date" and not that backwards of a country. But just remember where the hell your jobs/education comes from. I'll give you a hint, if you are already learning on slashdot, your education is coming from US or UK.

Posted AC because apparently you foe anyone who speaks harsh truth instead of polite stupidity, just in case some day (god forbid) you get to moderate. Take your pride and go brag on digg.

Re:Time is not free

[Draek]

I'd say that learning how to put a computer together is as important to use a computer as knowing how to change a wheel is to driving a car, and it's not hard either.

But hey, if you prefer to pay rather than learn, you can get it for far less than $1000 anyways. Your local friendly neighbor geek wouldn't charge you more than $50 for it, and it's possible he'd still do it for half that amount.

Re:Time is not free

[networkzombie]

Wha? I spent forty minutes swapping out a P4 AGP board for a DFI x38 with 2 GB Patriot, an E8500, and a ZOTAC 7600GS DVI piping 1080P to a 46" Toshiba 46RV535U via GBPVR and VGA piping to an Asus 20" monitor running 1600 x 900 simultaneously. I was drooling the entire time and it works incredibly well with cycles to spare. I can browse the web and watch The Fifth Element in 1080p at the same time without any lag. Are you saying I am wasting my time? There are very few things I'd rather be doing.
The power supply was good for a socket 775 and I already had a case, monitor, and HDD, so the RAM, MB, Video card, and CPU cost me $400 (from Newegg, of course). Then again I have dozens of cases and HDD lying around. Doesn't everyone?
I'll post pictures when the CPU and video are liquid cooled.

Going for REAL cheap

[mcrbids]

Yes, you can go 'cheap' and spend 'only' 800 dollars on a machine. But that's not REAL cheap - that's just a budget, new computer. Me, I can go REAL cheap and still have a reasonable gaming experience.

I bought a used Pentium IV with a 40 GB HDD and 1 GB of RAM for 50 dollars, with a crashed O/S. It's a Dell, and I have a Dell install CD, so don't need to worry about the OS code or Genuine Advantage. I dug for a bit at pricewatch.com to get a new AGP video card with decent 3D performance in a low profile. Reviews just a year or two ago indicated it was a good chipset. It came with a DVD drive, no burner. 25 dollars got me generic mouse, KB and speakers.

Spent an afternoon, loaded a new OS, (WinXP) drivers from Dell support, and video card drivers, and I now have a system that plays newish games like Star Wars, WoW, and GTA 3 SA and GTA IV at 1024x768 on the 17 inch CRT monitor bought at a yard sale. High end? Not a chance. But for bang/buck, the 650 bucks saved on this rig will go a long way towards helping to pay for my kids' college.

And still lots of fun!

Re:Going for REAL cheap

[hal9035]

Dude, college is tens of thousands a year, 650 bucks might not even be one day....

Re:Going for REAL cheap

[Drawsalot]

I play on an AMD 4200+ Dual-Core at 2.31 gHz (OC), with 4 GB of memory under XP and have an nVidia 8800GTS with 340 MB RAM. I can just get 800x600 in GTA IV-- how do you make GTA IV playable at 1024x768 with that system?

Re:Going for REAL cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy. He probably thinks it plays better than it really does.

I remember being young and thinking that 10fps in Quake was really smooth. I quickly learned that was not the case when I got my TNT2 Ultra.

Re:Time is not free

[Techman83]

How much do you get paid an hour??? It really doesn't take that long to put a PC together. Personally I can't justify paying someone else to do something so trivial. Sure if your buying an Email machine any old Dell/IBM/HP etc box will do, but go find yourself a pre-built gaming rig... IME they are generally put together with crap parts and expensive. Mate of mine got one like this as he didn't want the fuss, ended up with a vid card that was passively cooled and the whole machine would like up during gaming unless he had a desk fan pointed at it and the side of the case pulled off. 8 Trips to the shop for warranty and no fault found...

I'll take my chances building one myself, it's hardly rocket science.

Re:Time is not free

[lena_10326]

If this topic was about playing chess, why would I bother to pay $58/hr to play chess?? I'd have to be a fool!! Umm. Maybe I like playing chess in my spare time. Same goes for DIY'ers who like to build their PC.

Oh and as others have said, what in the world would take u that long to put a machine together? Do you make $200-300/hr or somethin?

$800? More like $300

[insane_coder]

$800 for a gaming PC? I don't think that much was needed for a long time, unless you had to play the latest game on your 2600" screen with a high resolution. For roughly $300 these days, you can build a machine to play any game you want on a 19" screen. You don't really need anything more than a GeForce 9 (~$100), and a high end X2 (~$60). The other ~$140 is more than enough to get some RAM, hard drive, dvd burner, motherboard, especially if you find a deal on newegg or the like.
This here which is quite a decent machine is only $287 ($322 before rebates). Just add a DVD burner for ~$25, and you're all set.

Re:$800? More like $300

[DavidTC]

Bingo, although you might want to tack another $50 on that video card, depending. (Although I think the sweet spot of video cards has decreased somewhat, so maybe that's it now.)

So the real question is...

[pankajmay]

So....
What is the optimum configuration that yields the high-enough FPS/high-enough resolution/lowest latencies with the minimum of price?

In other words - Build a system configuration at the minimum price after which any incremental gain in performance is disproportionate to further input in price?

An optimization problem there.

Pendantry

[Max Littlemore]

AMD Athlon X2-63 bit dual core 4200+: 96
...
Total: 792

See, that's because you got a 63 bit processor. The problem with 63 bit processors is you have no end of bizaar problems trying to run modern 64 bit, or even 32 bit software and that's why you save the $8. Myself, I'd spend the extra $8 on 64 bit. :-P

Funnily enough, this is the second reply to this story by someone with a -1 bug. Someone else mentioned their old 485DX33 system.

