PC Gaming

[Dax415]

saw a mag detailing how to build a gaming pc, but doesn't mention the pros and cons of using one video card as opposed to the suggested two video cards. can anyone here clue me in on this? i was thinking about building one but i need to reduce the projected $1,250 price tag (that's the 2 video card rig). thanks for the help.

[Mechafan]

If you play on a small monitor less than 22 inches a single cards should do fine. Dual cards only show real benefits when you game at resloutions 1600x1200 or higher. Could you post the specs?

[Hurin]

Dual Video cards (called "SLI" when running NVIDIA cards or "Crossfire" when running ATi) will actually show some benefits at lower resolutions. You can often turn on more "eye candy" (higher anti-aliasing, anistropic filtering, dynamic shadows, lighting effects, etc.). However, Mechafan is largely correct that SLI and Crossfire are really only intended for the uber-geek, hard-core gamer where money (or credit card balances) is no object.

If you're looking to build a rig, however, you might consider waiting just 3-4 more weeks. NVIDIA's new generation is due out in the second week of November. If the past is any guide, it's expected to be as fast (as a single card) as two current generation cards in SLI.

Having said all this, I should point out that the Moderators may take issue with this topic. And my reply is not an endorsement of this thread's "on-topic-ness."

H

[Dax415]

proposed specs:

Power Supply: Enermax EG701AX-VE SFMA [24P] 600 watt

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3500+ [socket 939]

Motherboard: ASUS A8N-SLI ATX

RAM: Rosewill 1GB [2 x 512MB]

Video Cards: Two PNY Geforce 7800 GTs

Optical Drive: Plextor PX-740A

Floppy: MITSUMI USB 2.0 & FDD Digital Card Reader FA404A/404M

Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar SE 320GB, Serial ATA150

Sound Card: Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic

OS: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2

apparently i could also opt for the ASUS's onboard audio instead of the X-Fi, but i'm not sure if i should do that.

oh, the video cards are 256MB of memory......

Edit: Forgot to add....

Case: Aspire X-Navigator ATXA8NW-AL/500

Edited October 15, 2006 by Dax415

[HoveringCheesecake]

That costs freaking $1200? Where are you buying this stuff from? It must be those vid cards that are jacking the price up so high. Geesh. For that price you should easily get 2 GB of RAM too.

[Dax415]

just to let you know, i'm not a hardcore gamer,....but for the first time i saw about 7 PC games i definetly intend on buying and playing. which has led me to want to build a gaming computer....besides i need to upgrade from the ancient computer i have now. so its a kill two birds with one stone sort of deal.

[Hurin]

Okay, I'd go with a Conroe Intel CPU. . . especially if I didn't want to go SLI in the future (if you do, you have to forego Intel chipset motherboard and instead get an NVIDIA chipset motherboard for Intel CPUs). AMD used to be better for gaming, but Intel recently took back the crown. But, really, any CPU of a recent vintage is plenty for gaming since games have been relatively GPU (rather than CPU) limited in recent years.

You should also consider going dual-core CPU. It's not that much more money now (and Conroe/Core 2 Duo is dual-core). The improvement in everyday multi-tasking is quite nice.

If you aren't going to go for SLI, you could also bring down the power supply cost a bit.

Tell ya what, I'm gonna go price out the system I'd get for ya. . . just for kicks.

[Dax415]

That costs freaking $1200? Where are you buying this stuff from? It must be those vid cards that are jacking the price up so high. Geesh. For that price you should easily get 2 GB of RAM too.

yes the vid cards are are large part of the cost, i also suspect by the time the mag was written and the time i picked it up at best buy yesterday there have been a few price drops which is what i was hoping for. any suggestions or fine tuning of proposed gaming rig is very much appreciated!

[mondamoto]

I would stay away from the Rosewill Memory. I have 2 gigs(4 x 512MB) and when I first got them I had a problem with 2 of them so after sending them back 3 times I finally got some that worked for about a year. Now I need to replace one or all of them since it seems that they have gone bad again.

