check out my really all powerful, really new, gaming rig

[Kuciwalker]

Look, it really ought to be cheaper and faster and faster in the long run if you just spend about twice as much and get a modern processor (i.e. low-end Core 2 Duo) and 1-2GB of RAM. Even normal computing gets huge improvements from something like that.

[Solver]

Yeah, a cheap graphics card is the only reasonable option.

For games like Crysis, you'd indeed want a new and good video card, but then the CPU would fail. Sysreq lab may only say that it fails on Crysis, I don't know, but it wouldn't do great on other newer games, either, dual-core really, really helps. That's if we're talking graphically intensive games.

Don't be too much of an optimist on RTS games, some of them are now damn system hogs. Company of Heroes is a great RTS, but a real system hog, certainly not comparable to 2004 shooters. For 2004 shooters, you'd do well with a now-old card like GeForce 6800, or the cheaper version of the 7600, that is, GF 7600 GS, which you should probably be able to find for under 55 dollars in the PCI-E variety.

For Civ4, either option will do. The game does benefit from having 1GB RAM (though it won't need more than that except for very big games), but a dedicated card would help. Though at least your integrated graphics card is halfway decent (as far as integrated goes) and would also run Civ4.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Look, it really ought to be cheaper and faster and faster in the long run if you just spend about twice as much and get a modern processor (i.e. low-end Core 2 Duo) and 1-2GB of RAM. Even normal computing gets huge improvements from something like that.

Normal computing on dual cores is only noticeably faster if you still do some multitasking. If LOTM, as I understand, plays old games and only does basic computing tasks, there's little benefit to going dual-core for that. If you're only running Firefox or editing simple docs in Word, it hardly matters what you have.

Better to save up and do a bigger upgrade in a year or so, when quad cores can be had cheaply

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Look, it really ought to be cheaper and faster and faster in the long run if you just spend about twice as much and get a modern processor (i.e. low-end Core 2 Duo) and 1-2GB of RAM. Even normal computing gets huge improvements from something like that.

See above, I just DID get 1 gig of RAM, thats what started this discussion. So Im up to 1.5 gig (1.4 after deducting the shared memory) and the most this machine will go to is 2 gig. And it pains me to lose the exsting 512MB stick, on general principle.

I new processor, huh? Maybe. Somehow replacing the processor sounds like more of an adventure than getting the vid card.

[Wiglaf]

It wouldn't be if you had gotten it from the beginning, which was his point (obviously).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Solver


Normal computing on dual cores is only noticeably faster if you still do some multitasking. If LOTM, as I understand, plays old games and only does basic computing tasks, there's little benefit to going dual-core for that. If you're only running Firefox or editing simple docs in Word, it hardly matters what you have.

Better to save up and do a bigger upgrade in a year or so, when quad cores can be had cheaply

first, the games I play arent old. Im playing CK now, thats from 2004. OLD games to me are pre-2001. :P

Yeah, the other stuff we do is mainly web surfing, and word processing. Sometimes I do some home finance stuff, in Excel (I need to pick up an update Quicken) Sometimes we watch a DVD on it, and POTM uses it to do mysterious stuff related to her Java class (that cant be too taxing, as she sometimes does that on her laptop - shes also done movies and music stuff on her laptop, and sometimes on the desktop)

Sometimes we have different things open at the same time, for various reasons, and Id hoped the RAM would help with that.

What do cheap quad cores run these days? Really, I wasnt planning on spending a lot on this thing in the near future.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It wouldn't be if you had gotten it from the beginning, which was his point (obviously).

Was it? The machine has basically met our needs, and its already 1.5 years old. I dont recall what the dual core machines were costing back then, but it was significantly more than we paid.

Anyway, advice on what to do in 2006 isnt real helpful in 2008 (you work for Barack Obama by any chance?) When I posted a thread about shopping for this machine, neither you nor Kuci posted in it. Of course no one is required to contribute to a "help me" thread, especially to mine which Im sure are annoying to some. But if you dont, well you cant hardly say "I told you so" Kuci Im sure was not trying to do so, thats why I read him as speaking about what to do NOW.

Spike of course gave plenty of advice. One of his KEY points was to make sure I had a slot for a video card - many budget desktops dont. I took his advice, and made sure the machine DID have a slot, and I followed the advice of others and got one with a PCI-E slot. Now Im just contemplating USING that slot.

[Wiglaf]

This thread is from 2006? Learn to start new ones champ.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Spike of course gave plenty of advice. One of his KEY points was to make sure I had a slot for a video card - many budget desktops dont. I took his advice, and made sure the machine DID have a slot, and I followed the advice of others and got one with a PCI-E slot. Now Im just contemplating USING that slot.

Yeah - by the time you upgrade all graphics will be generated using a mind link that directly taps the power of the human brain.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
Better to save up and do a bigger upgrade in a year or so, when quad cores can be had cheaply

Quad cores are already cheap...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Was it? The machine has basically met our needs, and its already 1.5 years old. I dont recall what the dual core machines were costing back then, but it was significantly more than we paid.

1.5 years ago I still wouldn't have bought a P4, but it's a little more justifiable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This thread is from 2006? Learn to start new ones champ.

why, Id just have had to retype all the spec stuff.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Quad cores are already cheap...

Not by my standards yet, sadly, though really getting there.