New computer! Wtf should I get ?

[hrmph]

Quad core or dual core ? Right now I'm using a 3.2 ghz intel pentium prescott, and it really sucks for running large games in spring. I don't want to spend more than 900 or a thousand bucks.

[Snipawolf]

For Spring, dual, for future gaming, maybe a quad.

[Forboding Angel]

phenom 2 quad 3.0 ghz ftw

[Beherith]

Go for dual intel e8400 or e8500 and an nvidia 9800gt. Both are really excellent bang for buck.

[aegis]

I'd get a 9800 gtx+ over a 9800 gt - the power increase is worth it. I support forb with the phenom II 940 choice, as it performs almost as well in games as the $800 more i7 :)

if you're willing to spend the extra money, a gtx 280 wouldn't be bad. it depends on how big your monitor will be, though. I play games on medium to very high with a 9800 gtx+ @ 1920x1200

[Muzic]

For graphics cards id either go with a 260GTX or a 4870HD 1gb.
Both preform around the same and beat eachother slightly in some instances. The 260 is quieter :3, i know this frmo experience; 4870 is a loud motherfucker.

With a 1000 dollar budget, you can easily get something that'll last for 2-4 years depending on your standards. But you the most important thing to spend on is a graphics card rather than a CPU, all you have to do is make sure your CPU doesn't bottleneck your GPU, and in reality i think its all hype when people say that lower end CPUs bottleneck higher end 1chip GPUs.

Also dont go for those ridiculously expensive mother boards.

Sound cards are really optional, i only got mine becuase i was getting sound artifracts in Oblivion and in DVDs. But iunno, maybe installing CCCodec pack would have solved it.

RAM, 2-4 GB of DDR2 6400 should still do you fine. You dont need to get the latest and greatest sticks of ram that'll cost like a couple hundred +++. But i haven't checked RAM pricing in awhile so maybe you can get a 2-4GB of like DDR2 8XXX for a 100 dollars or less.

PSU, try and get a 600W+ modular PSU. Modular PSUs are heavenly, as you dont have to bloody deal with the fact that you use like only 20% of the cables given to you and then attempt to hide the other 80 without inturrupting your fans.

get like an e8XXX, which is a solid dual core CPU and go get a 260-275 or a 4870-4890.

By the way, when it comes to graphics cards. Get an XFX, they follow the nintendo way of "we'll replace your card just aslong as you dont cum on it or something". They have great warranties just incase you do something retarded or after your store warranty runs out and your card some how fails magically, then you can RMA without any worries.

The graphics cards i just said are like anywhere from 2-300 dollars. Which is a third of your budget but thats where you really want to spend your money. Then you have like 200 dollars left a CPU, 50-100 for RAM, 100-150 for a mobo, 100 for a case, 100 for a PSU.

edit: HD, but thats up to how you use up your space weither or not you want to migrate your old HD, or you back up data, etc etc. You'll either migrate, get 1 HD, 2 HD in raid 0 or raid 1, or partition things blahblah.

[Pxtl]

Nobody knows what to do with those other two cores yet. I've yet to see any gaming benchmarks that shows a quad-core outperforming a dual-core of similar price.

Now, on the one hand, quad-core might be future-proof, but the future isn't here yet.

Also, quad-cores are a little less "green" if you worry about that sort of thing - they gulp energy compared to dual-cores.

[Muzic]

Nobody knows what to do with those other two cores yet. I've yet to see any gaming benchmarks that shows a quad-core outperforming a dual-core of similar price.

Now, on the one hand, quad-core might be future-proof, but the future isn't here yet.

Also, quad-cores are a little less "green" if you worry about that sort of thing - they gulp energy compared to dual-cores.

truth. But hey, if you REALLY wanted to future proof then youd go for like a core 7i or whatever the hell they're called and DDR3 memory and like SLI 280GTX : p

[SwiftSpear]

I've got a hamster in wheel V4.12 with a special Japaneseboi math coprocesser. This thing picks up hardcore when you put a little carrot sushi in front of the case. highly recommend.

[[Krogoth86]]

In the end it's up to you what you choose - just only take what you need...

Currently a Dual Core CPU is sufficent so if it's just about gaming I'd stay with two cores. In that case I'd have a look at Intel's E-Series (7000 or 8000 series depending on your budget). For a Quad Core I'd have a look at AMD's Phenom II...