Re:Pendantry

[Aceticon]

Probably got it from eBay as a "b-stock, factory refurbished: 1 bit disabled"

Re:Pendantry

[rhyder128k]

Maybe they were typing it on a first gen Pentium?

Re:Pendantry

[greg1104]

Actually, it's worth more, because the bit they disabled is the evil one.

Re:Pendantry

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because his 1 starts at 0 :P

Re:Time is not free

[cskrat]

$30 and a $5 Little Caesars pizza if you find the right geek.

The point is not that it costs $800 this time

[blind biker]

the thing is, if you want to run current games, you will have to spend about that same amount every 18 months or even sooner.

It just isn't right: game developer should settle down once and for all, and make games that run on a 1 year old platform just as their 1 year old games did/do. Luckily I'm not a gamer (not a fanatical one anyway) or I'd be bankrupt.

Re:The point is not that it costs $800 this time

[dontmakemethink]

IMO the best eras of games occurred when the platforms stagnated in technical advancement. For example the Commodore 64 was the most popular gaming platform for years after all its video resources had been exploited to their fullest. The lack of new ground to break forced game developers to break new ground in game development rather than video exploitation.

When I put it like that, it makes complete sense. Funny how nobody under age 25 seems to grasp it.

And don't get me started on movies...

overclocked *well over spec* at 3.01GHz?? ha

[majorme]

Just about any 40nm Core 2 CPU is overclockable to at least 4GHz without much trouble, ie. no voltage increase.

wait what?

[majorme]

Dude, it's mid 2009 now and I am yet to see a game that beats late 2005 / early 2006 games in the graphics area. Except Crysis, that is.

And why do you bother speaking about the problems today's gamers are facing since you are not even one of them?

The point being... you got it all wrong.

Can be done for half that price

[Anonymous Coward]

e5200(easily overclockable to 3.3-5 ghz on stock cooling) $70
MSI P35 Neo-F Motherboard $50
4 gigs DDR2-800 $40
Radeon HD4770 $100
500 gig HD $50
DVD Burner $20
Case + acceptable PSU $50

Total $380 and it should play any game in existence acceptably until you start to push the resolution up 1920 x 1080

Re:Time is not free

[znerk]

$30 and a $5 Little Caesars pizza if you find the right geek.

Bring the parts and the pizza, I'm good. Oh, and that "spare" machine you put in the garage after you let the magic smoke out last year.

Re:Time is not free

[TheLink]

Actually I usually assemble my own PCs because I think I generally do a better _quality_ job than the staff at the "whitebox" shops. They do it _much_ faster I'm sure (I have to consult the motherboard manual on the pins and other stuff). But we had a whitebox shop put together a few PCs for the office, and stuff started getting loose or falling apart a year or so later. Not even sure if those guys even care about taking antistatic precautions.

So even if you save time getting them to do it, it costs you time and money when it falls apart earlier.

FWIW I actually spent a LOT of time getting Windows XP to the state I like (Yes linuxfans, the topic is gaming PC so Windows ok?). All the updates, drivers, MS/other viewers/players/codecs, menushowdelay to something low, NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate [1], turn off autorun [2], startmenu customizations, classic mode, sound scheme, folder options (yes I do want to see system files, and file extensions and run stuff in a separate process), tweakui, browser running as a separate user, all sorts of crap like that :).

Before anyone says Linux is easier: I also had to spend a lot of time getting my Linux server to the state I like - ups monitoring (some of the el-cheapo UPSes out there require some mods to nut, and I used to have to mod nut so it'll shutdown at a particular battery voltage - because I wanted to leave more reserve in the battery ), HDD monitoring and email alerts, vmware (suspend VMs before shutdown when the UPS battery runs low etc). With Linux I usually can't reuse the old configs - because things have changed a lot by the time I get a new server.

[1]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem]
"NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"=dword:00000001

[2]

For XP Home:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\policies\Explorer]
"HonorAutoRunSetting"=dword:00000001
"NoDriveTypeAutoRun"=dword:000000ff

For XP Pro use gpedit.msc to do it.

Better with a Quad Q6600

[Aceticon]

I've just recently assembled a new gaming PC (to make a long story short, I wanted to upgrade my old machine to a new CPU architecture, which meant also upgrading motherboard and memory, but the upgrade hassle factor was so large that I just ended up buying the rest of the parts and making a new PC) and I've go a Quad Q6600 (G0 stepping, the easier to overclock) running rock-stable at 3.2 GHz, when the stock speed is 2.4 GHz (while, thanks to using a passive water-cooling setup - a Reserator V1, temperatures are below 60C at load and noise is minimal).

My experience is similar to the one described by the guys in the article - for about $1500 (discounting VAT and converting from GBP to USD) I got a high-mid-range gaming machine* capable of running any of the newest games with max settings and 4xAA (anti-aliasing) at the maximum resolution my monitor supports (1280x1024) with lots of horsepower to spare, and which is comparatively as good as a top of the range machine would be 5 years ago (at the time, that's what you would need to run all new games at max setting at that resolution). If I went for the same relative (versus latest games at the time) capabilities 5 years ago the cost would've been at least 2 times as much.

(PS: Even though I've reused my existing water-cooling equipment - worth about $200 if new - some of this is offset by the fact that I got a factory-watercooled graphics board, which is between $50 and $100 more expensive than the stock version: anybody not going for a full water-cooled setup would just get the stock version)

* Specs: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocked to 3.2GHz (watercooled); Nvidia GTS280 (watercooled); 4GB premium (faster) PC2-8500 memory (5-5-5-18) stock speed 1066 MHz (slightly overclocked); 2x250GB SATA2 HDD in Raid 0 configuration (Programs disk) + 1x640GB SATA2 HDD (Data disk); an old Reserator V1 for watercooling with replaced, higher capacity pump.

