7 replies to this topic

[ptolomeus3]

Hi guys,
I´m planning to build a new PC. I was thinking of high quality parts without being obliged to take the latest of latest (and most expensive) technology. What I mean is, I could take a 8800GT for quite a lot of buckets, but alternative I may take for example a 8600 GTS which may be as good but much cheaper. And it must be quit, at least as quit as possible! I started to choose a Lian Li PC 7 SE-B III, probably a AMD Athlon64 X2 with EE (Energy Efficient) 5600+ or 6000+, the rest I´m not sure yet.
Now, your turn ...

[Terramex]

... but alternative I may take for example a 8600 GTS which may be as good but much cheaper.

I usually prefer nVidia GPUs due to better driver support, but sometimes the price/performance ratio lets me tend to ATI/AMD.
At the moment the Radeon HD 3850 (512 MB) really "kills" the Geforce 8600 GTS in midprice section.

[MaLing]

That is hard.

If you plan to use Vista, then it needs a lot of RAM, and so does each application/game which runs on it. The same application/game which runs in XP uses less RAM.

In addition, Vista needs DirectX 10, in NVidia series, there is only series 8 which owns this capability, whereas XP uses DirectX9, and Nvidia series 7 is a lot cheaper.

If you use XP, then you can save plenty of coins.

Edited by MaLing, 14 February 2008 - 10:02 PM.

[ptolomeus3]

... but alternative I may take for example a 8600 GTS which may be as good but much cheaper.

I usually prefer nVidia GPUs due to better driver support, but sometimes the price/performance ratio lets me tend to ATI/AMD.
At the moment the Radeon HD 3850 (512 MB) really "kills" the Geforce 8600 GTS in midprice section.

That could be interesting, had experience only with nVidea cards. Thank you.

That is hard.

If you plan to use Vista, then it needs a lot of RAM, and so does each application/game which runs on it. The same application/game which runs in XP uses less RAM.

In addition, Vista needs DirectX 10, in NVidia series, there is only series 8 which owns this capability, whereas XP uses DirectX9, and Nvidia series 7 is a lot cheaper.

If you use XP, then you can save plenty of coins.

Yes MaLing, I agree with you. And that´s areason why I´m not yet sure which direction to go, Vista or XP.

[Charalambos]

In fact Windows Vista also features the DirectX 9 along with the DirectX 10. Anyway I would go for a 8 series graphics card. I think the wise thing is to buy the "hotest" technological stuff so that it takes it more time to become "cold".

[Robbo]

I would recomend going 8800GT m8 also Processor go Core2Duo or CoreQuad there better than AMD at the moment, OS go Vista ive been using Ultimate for around 10 months now and had no problems whatever, whether programs or Games, Memory I would personally bang in 4GB at least.

[ChiefNuts]

I agree with Robbo on the RAM. With DDR2 Prices as cheap as they are, I would go for 8GB ram for < 200 USD. I have been using Vista Ultimate x64 since release, and have few issues with older applications. Core 2 Quad q6600 is what I currently have, and it really helps Vista to feel more responsive.
I have a ATI 2600XT and a GeForce 7600GT, but I think I would choose a 8800GT next time around for gaming only, or a ATI 3850 or 3870 for an Home Theater PC

Edited by ChiefNuts, 18 February 2008 - 10:23 AM.

[kodiak536]

I've go the Nvidia 8800 series on mine and so do my wife. Graphics are awesome! I run P4 3.2GHz O.C to 3.7GHz, my wife runs Core2 Duo with stock setup and it too performs excellent. I've got 4Gb of DDR2 RAM and she got 2Gb of DDR2 RAM. Any games we want to play, the performs great.