When it's about the GPU you really need to sort out what you need. I for example have a HD4870 here at home but just a HD4830 in another PC I use. The reason is simply that there are little to no good games around (for me) that would really need the power a 4870 delivers. So as long as you're no fps junkie that has to play the latest shooters at max quality you'll be pleased by a HD4850 / GTS 250 or something like that...

When it's about the power supply and you don't choose a totally high-end graphics card and want just to have a single one - something with 400-450 watts is totally sufficent...

For the rest - well don't be fooled to get yourself some DDR3 Ram as it's not worth the price when comparing to DDR2. DDR2-800 Ram also is totally sufficent (especially for Intel systems) and is very cheap. You nowadays should just grab yourself a 4GB twinpack even if your OS won't make good use of 4GB...

The other components should be "business as usual". Don't know how much you know here...

[ZellSF]

Nobody knows what to do with those other two cores yet. I've yet to see any gaming benchmarks that shows a quad-core outperforming a dual-core of similar price.

Now, on the one hand, quad-core might be future-proof, but the future isn't here yet.

There are uses for quad cores today, maybe not gaming, but I've had both my 3.0ghz cores running at 100% lots of times before.

[Spawn_Retard]

quads are way nice, optimal gaming at the moment is dual core.

In a few years you'll be asking quad core or * core though.

I have a quad that's more reliable than any duo I've ever been on

[Muzic]

quads are way nice, optimal gaming at the moment is dual core.

In a few years you'll be asking quad core or * core though.

I have a quad that's more reliable than any duo I've ever been on

In a few years, we'll have like 16 core CPUs o-o; Arent the Intel i processors 8 core? I could be totally wrong.

[ZellSF]

You're totally wrong. 4 cores with hyperthreading (so the OS probably sees it as 8 cores).

[imbaczek]

6- and 8-core processors are just around the corner IIRC.

[Muzic]

6- and 8-core processors are just around the corner IIRC.

I know, they just have to wait for those damn developers to utilize them

[Snipawolf]

I think... We should allow game developers to play catch up while the processor developers work on faster single, dual, and quad cores. Why have 8 cores if, when you come to a process that can only use one or two, your little 8 1.6 ghz cores wheeze and die on you compared to a dual 3ghz?

[imbaczek]

some hardware advice that i can give:

CPU: E8xxx (I've got a E8400 and it's lightning quick)
Mobo: pretty much anything P45 (I've got a Gigabyte EP45-DS3)
Gfx: ATI 4850 (or 4870 if you've got money to spare and/or a big display) - make sure to grab one with the best cooler you can find since those things run hot under load. Performance of nvidia parts in similar price range is pretty much equal (cards trade blows depending on the game), so brand/game preference here may take over.

The rest are details (get an intel ssd drive if you've got a truckload of money ^^)

[[Krogoth86]]

Why have 8 cores if, when you come to a process that can only use one or two, your little 8 1.6 ghz cores wheeze and die on you compared to a dual 3ghz?

Well the 1.6 GHz comparison is a bit unfair as >2 core CPU clocks aren't that much lower than their dual core brethren (they cost a lot more of course). You won't see any developments towards huge clock increases per core in the near future as getting additional power via the clock has become to inefficent while additional cores scale pretty nice. It may be true that things like that make it rather slow into the PC gaming industry and so you have rather few games which have a quite immense advantage of eg. four cores...

At the same time gaming is not what those processors are made for in the first place. The main focus (especially Server CPUs) relies on stuff which can be quite easily parallelized. Gaming imo is the only sector that can show a high demand of processing power and stays a bit behind the recent developments. Most certainly because today's games have their roots 2-3 years ago and back then the number of e.g. quad users just wasn't high enough (or wasn't expected to be high enough now) to justify the effort of doing a support for this...

This might change with games being released in the next one or two years just as for projects which will be released on consoles too as those have a quite high number of cores...

[bobthedinosaur]

Hmm in my experience ATI have made some great gpu hardware but their drivers, and other software have had some rough times, and at time it has made me wish I went for nvidia instead. Unless you have too much money to spend blowing it the latest tech doesn't seem smart when in 6 months the price will drop significantly.