Re:Better with a Quad Q6600

[greg1104]

The Q6600 also supports Intel VT, which is becoming increasingly important as virtualization becomes more mainstream. The Q8XXX processors do not. That segmentation in Intel's product line will start getting obvious to more people come Windows 7 XP Mode. Given how Window-centric many game players are, buying a processor without VT support for gaming right now is a particularly bad idea.

Re:Better with a Quad Q6600

[L4t3r4lu5]

Same processor, but DDRII here and 8800GTX.

That rig will run a 24" 1920x1200 monitor with all settings up as well. Mine does.

You might want to upgrade that screen.

Re:Better with a Quad Q6600

[ogewo]

Mod this up! You can't "futureproof," but you can be more well prepared.

I say this as someone who doesn't game...

[TheMightyFuzzball]

But wouldn't it be cheaper to buy an X-Box 360 for £160? I am no X-Box fanboy, but it does run games well, and looks good doing it (Bioshock water effects FTW). What I am trying to say is, you could buy a gaming computer for £500 ($800) or you could buy a games console for £160 to £300, and it will look better on your HDTV. Besides, every time you buy an X-Box 360 M$ actually loose money, they only make it back on the games, so, everyone could chip their X-Boxes, pirate their games and seem M$ crumble :D

slow news day on slashdot huh

[wintermute000]

Tell us (geek crowd) more pls.

Seriously its like waving a flag in front of a bull. Cue the epenis discussion, none of which will be news to any slashdot reading PC gamer. Why don't you just post a snapshot of today's discussion on rage3d or overclock.net or the like.

Better go break out my 3Dmark vantage benchies and waste hours and hours tuning my ram timings for a 0.5% gain. Then I post links to newegg for the benefit of international readers.

oh wait, I wasted them already on slashdot

Re:Time is not free

[grumbel]

but it's pretty trivial to put a system together in an evening...assuming you know what you're doing.

And the "knowing what you are doing" is exactly the problem. I don't buy many PCs, because there simply isn't a need for an upgrade every two years, instead I am more in the 5+ year range. So each time I look around for new stuff pretty much everything has changed. Almost all knowledge of previous generations is close to worthless, as power supplies, cables, cards, cooling, cases and so on all have changed. The screws holding things together are still the same, but thats about it.

Oh please, come back with something new

[w0mprat]

When I saw a quad core recommended for a bargain gaming PC I knew I would read about an nvidia card not too far down the list followed by 'gamer/overclocker' ram. Yep it's YAFBBS (Yet Another Fan-Boy Build Story) with no actual useful advice for anyone on a budget.

At the moment a Radeon 4770 would be a better choice, if the not the #1 on bang for buck, as touted by most reputable sources. Highly clockable e7xxx or e8xxx range core 2 duo still kicks quad core ass for less money (easy stable 4ghz), less power draw and subsequent heat problems. What really gets my gall with these kind of websites, is the ram recommendations. That quad core has a 1333mhz bus, thus DDR2 faster than 667mhz gains almost no improvement in memory bandwidth and latency, yet somehow there is a huge market for this kind of crap.

I hate to sound like a greybeard but back in the day it was all about making dirt cheap parts outperform four-figure parts. Now overclocking parts cost more and are much less challenging to work with. If anything overclocking is boring now, it's all about bling. Remember the Celeron 300A?

Yep, CL5 800 is just fine. If you want another 5% in benchmarks you can blow your dosh on CL4 1066mhz. Even if you overclock your FSB speed, you'll watch your bandwidth scores scale up, even holding ram speed at a fixed 800mhz! Even if your FSB is stepping up faster than your ram speed, your memory benchmark scores will continue to go up. It only really makes more sense to come down in latency, 667 CL3 is lower *realtime* latency than 1066mhz CL5, and even reasonable 'value ram' will reach those timings with a voltage boost. Yep the socket 775 platform is that crappy. Spend your money on other areas please.

No IT professional worth their salt recommends anything above reasonably priced and reliable 800/1066 ram, unless you really are going to push high FSB speeds on a core 2 duo, maybe worth paying a whisker more. You don't really need heat spreaders either, and a strip of aluminum and 3M thermal tape will do the job better than $20 set of aftermarket spreaders.

Honestly, you could blow this thing away in benchmarks for less money.

Re:Oh please, come back with something new

[Spatial]

Sound advice.

The people who write these articles seem to have a tenuous - if any - grasp of the concept of value for money.

Maybe you should write a piece on this and submit it here as you plainly know your ass from your elbow, unlike the article writer. (Budget quad core gaming PC? picard.gif)

There's also a thread full of good advice on the Something Awful forums, here. If anyone is building a PC right now, check out this thread first.

Small hard drive and what about the noise?

[rklrkl]

The article seemed to be confused about the size of the HD in the gaming rig. Initially, it states that they found a 320GB drive for $43, but the final table says it's actually a 250GB drive. Either way, isn't that quite a small drive - you suspect that installing 15-20 games on that rig could potentially fill the 200GB or so that would be available after the OS install. Newegg have the excellent 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F1 for $84.99 - four times the capacity (and I bet faster, cooler and quieter too) for twice the price.

One thing I didn't see covered by the article was how noisy the rig was - it always worries me that when you get beefy power supplies, CPUs and graphics cards, the thing can sound like a jumbo jet. Now I know that game sound effects can drown most of that out, but what about when you're not playing games? Can you sleep in the same room as the gaming rig is if you leave it turned on overnight?