After christmas I am replaceing them with kensington I always used them before but I lapsed when I tried to save a buck

proposed specs:

Power Supply: Enermax EG701AX-VE SFMA [24P] 600 watt

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3500+ [socket 939]

Motherboard: ASUS A8N-SLI ATX

RAM: Rosewill 1GB [2 x 512MB]

Video Cards: Two PNY Geforce 7800 GTs

Optical Drive: Plextor PX-740A

Floppy: MITSUMI USB 2.0 & FDD Digital Card Reader FA404A/404M

Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar SE 320GB, Serial ATA150

Sound Card: Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic

OS: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2

apparently i could also opt for the ASUS's onboard audio instead of the X-Fi, but i'm not sure if i should do that.

oh, the video cards are 256MB of memory......

Edit: Forgot to add....

Case: Aspire X-Navigator ATXA8NW-AL/500

[Dax415]

Okay, I'd go with a Conroe Intel CPU. . . especially if I didn't want to go SLI in the future (if you do, you have to forego Intel chipset motherboard and instead get an NVIDIA chipset motherboard for Intel CPUs). AMD used to be better for gaming, but Intel recently took back the crown. But, really, any CPU of a recent vintage is plenty for gaming since games have been relatively GPU (rather than CPU) limited in recent years.

You should also consider going dual-core CPU. It's not that much more money now (and Conroe/Core 2 Duo is dual-core). The improvement in everyday multi-tasking is quite nice.

If you aren't going to go for SLI, you could also bring down the power supply cost a bit.

Tell ya what, I'm gonna go price out the system I'd get for ya. . . just for kicks.

that would be awesome!! i also have to get a monitor, speakers, keyboard and mouse for it. Hurin, what do you mean G PU rather than C PU? thanks!

[Hurin]

that would be awesome!! i also have to get a monitor, speakers, keyboard and mouse for it. Hurin, what do you mean G PU rather than C PU? thanks!

Graphics processing unit (chip on the video card) rather than Central Processing unit (CPU).

Just noticed, you have a Plextor optical drive there. That's way overkill. They're nice. But much lesser drives get the job done just as well.

Pricing something up now. Slow Sunday.

[areaseven]

Just noticed, you have a Plextor optical drive there. That's way overkill. They're nice. But much lesser drives get the job done just as well.

I agree. Go for a Lite-On instead.

[Dax415]

stay away from rosewill huh?...i'll keep that in mind for sure! thanks mondamoto. the computers i have also use kensington without any problem whatsoever. so i'll probably be going with those as well.

[Hurin]

Okay, the bad news is that the system below comes to $1520.

But, it's quite a bit better than the one you had (2GB RAM, better video card, fast and dual-core CPU). If you need to trim it down for budgetary reasons, you could consider:

*Trimming RAM to 1GB instead of 2GB as you had originally.

*Going a notch or two down in CPU (but you lose "cache" when you go below that model).

*You might consider downgrading the graphics card. But that will have the most drastic effect on gameplay.

CPU -$315- Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz

Motherboard -$135- Abit AB9 (note, no SLI on this one)

RAM -$249- 2GB OCZ DDR2 800 5-5-5-10

Video Card -$285- NVIDIA 7950GT (underclocked, but full-featured 7900GTX) 512MB

Optical Drive -$30- NEC DVD & CD Burner

Sound Card -$122- X-fi Xtreme Music

Floppy Drive -- Can't find one with media reader that will match case.

Power Supply -$130- Corsair 520W w/ Modular Cables

Case -$70- Antec NSK 4400 Black/Silver w/ 380W Power Supply (will be a spare power supply. . . though you could forego the Corsair above and try to wing it with this one)

The Abit motherboard above isn't my first choice. But the Asus one I had my eye on has been MIA for a while now. That one won't overclock worth a damn. But for stock performance, it'll be fine.

[Duke Togo]

www.newegg.com Price through them, buy through them.

Go with a single video card, double your RAM. OCZ and Corsair are the names you want to start looking at for RAM. Your power supply (I use Enermax, myself) is good for 2 video cards, but is overkill if you went go a single. As much as it pains me to say this, go with an Intel Core 2 Duo over the Athlon. Oh, and stay away from that case. Stay away from any case that is heavy on style, comes with lights, and doesn't have front and back 120mm fans. Chances are your tastes will change, the lights will get annoying, and the smaller fans are just too loud. And you really don't need that many of them. I'm not saying to go out and drop $200 on a Lian Li case (but they are SO worth it). The quality of a case is far more important that how it looks.

