How is my gaming rig?

PROCESSOR - Intel Core2 Duo T9600 2.8GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

OPERATING SYSTEM - Windows Vista Home Premium (64 bit) + Windows 7 Home Premium

LCD PANEL - 17-inch WideUXGA 1920x1200 (1200p)

MEMORY - 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 at 1333MHz – 2 x 2048MB

HARD DRIVE - 320GB - 2x 320GB 7,200RPM - RAID 1

VIDEO CARD - Dual NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M, 2GB – SLI Enabled

INTERNAL OPTICAL DRIVE - Slot-Load Dual Layer DVD Burner (DVD+-RW, CD-RW)

OR

PROCESSOR - Intel Core2 Duo T9600 2.8GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

OPERATING SYSTEM - Windows Vista Home Premium (64 bit) + Windows 7 Home Premium

LCD PANEL - 17-inch WideUXGA 1920x1200 (1200p)

MEMORY - 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 at 1333MHz – 2 x 2048MB

HARD DRIVE - 320GB - 2x 320GB 7,200RPM - RAID 1

VIDEO CARD - Dual NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M, 2GB – SLI Enabled

INTERNAL OPTICAL DRIVE - Slot-Load Dual Layer DVD Burner (DVD+-RW, CD-RW)

Is it really worth the money for the upgraded video card in the second? Also, do modern RTS games rely more heavily on processors or graphics? Cause Im trying to decide whether to upgrade my processor to a 2.93GHZ or the video card to the GTX280M.

I have a GTX 260 that works fantastically for everything with no lag


however.... make sure the rig you get has a good PSU as the GTX 260 requires at least 525 watts and the GTX 280 requires at least 600 watts... the reseller will sell you the lowest possible PSU to run the card... not to USE the card.

its intel


therefore its not a good gaming rig.

and yet again NT comes into a thread to insult... despite obviously not having any clue what he is talking about


NT... you realize that intel processors are the fastest and most relable processors on the planet?... and that 90% of all computers use intel processors.... who are basically a monopoly on the market?


and AJ... if you can... buy a quad core, they may not be necessary now, but in 3 years they will be standard... better to be ahead of the curve




for RTS gaming a GTX 260 is all you will need for the next 2 or 3 years... which by then even a much stronger graphics card will be hopelessly out of date

KrAzY wrote:
NT... you realize that intel processors are the fastest and most relable processors on the planet?... and that 90% of all computers use intel processors.... who are basically a monopoly on the market?

AMD are better gaming processors.

i've had 2 AMD processors both of which fried within 6 months


go look at some specs between and Intel Core i7 and the AMD Phenom for reliabiliity vs processing power

Intel has the market cornered for computers right now, only an idiot would use an AMD processor

KrAzY wrote:i've had 2 AMD processors both of which fried within 6 months

go look at some specs between and Intel Core i7 and the AMD Phenom for reliabiliity vs processing power

Intel has the market cornered for computers right now, only an idiot would use an AMD processor

So two of your processors didn't work therefore all of them don't work? The new Phenom 550s, like the majority of AMD processors, are incredibly good value. They're not high end processors, they're budget processors. That doesn't mean they're bad quality, it just means that if you can't afford a big shiny Intel and want that extra grunt, go with a cheaper AMD. I'd definitely advise somebody purchasing an AMD processor if they had a moderate to low budget.

Also Krazy, NT is most likely just trolling considering that he cannot back up anything they say.

Okay, for the rest of the computer:

What the fuck @ monitor. Why such a small monitor with such a high res? Just get a 22", or a 23" if you want 16:9 HD.

I'd follow what Krazy said about the quad core. Get an i5 if you want a quad core though to suit your budget.

And finally, what motherboard are you getting?

Also RTS games rely mostly on CPU performance for the most part, but extra VRAM does help a lot with rendering massive amounts of units.

Ziggy wrote:
What the fuck @ monitor. Why such a small monitor with such a high res? Just get a 22", or a 23" if you want 16:9 HD.

you are aware that HD is 1024x720 and not an actually hi resolution right?


and can't back up that AMD are better than Intel when it comes to video game processing?

if you spend any time actually looking at how the two are compared, AMD offers the same performance at lesser price, as well as higher end performance when doing 3d gaming and HD playback, with lower CPU heat and energy consumption.

If you're not gaming, by all means go with the intel.

From what I can tell, Intel vs AMD is a personal decision. I used to use Intel, and now I'm going to give AMD a try.

KristallNacht wrote:

Ziggy wrote:
What the fuck @ monitor. Why such a small monitor with such a high res? Just get a 22", or a 23" if you want 16:9 HD.

you are aware that HD is 1024x720 and not an actually hi resolution right?

Full HD is 1080p/i.
Meaning, 1920x1080 pixels. Full HD is not 1024x720.
And when I say 16:9 HD on a 23" I mean proper high definition, given that there are many 22" monitors that are 16:10, and hence not 1080p, that are advertised as Full HD, when Full HD is only possible on 16:9, or on a 16:10 with black bars. The 23" and 21.5" are all 16:9, and are all 1080. Well, the majority.

I don't know how much you know or don't know, I'm just saying that just in case.

KrAzY wrote:I have a GTX 260 that works fantastically for everything with no lag


however.... make sure the rig you get has a good PSU as the GTX 260 requires at least 525 watts and the GTX 280 requires at least 600 watts... the reseller will sell you the lowest possible PSU to run the card... not to USE the card.

Well its a laptop and Im ordering it off of the internet. But since its a laptop it should have the necessary PSU to run the dual 280's decently right? Or they wouldn't be offering them as customizable options.

Why oh why oh why are you getting a laptop?

Have you EVER tried to carry a stationary computer around? It's a pain in the rear.