Cost of PC multiplayer

[tepples]

Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console. I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs. Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out, and to be able to download patches for buggy games, and extra content for the expandable ones. Consoles also suck for RTS games, as in there aren't any to speak of.

Some of us prefer genres other than FPS and RTS, such as "party" minigame collections, "smash" platform fighting games, and other kinds of arcade-style multiplayer action games whose major-label publishers have traditionally ignored the PC platform.

Also PCs are cheaper to deal with, once you have one for gaming. Throw in a $80 video card every 2-3 years and your good to go.

Until they stop making video cards for your motherboard (e.g. the transition from AGP to PCIe). Or until the CPU is also inadequate.

Yes, more expensive to begin with

Especially if you have to buy four PCs at once, one for each player. Online play doesn't help when your friends are visiting your house.

Also, why the heck would I want to buy a console with either a 50% failure rate (360), or one that costs a heap more than its functionality warrants? Neither of which even come close to a computer when you don't pony up $1500 for a new TV graphics wise.

An entry-level $600 TV makes Wii look good. Not all genres need 1080p or higher resolution.

Also

You know...

can you play Dwarf Fortress II or Nethack on your big fancy PS3, out of the box?

They don't come preinstalled. But Linux runs on PLAYSTATION 3 well enough to run NetHack.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[drinkypoo]

An entry-level $600 TV makes Wii look good. Not all genres need 1080p or higher resolution.

Correction: A shitty $50 TV makes Wii look good. I have a $600 TV (a 32" Sharp Aquos) and the Wii looks like total dogshit. What's puzzling to me is that the PS2 and Xbox both look better at 480i or 480p than the Wii. Does it just have some of the worst graphics output ever, or what?

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[stewbacca]

I speak German (my undergrad degree is in German), yet I have no idea what relevance of your link to "The Awful German Language" article provides. Did I just get whoooshed?

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[tepples]

I have no idea what relevance of your link to "The Awful German Language" article provides. Did I just get whoooshed?

Look at which word opens half the paragraphs in Omestes's post.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[stewbacca]

So? (hehe, get it? So? "Also" in German means "so" in English).

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Especially if you have to buy four PCs at once, one for each player. Online play doesn't help when your friends are visiting your house.

I actually get together with friends fairly often to play Xbox 360 games and I can tell you it is almost as much hassle as a LAN party. There is a growing trend of games to require one copy of the game and one Xbox per player especially if you want to play with more than 4.

Call of Duty 4 allows split screen for up to 4 players but not with system link games so if you want to play with more than 4 you need a copy of the game, an Xbox and a tv for each person.

Saints Row 2 doesn't allow multiplayer at all on a single Xbox again you need a copy of the game, an Xbox and a tv for each player.

Trust me once you have setup 8 Xboxs with power and networking and got 8 HD tvs hooked up to them, bought or rented 8 copies of the game, and made sure everyone is patched to the same level, you do start to question the convenience of console gaming!

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[tepples]

There is a growing trend of games to require one copy of the game and one Xbox per player especially if you want to play with more than 4.

My point is that the trend you describe is nowhere near as widespread on Wii as it is on PC. There are exceptions: Animal Crossing 3 requires a separate console and a separate copy of the game per player, and the PC versions of Serious Sam, Lego $MOVIE, Left 4 Dead, and EA Sports games have shared-screen co-op. But by far, the majority of games designed for four players on one screen are designed for the (closed) consoles, not HTPCs.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Man I had no idea you could play split screen on the PC version of Left 4 Dead! Got to try that now.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[skroops]

Does it just have some of the worst graphics output ever, or what?

Yes. It's graphics power is nearly the same as the last-gen nintendo gamecube. The ps3 and 360 look better because they have better graphics. So the ps3 and 360 would look better on composite graphics too (or even an old black and white tv). The output resolution, (480p, 1080i etc.) just allows those better graphics to shine through with less jaggies. It's textures and polygon counts that make the difference in video games.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[CronoCloud]

Trust me once you have setup 8 Xboxs with power and networking and got 8 HD tvs hooked up to them, bought or rented 8 copies of the game, and made sure everyone is patched to the same level, you do start to question the convenience of console gaming!

That's when you instead play over the internet rather than going to the hassle of doing a LAN party.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[CronoCloud]

I've noticed it too. I think in part it's because Wii games often use minimalistic graphics, similar to what Katamari Damacy does on the PS2, rather than going all out and using the "better-than-gamecube" graphics capabilities.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[PingSpike]

PC Gamers always loved to rag on console guys, bragging up our fancy graphics, user maps, multiplayer, etc while spending countless hours fucking with patches, drivers or tweaking hardware to get things to just work. It was sort of a labor of love I guess. Consoles always were a "it just works" option. Aside from blowing into a nintendo cartridge the most difficult technical thing you had to do was figure out which hole to screw the coax into on the back of the TV.

But we've seen a convergence as the console has tried to become more like the PC. And along with that has come all of the PCs bad habits. Frankly, I'm not sure its progress. I think when most people sit in front of a console, they don't want to deal with downloading patches or overheating GPUs, etc.

I remember when people started talking about network connectivity for the xbox 360 and how games could be patched now. That isn't really a good thing. Enter games that don't even work when released because "Hey, we'll just patch it later...or not, maybe we ran out of money. Its not like we'll have to recall it anymore." Hell, Microsoft seemed to basically release the whole 360 console under this plan and it more of less paid off.

I think the next step is consoles with upgrade ports for video cards and ram...introducing the horrors of multiple system configurations and compatibility issues. Hell, they already update the OS system all the time.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[Omestes]

Some of us prefer genres other than FPS and RTS, such as "party" minigame collections, "smash" platform fighting games, and other kinds of arcade-style multiplayer action games whose major-label publishers have traditionally ignored the PC platform.

