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...

[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.

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

[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.

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:$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.

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?

[teh.f4ll3n]

Christ.

When did you come back?

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: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:$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: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.

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

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.

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?

[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?

[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: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: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.

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: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.

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: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:$800 bucks? Is it diamond encrusted?

[passiveNecro]

but how much is x360 + netbook + tv?

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

[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:$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: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?

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: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: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: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

[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

[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

[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

[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...)

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.

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 :).

Re:More to the point

[pdboddy]

Supreme Commander
Demigod
Left4Dead

Team Fortress 2

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:More to the point

[rodrigoandrade]

And how was your last dinner at Outback??

Oh wait...

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.

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: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: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

[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.