I'm about ready to start planning a new build for next year. As things stand right now, this loyal AMD user will be moving no to an Intel Core 2 Duo.

[Hurin]

Well, since I increased the price, I guess I wasn't much help. But, that's the computer you won't be itching to upgrade in six months. The one the magazine recommended would need some "touch-ups" pretty darn quickly.

You could save about $150 by going back to 1GB RAM.

You could save about $150 by going to the base level Conroe/Core 2 Duo CPU (E6300).

You could save about $50 by going to the 7900GT.

But, really, I wouldn't really recommend any of those. You'll just be feeling obsolete that much sooner. So, unless you are absolutely, positively limited to a certain budget, I'd just bite the bullet and spend a few hundred more.

H

[Hurin]

www.newegg.com Price through them, buy through them.

Go with a single video card, double your RAM. OCZ and Corsair are the names you want to start looking at for RAM. Your power supply (I use Enermax, myself) is good for 2 video cards, but is overkill if you went go a single. As much as it pains me to say this, go with an Intel Core 2 Duo over the Athlon. Oh, and stay away from that case. Stay away from any case that is heavy on style, comes with lights, and doesn't have front and back 120mm fans. Chances are your tastes will change, the lights will get annoying, and the smaller fans are just too loud. And you really don't need that many of them. I'm not saying to go out and drop $200 on a Lian Li case (but they are SO worth it). The quality of a case is far more important that how it looks.

Hehe, looking at the list I gave him (all priced and linked through Newegg), it's like we're reading each other's minds.

I'm about ready to start planning a new build for next year. As things stand right now, this loyal AMD user will be moving no to an Intel Core 2 Duo.

I'm going to throw two G80s (NVIDIA 8800GTX) into my current rig when they are released. I'm hoping that even with that GPU power, we'll still be GPU-limited. . . so I won't also need to upgrade my CPU to Conroe to get the most out of them. But, if it comes to that, I'll do it, and bid my AMD X2 a fond farewell.

Here's what I'm currently running:

X2 4400+ Toledo @ 2.5GHz

Dual NVIDIA 7800GTX SLI (MSI)

2GB Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe

Creative X-fi Xtreme Music

CPU: 250x10@1.50v | HT-Bus: 4x250 | RAM: 2-3-3-6-1T 416DDR (5:6 divider / 250 MHz @ 2.80v)

Sony GDM-FW900 24" Widescreen CRT -- Best Monitor Ever!

H

P.S. The original poster should take the dementia above into account when considering my recommendations. Gaming computers are my primary hobby and I'm willing to spend more money on it than I probably should.

[Hiriyu]

I like Hurin's parts list/advice above. Very similar to what I'm considering buying sometime soon. The only thing I'd personally change would be the video card (X1900/X1950XTX), as I'm partial to the ATI stuff myself*.

*The nVidia card Hurin mentions will work great, and will give you excellent frame rates, but the filtering quality is not quite as good as the X1900 IMHO. This is only really an issue when running high resolutions along with high levels of AA/AF.

[Hurin]

Hiriyu has a point. If you're not considering going SLI or Crossfire in the future, you might be better off with an ATi video card.

Basically, ATi cards do have somewhat better image quality when rendering 3D. NVIDIA can match it, but you have to turn up some quality settings with NVIDIA for it to look quite as good as ATi. Now, I don't really notice the "texture shimmering" and other things that ATi fans are always claiming they see with NVIDIA (unless it's tweaked). But, the consensus is that NVIDIA's default image quality isn't quite as good and has to give up some performance to bump it up a notch in order to look as good as ATi. No big deal either way, but something you might consider.

The only reason I remain partial to NVIDIA is because I like their implementation of SLI better than I like ATi's "crossfire." But, if the original poster has no interest in ever going SLI (which would require a different motherboard than the one I recommended), there is no reason to stick with NVIDIA.