Then by all means get a console. I wasn't harping on people who have consoles, like the GP was harping on anyone who wants to game on PCs, period. Get what works, to claim that one is a better gaming medium than the others is absurd.

I play Fallout 3, Supreme Commander, etc... on my PC. But I also have a Wii sitting around somewhere for when I want to get drunk with a bunch of friends and act like morons. Though they generally prefer all the guitar hero games on the the PS2.

Which hasn't mattered yet. Yes, AGP cards are getting harder to find, but last time I checked 1/3rd-ish of the cards at my local Fry's were still for AGP. Also AGP was a standard for how long? So I wouldn't worry about that too much.

An entry-level $600 TV makes Wii look good. Not all genres need 1080p or higher resolution.

Most do. My Wii doesn't see much use outside of said drunken parties. It doesn't really have any decent games right now. Sure you have the Nintendo franchise games, but those are generally few and far between. Playing party games by yourself, after work, is generally rather unfulfilling.

As for the other "next gen" consoles, I have an old 30" TV. The output of the 360/PS3 are almost indistinguishable from the output of the PS2 on it. Graphics, as far as I can tell, is really the only big draw to the new consoles (that aren't the Wii), game-play doesn't seem to have changed, the games, as a whole, don't seem much better (though more expensive).

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[drinkypoo]

That's not really what I'm talking about, though. It seems like everything on the Wii is stippled, like it's in 16 bit color or something, or maybe it's just like I'm using composite video, when I'm using 480p over component. It's not that the graphics are simplistic — I'm still spending most of my time playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Star Wars: Battlefront II (aside from a current deviation through the first two Halo titles, also on the Xbox.) But the graphics on those systems are crisper and cleaner at 480i/S-Video (I have a broad assortment of cables, naturally) than the Wii seems to manage at 480p/component.

Re:Cost of PC multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wii software development is particularly lazy and cackhanded. They know they can get away with it, so they do.

HDTV Version?

[Doc Ruby]

How about a version of this project that targets 1080p HDTV/DVR instead of gaming? To run Linux of course - for the horsepower, and the thrill of finding drivers :).

Multiple restarts

[tepples]

PCs are not hard to put together. Even if you got every little screw and piece not assembled, it wouldn't take more than 3-4 hours.

Install Windows, restart. Apply service pack, restart. Apply more updates, restart. Install network driver, restart. Install video driver, restart. Install sound driver, restart. Install Ubuntu or Mandriva for dual-booting into an actual work environment not targeted by the majority of malware authors, restart. Install updates for that, restart. That's what takes hours when building a PC.

Re:Multiple restarts

[drinkypoo]

Slipstream your service pack and network driver, and you can cut out at least two reboots (and the time of installing the service pack.) You can even slipstream on Unix.

Re:Multiple restarts

[Lord Crc]

[...]restart[...]restart[...]restart[...]restart[...]restart[...]restart[...]restart. That's what takes hours when building a PC.

You know that in the vast majority of cases, there's no problem just saying "no" when the installer asks you to restart? I install most of my drivers in one session, THEN restart. Most programs in one session etc.

But in any case, it does take time to set up the PC from scratch after you've built it.

Re:Multiple restarts

[LurkerXXX]

So instead you get to spend a bunch of time uninstalling all the extra CRUD that OEM's install by default on their windows installs. Franky I'd rather spend the time doing the install and knowing it was a clean install rather than wondering what crap was still lurking somewhere.

£60 ($96)

[jotaeleemeese]

Should I waste my time?

Re:£60 ($96)

[Techman83]

Choosing and Ordering: $96
Puting it together: $96
Installing the software: $144
Knowing it's done right: Priceless

Parts List

[yoshi_mon]

Here is the parts list for the PC they built:

CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 $185
GPU EVGA 260 GTX Core 216 SSC $235
Mobo ASUS P5Q SE Pro $97
Mem OCZ 2 x 2 GB DDR2-800 $39
HDD WD Caviar Blue 250GB $43
Optical Sony Optiarc 20x DVD+/- RW $25
Case/PSU Cooler Master 534 $75
OS Windows Vista Home Premium x64 $100
Total $799

And a bit about why the Intel vs AMD:

Another alternative is to go all AMD. You could build an $800 gaming rig based on a Phenom II X4 840 and 1GB Radeon HD 4870. That would be close in performance to our $800 system, but would probably fall just a little short overall.

I personally like to support AMD given that the alternative is to have Intel monopolize the market. But shrug unless AMD is the clear winner most sites will always push Intel so no real surprise. (My feeling is it goes back to the old, "Nobody every got fired for buying Intel," type of mentality.)

Re:Parts List

[Spatial]

Their build is stupid. These guys are supposed to be hardware experts but I've never seen one of these articles that didn't have at least two outright stupid choices. They have no concept of value for money, probably because they get everything for free in the form of review samples.

This one's no different. Quad cores offer no benefit at all for gaming, it's a waste of money and energy compared with a dual core. A quad will actually perform WORSE in almost every task, the sole exception being video encoding. A reasonable balance is the Phenom II X3 720 BE, but a Core 2 Duo E8400 is probably better for gaming (depends on the price, if the 720 is a lot cheaper go for it).

You don't need a GTX 260 for gaming either. Unless you have gigantic monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080 or larger it's another outright waste of money and energy. Most people don't, so they could save a bunch of money by going with a HD4770 or HD4850 and get damn good performance for over a hundred dollars less.

The hard disc is also far too small and represents poor value for money. It's not very fast either. A 640GB model would make a hell of a lot more sense. Games are HUGE now, often 10GB a piece.