Ascendant Justice wrote:

KrAzY wrote:I have a GTX 260 that works fantastically for everything with no lag


however.... make sure the rig you get has a good PSU as the GTX 260 requires at least 525 watts and the GTX 280 requires at least 600 watts... the reseller will sell you the lowest possible PSU to run the card... not to USE the card.

Well its a laptop and Im ordering it off of the internet. But since its a laptop it should have the necessary PSU to run the dual 280's decently right? Or they wouldn't be offering them as customizable options.

make sure

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Well its a laptop

okay, then in terms of intel vs AMD you want to pay attention to battery life.

AMD has superior battery life during 3d gaming and HD playback. in almost all other modes the INTEL has superior battery life.

Intel has worked just fine for my gaming computer...

Ziggy wrote:Why oh why oh why are you getting a laptop?

Why oh why oh why did you make that post?

KrAzY wrote:and AJ... if you can... buy a quad core, they may not be necessary now, but in 3 years they will be standard... better to be ahead of the curve

Thats what I thought too. But the GHZ is higher with the Duo core one. Also is it true that some games that are out today wont run on a quad core???

I CAN get a quad core but I thought the Duo one was better. Also since you can assign each core to a different task, could I focus say...3-4 cores to gaming and get a better performance out of a 2.00GHZ quad core, as opposed to a 2.8GHZ duo core?

Because that was my main issues with the quad core, that is that some games may not run on it, and that its not as fast as some of the duo cores available. These are my options for processors:


Core 2 Duo

Intel Core2 Duo P8600 2.4GHz (3MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [Included in Price]
Intel Core2 Duo P8700 2.53GHz (3MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [add $60 or $2/month1]
Intel Core2 Duo T9600 2.8GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [add $210 or $6/month1]
Intel Core2 Duo T9800 2.93GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [add $560 or $15/month1]

Core 2 Quad

Intel Core2 Quad Q9000 2.0GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [add $280 or $8/month1]
Intel Core2 Quad Q9100 2.26GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [add $1,030 or $28/month1]

Core 2 Extreme

Intel Core2 Extreme Quad QX9300 2.53GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [add $1,280 or $35/month1]

And no I cannot afford the Extreme quad. I was looking at the Intel Core2 Quad Q9000 2.0GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

But I later changed to the Intel Core2 Duo T9600 2.8GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB).

I could go for the 2.93GHZ duo core but I would have to sacrifice the dual GTX280 graphics card for it and Im not too crazy about doing that so far. I suppose I could just wait until I have enough money to get the 2.93GHZ duo core as well as the dual GTX280s.

Quad cores are faster even with smaller GHZ. Also, if you have windows 7(you do) tasks will automatically be split across multiple cores.

As for game compatibility, I have heard of no such issue.

Not all games are equipped to utilize all 4 cores. You'll still get great performance out of the 2.8 GHZ from any game available.

Ascendant Justice wrote:

Ziggy wrote:Why oh why oh why are you getting a laptop?

Why oh why oh why did you make that post?

No, I'm serious. Why get a laptop when you can get a desktop? Gaming on a laptop is a joke if you want to be portable. The battery life is like 30 minutes.


And about quad cores and gaming:

Majority of new games are optimised for quad cores, including everything post-Orange Box in terms of Source engine games.
That's not to say they won't run on anything but a quad core, it's just that they are optimised for quad cores. Anything that is ported directly over from the 360 will be optimised for three cores or more given that 360s have tri-core processors, which means they will perform like dicks on a dual core. See: GTA IV PC port.

And for anything that isn't optimised for quad core, it will still run on a quad core, except it will only utilise two of the cores.

So really, quad cores are a good investment at the moment. If you like RTS, get one definitely, because RTS with heavy amounts of units will raep your processor if it's not quad core, or overclocked to oblivion.

Ziggy wrote:
No, I'm serious. Why get a laptop when you can get a desktop?

laptops are portable.

thats a fairly big point

KristallNacht wrote:

Ziggy wrote:
No, I'm serious. Why get a laptop when you can get a desktop?

laptops are portable.

thats a fairly big point

Unless he's going from one house to another often, or requires something that he can take places that have wall sockets available to charge it, it's a waste of money and the portability means nothing, because the battery life on most gaming laptops when you're actually gaming is like 1 hour. Even less in some cases. We still don't know how much he requires the portability though, so I guess we need to wait on that before deciding on laptop or desktop.

Ziggy wrote:

Unless he's going from one house to another often, or requires something that he can take places that have wall sockets available to charge it, it's a waste of money and the portability means nothing, because the battery life on most gaming laptops when you're actually gaming is like 1 hour. Even less in some cases. We still don't know how much he requires the portability though, so I guess we need to wait on that before deciding on laptop or desktop.

well, if he just got out of highschool, then he'd need a laptop for college.

buying a single gaming laptop is cheaper than buying a gaming desktop and a standard laptop.

KristallNacht wrote:

Ziggy wrote:

Unless he's going from one house to another often, or requires something that he can take places that have wall sockets available to charge it, it's a waste of money and the portability means nothing, because the battery life on most gaming laptops when you're actually gaming is like 1 hour. Even less in some cases. We still don't know how much he requires the portability though, so I guess we need to wait on that before deciding on laptop or desktop.

well, if he just got out of highschool, then he'd need a laptop for college.

buying a single gaming laptop is cheaper than buying a gaming desktop and a standard laptop.

A good quality gaming laptop with specs similar to AJ's shown in the OP will cost upwards from $3000-$4000.

A good quality gaming desktop will cost upwards from $1500-$2500. With that, you can throw in a netbook that's perfect for college. They cost around $500. Not sure of the pricing in America but I can imagine it'd be even less.