H

[Akilae]

Usually unless you're a hardcore OMFGPWNZ gamer, there's absolutely no need to get the latest and greatest. A good rule of thumb is to buy one generation (or even two) behind what's on the market, you save a lot, and it'll last you a good two to three years before you start feeling its age.

Go to www.sharkyextreme.com, sharky usually has a monthly budget/value/high-end/extreme setup that you can model yours after. I find it sensible and usually spot on.

For optical drives, I've always been very partial to Pioneer. Reads/writes everything I throw at it, and OEM models (trust me on this, you're not losing out on any quality) go for around 30.

If you can buy Asus. Abit is usually known for o/cing and being fast. Asus is rock solid.

Go with the on board audio. The Latest and Greatest in audio tech is really overrated. My first generation SB Live! is still going strong, and I suspect even my m/b's on board audio will Blow It Away... only thing holding me back? My Klipshs need the four channel output that the Live! provides

Take the RAM down to 1 gig, but buy the lastest and greatest that you can afford. Copy down the make and build. When you're feeling slow a year down the line, buy another stick of the same thing and plug it in.

You CAN skimp a bit on the P/S if you're feeling brave. Brand name power supplies are nice and do offer additional stability, but after having two burn out on me in a year, I went generic and haven't been having any problems for two years. But no matter what you do, invest in a very good surge protector, preferablly one that also includes phone jacks (are there ones that come with ethernet ports?). Plug everything connected to your computer into said surge protector.

Edit: Rule of thumb up until two years ago was: If you're going AMD, buy ATi, if you're going Intel, buy Nvidia. For some reason those pairings just work better together in terms of stability for everybody around me.

Edited October 15, 2006 by Akilae

[Dax415]

thanks for the awesome tips, but unfortunately price is a big factor. if you are wondeering what i'm upgrading from....its not even a pentium 4 desktop! so i guess you can say practically any new computer is an upgrade. The games i want to play are Battlefield 2142, Star Trek Legacy, F.E.A.R.: Extraction, Titan Quest, Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, and a few others i saw at Best Buy. my budget is $1,000 but i also need to get a 19" monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers. i have also thought of getting a laptop, if i can sell a few things of mine i could come up with $450 more but that's stretching it. anyway let me know what you guys think. i can wait a month and a half to do this, so that's what i'm looking at.

[JB0]

Go with the on board audio. The Latest and Greatest in audio tech is really overrated. My first generation SB Live! is still going strong, and I suspect even my m/b's on board audio will Blow It Away... only thing holding me back? My Klipshs need the four channel output that the Live! provides

I just moved from an original Live to an Audigy SE... then found out the SE is stripped down as far as possible and offloads a lot of stuff to the CPU.

If I hadn't been short on cash, I probably would've got something else, but I mainly wanted an excuse to mess with my computer more than anything else.

I COULD have used the on-board audio and left the Live in my 98 legacy machine, but I've never had much luck with cheap parts in the past.

And your Live is probably better than the on-board audio. On-board solutions usually use shitty DACs, and the original Live used fairly good ones.

[Akilae]

thanks for the awesome tips, but unfortunately price is a big factor. if you are wondeering what i'm upgrading from....its not even a pentium 4 desktop! so i guess you can say practically any new computer is an upgrade. The games i want to play are Battlefield 2142, Star Trek Legacy, F.E.A.R.: Extraction, Titan Quest, Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, and a few others i saw at Best Buy. my budget is $1,000 but i also need to get a 19" monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers. i have also thought of getting a laptop, if i can sell a few things of mine i could come up with $450 more but that's stretching it. anyway let me know what you guys think. i can wait a month and a half to do this, so that's what i'm looking at.

Go HERE

EVERYTHING you need for $1,000, OS price included!

It should also play the things you listed. My own comp is not even up to sharky's value spec, and it can run those games. Of course, that's assuming you don't crank everything up to max...

[Dax415]

wow, this gives me more options, what do you guys think of the set up in the link?

[Hurin]

Buying old equipment and then using it for 2-3 years? I may be a bit too much into computer hardware. . . but in my opinion, that's going too far in the other direction.