The PSU bundled with the case is likely a piece of crap too, which can affect system stability and component lifetime. A decent PSU costs that much just by itself but they're usually quieter, more efficient and more reliable. A Corsair 430W model would be good.

Re:Time is not free

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you doing, machining your own screws?

If you buy computer parts and a desk chair, the desk chair will take longer to put together.

Slipstreaming is so easy too

[RulerOf]

See here to do what the parent speaks of.

I work on enough computers that I build up an OEM and Dell image of XP a couple times a year in case I need to do reinstalls.

I've never slipstreamed Vista updates, but if your net connection is fast enough, you really don't need to reboot more than once or twice to apply every update.

That said, I'd love to figure out how to slipstream IE8 and WGA and so on, as the process I mentioned above *does* leave a few things out.

Re:Slipstreaming is so easy too

[Bungie]

That said, I'd love to figure out how to slipstream IE8 and WGA and so on, as the process I mentioned above *does* leave a few things out.

You could include the updates manually in the $OEM$ distribution folder. Of course this isn't true slipstreaming as the updates will be installed afterwards.

Tools such as RyanVM's Integrator and nLite also can provide an easier, automated way to slipstream updates and customize Windows installs. nLite also supports addons that people can create for things like WGA and IE8.

A good source of information and downloads for custom Windows installs is the MSFN forums,Unattended Windows install guide, and WinCert.net forums.

Dude, get a dell

[soupforare]

Unless you have a specific need- HTPC/Silent PC/foo. Just get wait for a slickdeal on a dell vostro. Up the ram and stick a real video card in there and you've got a sweet machine for less bucks and less work. Usually they come with a gigantic widescreen monitor, too.
It's not 1998 anymore, BYO doesn't make sense most of the time.

Re:Dude, get a dell

[sjaskow]

I agree. I bought my daughter a Vostro 200 with a C2D 2.0, 2 GB, DVD+-RW and 250GB drive for $400 shipped about a year ago. While it probably won't run Crysis, it does quite well with things like Half-Life 2 and Sims2 even though it's got an integrated graphics card.

Oh, and since I ordered it from the Dell Business side, the only cr@pware installed on it was the Google Desktop and Acrobat Reader.

Re:Dude, get a dell

[soupforare]

Dell small business sometimes has better deals than the "consumer" side for the same hardware. Yeah the label is different sometimes, but the threads on slickdeals/fatwallet/foo will usually let you know which model corresponds to which.
As far as crapware is concerned the dell decrapifier is now the PC decrapifier and one of the best free apps out there, everyone should use it before they do anything else on a prebuilt machine.

Re:Dude, get a dell

[Arterion]

Yeah, if you wanna deal with every quirky Dell specific issue on their lowest-bidder hardware.

Maybe the Vostros are better, but I absolutely loathe the Dimensions. We have a lot of those of the P4 generations here and none of them are worth a damn.

Re:Time is not free

[Anonymous Coward]

Gonna go cry now and comfort myself by trying to install linux on my nintendo DS...

Uhhhh, you just need to copy a file to your flashcard and run it. That's it. You lose all geek cred if you have to "try" at it. That is unless you're installing Gentoo, in which case you get bonus points.

More impressed by the $500 gaming PC

[rwa2]

Most people try to hit the $500 price point with pretty good results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%24500+gaming+computer

Maybe $800 is good for a (admittedly not very decent) gaming laptop... which would come with a display too...

Though I guess you could knock off $100 if you dump the Windows Vista OS, for, say Linux, an old copy of WinXP, or even Windows 7 beta, all of which would run games faster than Vista.

overclocking buyers guide

[neersign]

I wrote an overclocking buyers guide and I have been updating it relatively frequently over the last few years. it hasn't been updated in a few months tho as my work has started taking up more of my time. but, it too could also be seen as a gaming guide http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=483065

Restart? [Yes] [No]

[tepples]

You know that in the vast majority of cases, there's no problem just saying "no" when the installer asks you to restart?

I agree that clicking No works for a lot of drivers and applications that install background services. But Windows Update and some other installers will fail if the last installer left a RunOnce: "The installer could not start because a previous installation has not completed. To complete the previous installation, restart your computer." You can skip about two or three of those restarts by clicking no, but you'll run into one that checks for a RunOnce first. And you'll still need to restart to put on Linux or FreeBSD for "actual work".

Cheaper solution

[stewbacca]

Buy a $300 Dell loaded with bloatware and OEM garbage. Make sure it has at least Intel Core 2 Duo, two ram slots and a PCI-E video slot. Format the hard drive (getting rid of bloat and OEM garbage), upgrade to 4gb ram, buy a decent 3d video card (what are they now days, about $200 for a good one?). There's a $550 solution (if you already have keyboard, mouse, monitor).

It's worked well for me for well over 10 years now. If you have to go through the pain of owning a Windows based system, you might as well buy cheap, upgrade cheap, dispose of cheaply when it outlives it's gaming worthiness (about 2 years).

Re:Cheaper solution

[mpeskett]

Every so often I check out what Dell's offering at the top and bottom end of their range, then look up the price of parts to match their spec. This is all using brand new components from decent brands, and it still invariably comes in cheaper than Dell's price.

Not just a little bit cheaper either; with the slack in the budget the last time I checked I could double the RAM and hard disk space and go up a level on the graphics card and CPU before it got more expensive.

Maybe their prices are just extortionate if you buy from the UK, and for laptops self-build isn't really an option, but for a run-of-the-mill desktop I'll be damned if I'm going to Dell.

Re:Cheaper solution

[stewbacca]

Well, I only threw Dell out there for discussion because of their notorious discounting schemes. I mean, if it works when using it as proof that Macs are overpriced, then surely it's a valid claim when comparing prices to build-your-own machines.

I'm sure there are several other PC vendors that have similar, ridiculous discounting, so feel free to replace Dell with HP/Gateway/Whatever. My problem with my scenario though is I hate having to wait around (and/or find) these discounts. If I have a free weekend to build a PC this week, I want to buy the parts on Saturday, not at the end of the next sales quarter.

Re:Cheaper solution

[blahbooboo]

Buy a $300 Dell loaded with bloatware and OEM garbage. Make sure it has at least Intel Core 2 Duo, two ram slots and a PCI-E video slot. Format the hard drive (getting rid of bloat and OEM garbage), upgrade to 4gb ram, buy a decent 3d video card (what are they now days, about $200 for a good one?). There's a $550 solution (if you already have keyboard, mouse, monitor).

It's worked well for me for well over 10 years now. If you have to go through the pain of owning a Windows based system, you might as well buy cheap, upgrade cheap, dispose of cheaply when it outlives it's gaming worthiness (about 2 years).

The problem with the cheap dells is the power supplies are often terrible. So you will need to also upgrade the pSU to get a decent video card to work...

Re:Time is not free

[interkin3tic]

Uhhhh, you just need to copy a file to your flashcard and run it. That's it. You lose all geek cred if you have to "try" at it. That is unless you're installing Gentoo, in which case you get bonus points.

I obviously have never actually tried to do anything of the sort. I did however spend 14 hours in lab yesterday, so I think I have plenty of geek cred. Maybe not linux geek cred though.

my new rig ran me $260 in Feb

[globeadue]

Put this system together in Feb... AMD 9600 quad core black box cpu -$85 Cheapest Gigabyte mobo i could find for cpu which met my specs - $65 4 gig patriot ddr3 ram $25 Powercolor 4830 with HDMI slot -$85 80g sata hdd $35 Case & ps - $40 Rebates totaled about $75 so system in total was around $260 Started off with the specs i wanted, got the normal prices, told my self i would shop around for 2 weeks, if i didnt find better i would buy at the normal price. it's run solid and plays world of warcraft very nicely with most settings on high MY goal was a sys with decent specs now, and then once Diablo 3 & Starcraft 2 look into buying a more powerful vid card if needed.

Age of Umpires

[AliasMarlowe]

http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/age-umpires
http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/age-umpires-ii

We will soon enough

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

because we are just starting to come to the true PC / Console wars. You'll see just this happening as penetration of HD becomes deeper. Right now HD penetration is like 30% (arbitrary #, I don't really know) Once that hits >80% which will be very soon, as TV prices keep coming down (32" 1080p @ costco for $459) PC games will start being developed for TVs. Right now though, most people don't have a PC connected to a TV.

Most /.'ers probably do have a pc connected to a tv. I do, but I don't have an HD tv yet. Mostly because I have a 2048x1536 resolution SGI monitor that some idiot threw away. (P.S. It's great for WoW!) When everyone has an HD TV, AND a home media PC or better, games will go to "console style" but we're not going to be there for 3-8 years (ish).

Scan converter or other TV out

[tepples]

because we are just starting to come to the true PC / Console wars. You'll see just this happening as penetration of HD becomes deeper. Right now HD penetration is like 30%

I've heard 34%, but that's about right. But even for the other two-thirds, I don't see a problem with using a $40 adapter to convert VGA signals from a PC into S-Video or composite signals for an SDTV. In fact, such a converter is built into several aftermarket video cards using an NVIDIA or ATI chipset. Granted, SDTV out blurs small text, but apps with big enough text (such as StepMania, DOSBox, ScummVM, Midway Arcade Treasures, and various Flash games blown up to the full screen) look as good as their console counterparts. I just wonder why there aren't more PC-native games designed for use with an SDTV output.

Re:Scan converter or other TV out

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Thanks for the insightful post.

It's the classic chicken and egg paradox, but there is always Peggle.

Re:Time is not free

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I fix peoples' computers all the time and I just tell them to buy me a beer. Half the time, they hand it to me while I'm working and the other half will buy me lunch or go out to a bar. Even just the conversation is interesting enough to justify it, unless it's a really nasty problem. Building a computer isn't much different.

Re:Time is not free

[Patch86]

I'd say that learning how to put a computer together is as important to use a computer as knowing how to change a wheel is to driving a car, and it's not hard either.

Unfortunately, that cause is just as badly lost as the computer one. Worse even; at least with a computer ignorance can't leave you stranded 30 miles from the nearest mechanic.

Text in Dead Rising

[tepples]

So the ps3 and 360 would look better on composite graphics too

Not always. Sure, the downsampling from 720p to 480i/480p is a cheap form of FSAA, as you point out. But the HDTV capabilities of these consoles tempt the artists to make text so small that it's next to unreadable on an SDTV. Dead Rising is notably guilty.

What mods?

[tepples]

Then by all means get a console.

I would, but I also like to play game mods, and consoles are notorious for blocking them. For instance, a Dance Dance Revolution-style game for consoles generally won't have a mechanism for adding custom songs. Nor will a fighting game have a way to add characters (except token efforts such as Fighter Maker 2). I can't think of any console game at all that allows for the sort of scripting that one would need for a total conversion mod, even with the substantially sized hard drives of the Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 and the substantially sized SDHC card slot of the Wii.

Though they generally prefer all the guitar hero games on the the PS2.

If only I could add real custom songs with real guitar parts using a real guitar...

My Wii doesn't see much use outside of said drunken parties.

I must have a different perspective because I babysit.

Re:What mods?

[Omestes]

If only I could add real custom songs with real guitar parts using a real guitar...