A buyer has to contend with three urges:

1. Wait. Don't buy now because something great is right around the corner. The problem here is that there will always be something just around the corner. When you're done waiting, you'll want to wait again for that component that's just been announced.

2. Buy the absolute best. This is foolish with computers. There is a huge premium between the top-of-the-line CPU, and the one that is "one notch down."

3. Buy the cheapest. This is tempting. But your computer will be obsolete sooner and you won't experience games in as much detail and/or immersion as you might have with a better rig.

My philosophy is: Pile all your money, and buy as much as you can possibly afford now. That might last you 2-3 years.

Though buying already old technology will possibly give you some gaming enjoyment for a while, you'll unfortunately find that you're having to turn off all the eye candy to get decent performance. . . and you'll find yourself doing this more often as newer games quickly leave your machine's (intentionally) old technology behind.

I wouldn't want to play Call of Duty 2 on anything less than my 7800GTXes. Even on those, it chokes up at times. I can't imagine finding it enjoyable, or the cinematic experience un-diminished, on a machine that I had built from parts that are were three generations old when I built my rig.

Buying two or three generations older today would mean buying a 6800GT today (or was "generation" intended to mean two or three "notches" down within the most current generation. . . like a 7600GT instead of 7900GTX?). I'm sorry but that seems foolish when another $100 will get you vastly improved performance and a much more enjoyable gaming experience with a 7950GT. Yeah, you've saved $100. But you've also consigned yourself to lower resolutions, less AA, and fewer "wow!" moments in a lot of newer games. So, it really comes down to what you think is important.

If you're buying a computer to enjoy today's games and games that will be released in the next year, I'd strongly caution against going the "buy old and save" route. Try to find a middle-ground.

Just my 2 cents.

H

P.S. I gave up on Sharky Extreme years ago. But that write-up is pretty good! Glad to see they're still around! A similar write-up is at [H]ard|OCP here.

[Hurin]

Had to go looking around for where I saw this. . . but here's an excellent break-down of the "best" for each budget class. . . last updated September 5.

Hardware Leaderboard at PC Perspectives

I don't agree with everything on there. But it's a nice break-down of what you can expect at each price level.

H

[Dax415]

I was just curious how outdated the proposed gaming rig, the one i first stated is?

[JB0]

3. Buy the cheapest. This is tempting. But your computer will be obsolete sooner and you won't experience games in as much detail and/or immersion as you might have with a better rig.

There's a few nasty stumbling blocks here right now, too.

If you go cheap, you'll probably get a motherboard with AGP. And graphics manufacturers have dropped that like a really heavy thingie, so there's no room for upgrading the video card.

You'll also wind up with a P4 board or socket 754/939 board(yes, 754 is still out there). So there's no room for processor upgrades either.

The video point really pisses me off, actually.

NO ONE is making a viable upgrade path. The few boards that support "AGP" and PCI-express have a hackjob AGP that's actually just a funny PCI slot. So they're only partially compatible AND slow as hell.

No big deal if you're building an entire system at once. Just get a PCIe vidcard.

But there's no realistic way to upgrade since you can't keep your AGP card and still have a mobo with reasonable life in it.

My philosophy is: Pile all your money, and buy as much as you can possibly afford now. That might last you 2-3 years.

Though buying already old technology will possibly give you some gaming enjoyment for a while, you'll unfortunately find that you're having to turn off all the eye candy to get decent performance. . . and you'll find yourself doing this more often as newer games quickly leave your machine's (intentionally) old technology behind.

And the new games are STILL nice enough on a lower-end setup.

I can play FEAR on my GeForce 5900/Sempron 2800+(built insanely cheap. Between vidcard recycling and some damn good sales, it came out under a hundred dollars).

It's not near as pretty as it could be, but it's still quite enjoyable.

I wouldn't want to play Call of Duty 2 on anything less than my 7800GTXes. Even on those, it chokes up at times. I can't imagine finding it enjoyable, or the cinematic experience un-diminished, on a machine that I had built from parts that are were three generations old when I built my rig.

I will never own a machine using dual video cards. Period.

PC gaming is a niche market precisely BECAUSE of that sort of insane grab for power at any cost.

[Hurin]

I will never own a machine using dual video cards. Period.

PC gaming is a niche market precisely BECAUSE of that sort of insane grab for power at any cost.

Ummm, didn't you just say that you're happy with the cheap/old hardware and still find games "enjoyable?" So, how do people who are willing to pay for the highest performance relegate PC gaming to a "niche market" when there are also cheap components available that you readily admit provide perfectly acceptable performance. People have a choice regarding the level of performance they can purchase. Unfortunately some people resent this variety when they see others buying performance they cannot --or choose not to-- afford. And, this variety also leads to complexity. So. . .

PC gaming isn't a "niche" market because some are willing to spend a lot on their computers. . . it's a niche market because it's not easy. Those who want easy and just want everything to work out of the box should get a console.

Though, I should also point out that consoles inherit the technology from game-oriented computers. And, who is driving that technology? Computer gamers in their "niche market." It's the power users that drive the market to develop faster, more powerful gaming hardware. . . and this hardware is later inherited by the consoles and --at a later time-- by the budget crowd.

So, far from relegating PC Gaming to its "niche status" (which exists due to the nature of computer gaming rather than because of people being spendy). . . power users and those willing to pay more for better performance are driving the PC market and accelerating progress in gaming technology. You're welcome.

H

[Akilae]

Personally, from what I've seen of PC upgrades, unless you have a good reason to think you're going to be upgrading and swapping stuff out every half a year, there's no point in thinking of upgrading. The main reason is that the PC market moves so fast, by the time you're thinking of upgrading, the entire architecture would have moved onto something different (bad memories of Intel and Slot 1...).

But if you want to feel a bit more comfortable about future upgrade options on the cheap, just buy the best motherboard you can afford, and get everything else for as cheap as you can. The absolute best motherboard on the market right now will last you a good three years if you play your cards right, swapping out everything else as situation calls for.

Here's a sample build of what the above philosophy would entail:

Motherboard: Asus P5B ($142)

Power: COOLMAX CW-650T EP ($120, $80 w/ newegg combo discount)

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 531 Prescott 3.0GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80547PG3000EK - Retail ($90)

Memory: CORSAIR XMS2 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) ($148)

HD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST380811AS 80GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM ($45)

Optical: Pioneer writer OEM ($31)

Video Card: ASUS EN7600GS ($126)

That gives you a grand total of $662, with only $338 left for case, monitor, speakers, k/b, mice... oh, this is all pre-tex and pre-shipping too.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Akilae

[Akilae]

I wouldn't want to play Call of Duty 2 on anything less than my 7800GTXes. Even on those, it chokes up at times. I can't imagine finding it enjoyable, or the cinematic experience un-diminished, on a machine that I had built from parts that are were three generations old when I built my rig.

Buying two or three generations older today would mean buying a 6800GT today (or was "generation" intended to mean two or three "notches" down within the most current generation. . . like a 7600GT instead of 7900GTX?). I'm sorry but that seems foolish when another $100 will get you vastly improved performance and a much more enjoyable gaming experience with a 7950GT. Yeah, you've saved $100. But you've also consigned yourself to lower resolutions, less AA, and fewer "wow!" moments in a lot of newer games. So, it really comes down to what you think is important.

<snip>

P.S. I gave up on Sharky Extreme years ago. But that write-up is pretty good! Glad to see they're still around!

I meant generations :-p. For reference, I swapped out a Geforce 4 4800 half a year ago for a Geforce 6800 LE, probably the last of the AGP cards, and right now I can run Call of Duty 2 and Company of Heroes smoothly at 1024 x 768, medium settings on everything. FEAR and Oblivion run even higher. That's one generation down, two if you want to take off points for the AGP interface. Generally speaking, it's better to buy the best of the previous generation (Geforce 6), than the uber value present generation (Geforce 7).

But like what Hurin said, it's really just different computer building philosophies... some of my friends still find it hard to accept that I can survive on an 80GB hard drive, while to me, HD space is not that important.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Akilae

[JB0]

Ummm, didn't you just say that you're happy with the cheap/old hardware and still find games "enjoyable?"