There is this thing I heard of called a jam session. Most of my friends are in the local music scene, and half the parties I go devolve into 10 people sitting in a soundproof room rocking out with guitars. Truly a better "gaming" experience than Guitar Hero or Rock Band. Higher resolution too.

Re:What mods?

[tepples]

There is this thing I heard of called a jam session. Most of my friends are in the local music scene, and half the parties I go devolve into 10 people sitting in a soundproof room rocking out with guitars. Truly a better "gaming" experience than Guitar Hero or Rock Band. Higher resolution too.

Now imagine taking our best recorded jam sessions and sharing them with the world in the form of custom songs for GH/RB. If console games had mods, that would be possible.

RAM upgrades for Nintendo consoles

[tepples]

I think the next step is consoles with upgrade ports for video cards and ram

The NES and Super NES had that. Game Paks had video enhancement chips (MMC5 on NES and Super FX on Super NES) and RAM (a lot of NES carts had an 8 KiB SRAM chip, which quintupled the NES's RAM capacity). Even the N64 had a chip to add 4 MB of RAM to the console's existing 4 MB, required to play Majora's Mask and most of Perfect Dark. And don't get me started on the Nintendo DS, for which an official 8 MB RAM expansion (for Nintendo DS Browser) and unofficial 16-32 MB expansions (SuperCard, M3, EZFlash) were released.

Nintendo wasn't the only console maker to have upgrades. NEC had the TurboGrafx-CD and the various "system cards" with RAM to buffer CD data, Sega Genesis had the Sega CD and 32X, Sega Saturn had the 4 MB RAM card, and Philips CD-i had the MPEG decoder.

Re:Time is not free

[Bungie]

FWIW I actually spent a LOT of time getting Windows XP to the state I like

You might be interested in building a custom XP install disk with your registry changes integrated into the install.

Man Dating?

[dogugotw]

...plus indian equivalent of FCC actually man dating net neutrality as per law...

There is an Indian agency responsible for Man Dating? Pretty forward thinking country, that India it is...Now if I could just figure out how one dates a net neutrality.

Re:Man Dating?

[freedom_india]

Courtesy of Microsoft Natural Keyboard...
Should have used my tiny little brains before buying the Natural keyboard when i don't know typing.
But, yes, the local FCC is manned by technocrats, some of whom are directors in large corporates and not ex-politicians or ex-civil servants.
And they know the wool Vodafone or others can pull over their eyes.
Indians don't have number portability, but net neutrality is sacrosanct, so much so that someone sued the Railways for it! Wondering why?
Railways signals division is perhaps the longest, most covered and reliable wired network anyone can have. They created a RailNet which offers broadband access through their own signaling lines. Technically sound idea! Horribly bad in business sense.
Once they realized their own signals and network usage is getting throttled due to RailNet, they started to throttle the RailNet, sorta like 5% or something occassionally, when a local storm blew out rail lines and load was heavy, something that Sir Humphrey would say: "negligible interference.".
Some puke leaked this info to the press one green day and the next moment someone had talked to the local FCC about RailNet violating law and they had a full blown issue on hands.
Ultimately RailTel (the corp that provides it) pulled the plug and un-volunteered to become an ISP (in other words they are not a public ISP now).
Its a pity and a curse. RailNet had the fastest network (MPLS) and the average speed was close to 54Mbps most of the time. The local FCC forced them to obey the sacrosanct stupid law and now am stuck with 22~34Mbps connection.

Re:Time is not free

[Draek]

Who modded the parent Funny? I forgot about it, but I used to do that all the time when I was a kid. Old hardware and some food, the easiest and cheapest way to bribe young geeks into doing whatever you want ;)

Re:Time is not free

[toddestan]

You're forgetting that most people here have more time than money. Particularly those that are on salary. And that's not even counting those of us who like to tinker anyway.

Re:Time is not free

[znerk]

... I used to do that all the time when I was a kid...

I'm in my thirties, and still doing it - it's amazing just how powerful that 5-10 year old machine is, when it's "just" running a CLI mode "server" OS...

... and who doesn't like pizza?

Nor can the PC play console games

[tepples]

As the PS3 cannot play PC games, it does not fit in well as a PC gaming machine.

As the PC (singular) cannot play most multiplayer games, it does not fit in well as a party entertainment machine. Most multiplayer PC games appear to be designed with a LAN-party mentality with one PC and one copy of the game per player. If I have friends over for some other reason and we want to play a game on the side, it'll be hard to talk them into carrying PCs with them. Wii, PLAYSTATION, and Xbox 360 work as an imperfect substitute, but almost no console games provide for user-created mods the way Half-Life provided for Counter-Strike.

Re:Nor can the PC play console games

[Chosen Reject]

I wish I could mod you off-topic. The PS3 may or may not be a perfectly capable gaming machine. That is not the point. The point is that a console is not a "PC gaming" machine. This isn't a discussion about PC vs Console and I think that is where the confusion lies. This is not about what is best to play games. It is about being able to build a cheap PC in order to play games. In that vein, the PS3, Xbox360, Wii, etc. are not relevant to the discussion. As alvinrod pointed out, the PS3 is the closest one to come to being a PC gaming machine, but as you cannot get access to the GPU, it limits its value as a PC gaming machine. Consoles may or may not be the best gaming machines and the PS3 may or may not be the best console, and it may or may not be a decent PC, but it makes for a subpar "PC gaming" machine.

Pixels vs. physical size

[tepples]

you don't need a cinema display to play a PC game. a 1680x1050 monitor is going to give an imagine quality that is hard to tell from a hd tv for gaming purposes.

True, a 22" 1050p PC monitor has more pixels than my 32" 720p HDTV, but it's physically smaller. This means it's harder to see from the sort of distance that four players sit at.