Never said I didn't want something better.

The GeForceFX series has major pixelshader issues that serve to limit it greatly on modern games.

It's hard to justify buying an AGP card right now, especially with retailers gouging the crap out of people on them. And I'm not ready to build a new machine right now.

I'm just glad FEAR didn't make as crappy a showing as some other games have made on machines towards the bottom of their "minimum" requirements. Though if I recall, they had to special-case the GeForceFX to make it playable(the demo sure as hell wasn't).

So, how do people who are willing to pay for the highest performance relegate PC gaming to a "niche market" when there are also cheap components available that you readily admit provide perfectly acceptable performance. People have a choice regarding the level of performance they can purchase. Unfortunately some people resent this variety when they see others buying performance they cannot --or choose not to-- afford. And, this variety also leads to complexity. So. . .

PC gaming isn't a "niche" market because some are willing to spend a lot on their computers. . . it's a niche market because it's not easy. Those who want easy and just want everything to work out of the box should get a console.

Your argument ignores that it's been becoming a smaller market while gaming as a whole is growing.

It's a niche because expensive upgrades are generally expected, and they get more expensive each generation.

Doom 3 is a perfect example of what developer expectations are and what CAN be done.

Remember the talk around the time of the leaked beta? About how it would only run acceptably on a not-yet-released top-end card? So when it was scheduled to hit shelves, NO ONE's computer would run it.

And remember the final product, which was highly optimized and ran with minimal quality diffrences on a wide range of hardware?

One was an extreme case of the average PC game developer attitude. The other was what's possible if they actually give a crap and do some optimization instead of brute-forcing everything.

Having been PC gaming to some degree since the days of DOS, I've SEEN it getting more and more insane.

I remember when ANY PC was good for gaming.

Then they ran better with 3D acceleration(usually Voodoo).

Then 3D acceleration was required.

And things've been moving steadily upwards since.

And system requirements have gotten more "creative" too.

Quake 1 was quite playable on a 486, despite officially requiring a Pentium. I was surprised when I checked the box.

Good luck getting a game to run on a system below minimum spec now. Much less at near max levels.

The people that are willing to pay top dollar for the most hardware are the people the game developers target. And the bottom end gets closer to the top with each iteration.

That was the whole point behind SLI. It was a way to make a new top end, since there basically WASN'T a bottom end anymore. And once THAT became commonly accepted, they moved on up to quad-SLI.

Though, I should also point out that consoles inherit the technology from game-oriented computers. And, who is driving that technology? Computer gamers in their "niche market." It's the power users that drive the market to develop faster, more powerful gaming hardware. . . and this hardware is later inherited by the consoles and --at a later time-- by the budget crowd.

And now we have the 600$ PS3 that most people think is too expensive but a small niche is vehemently defending...

Yep, they're copying PC gaming.

BTW, the consoles have been on the leading edge except for the current and next generation.

Saturn/PS1/N64 was the last generation to start ahead of PCs.

The Voodoo launched around the same time as the N64, and the PC market got in the habit of making major hardware updates annually, which let it pull ahead.

So, far from relegating PC Gaming to its "niche status" (which exists due to the nature of computer gaming rather than because of people being spendy). . . power users and those willing to pay more for better performance are driving the PC market and accelerating progress in gaming technology. You're welcome.

*laughs*

If that's what you have to tell yourself...

[Ishimaru]

Wait for the R600 if you want something to last you.

And trust me you will not survive on 80GB, with those several games you want to install and your OS, and depending on what games you install you would be down to 45-50GB already.

Just wait and buy some parts the were previously high end this year.

You won't be spending more than $1500.

[Uxi]

I am still running my 3 year old VAIO (3.4 P4 Northwood) and I still play the top games (Battlefield 2, Fear, etc) at 1920 x 1200 on my 24" monitor (Dell 2407) with maxxed settings (usually AA on 1x or 2x depending on the game). I have upgraded RAM (from 1GB to 2GB) of PC3200 and replaced the crapola FX5200 it came with, with an 6800GT OC (370mhz GPU/ 1000mhz GDDR3).

I'm definitely eyeballing my next rig, though. I think I probably got a good year in this thing, though, before I'm forced to upgrade. Then will most likely come Core 2 Duo, SLI 7950, etc. I never buy bleeding edge or even cutting edge but good deals are 3rd or 4th tier stuff is usually what I keep my eyes peeled for.

[Hurin]

Your argument ignores that it's been becoming a smaller market while gaming as a whole is growing.

It's a niche because expensive upgrades are generally expected, and they get more expensive each generation.

I don't disagree that the computer gaming market is getting smaller as the console market grows and gaming in general expands. I just don't agree with your theory about the cause. I don't think it's the expense, I think it's the complexity and the need to manage an operating system, drivers, security, antivirus, and everything else that managing a PC entails. I think your desire to attach blame for the shrinking PC gaming market on those who choose to purchase high end equipment is based in something other than concern for that market.

Having said that, while computer gaming is undergoing a period of transition, people have been predicting its imminent demise since the SNES was the latest "threat." So, I don't think PC gaming is in any danger of becoming extinct due to the nefarious actions of a few who are <gasp!> excercising their choice to purchase high-end equipment.

One was an extreme case of the average PC game developer attitude. The other was what's possible if they actually give a crap and do some optimization instead of brute-forcing everything.

Having been PC gaming to some degree since the days of DOS, I've SEEN it getting more and more insane.

I remember when ANY PC was good for gaming.

Then they ran better with 3D acceleration(usually Voodoo).

Then 3D acceleration was required.

And things've been moving steadily upwards since.

Okay, first, that's not actually true. The top-of-the-line gaming computer a decade ago cost $3000. I can remember CGW constantly spouting that old adage for years: "The computer you want always costs $3000." But, nowadays, you can get a high-end gaming system for $2000 (or less).

I don't even want to consider what my Atari 800, Commodore 128, or Apple IIgs cost in adjusted-for-inflation 2006 dollars!

Second, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to be simultaneously saying that computer gaming is requiring newer, better, and more expensive equipment and that lazy and/or callous developers are catering only to the high end. . . while you also are stating that you can still get by just fine with quite antiquated equipment.

Of course developers design their games to take advantage of the newest technology. That's only common sense. But I can't think of a single game in recent memory that didn't also allow for older systems as well. It would be foolish for developers not to make their games playable on the last few generations of systems. Aside from one or two DX10 games that are intended to drive adoption of Vista (Flight Sim X), that isn't going to change in the near future.

As for being mad that you can't play a game on a system that is below minimum requirements, well. . . all I can say is. . .

Speaking of minimum requirements. I'm looking at Company of Heroes (a state-of-the-art game) and its minimum requirements state: P4 2.0Ghz. That's a five year-old CPU. If there is a computer gamer who can't be bothered to upgrade his CPU in five years, I humbly suggest that maybe he should get out of the hobby rather than demanding everyone else slow down and stop buying new stuff.

That was the whole point behind SLI. It was a way to make a new top end, since there basically WASN'T a bottom end anymore. And once THAT became commonly accepted, they moved on up to quad-SLI.

I find this point of view mind-boggling. It's like you want hardware developers to just say: "You know what, things look good enough. Let's just stop. We're destroying computer gaming with all our new-fangled hardware that people want!"

They develop ways to make games look/sound/play better. That's what they do. You might as well get mad at the sun for coming up tomorrow. Or, as you have apparently chosen to do, you might as well blame people for wanting their games to look better (and be willing to pay for it).

And now we have the 600$ PS3 that most people think is too expensive but a small niche is vehemently defending...

Yep, they're copying PC gaming.

If it's too expensive, people won't pay it. If they priced it wrong, they'll adjust or it will fail as a product. Markets are funny like that.

Better looking and more immersive games are a good thing. Choice is a good thing. Variety is a good thing. Markets are a good thing. Communism. . . not so much. Apparently, the folks at NVIDIA and ATi should just stop all their progress because it's destroying computer gaming. Or, we should form some Game Player's Union and demand that they release their new products at a far lower price point than the market would normally bear (thus removing their motivation to develop them!). . . all to save computer gaming!

H