Worth the money? (PC nerd thread)

Rick Sanchez · #1 28th July 2007, 22:06

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...5036&rd=1&rd=1

EDIT: A beter one I found http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...link:middle:uk

My current rubbish, 5-year-old PC's harddrive has packed up (with all my files on it...) and there's no hope in hell that I'm spending money on buying a new harddrive for such a shit PC.

Just wondering what you guys think of this. Sure, it's a beasty PC, but is it worth the money, do you think? The company seems decent.

#2 28th July 2007, 22:58

Hey ya.

Well, when purchasing a PC i wouldn't look at the spec but rather base your purchase on what you're going to be using it for, then work it around that. If it's for minimal every day use, then that wouldn't require so much of the power so base your specs around primarily the RAM and Hard Drive and not so much everything else. If you're playing games and running applications that require heaving processing power, then something like what you have posted here would be sufficient.

I would go for a laptop personally, there's some great deals around for laptops.

IAMNC · #3 29th July 2007, 01:01

Do all you guys use windows/vista ?
I switched to linux earlier this year and (i have an amd 3500+) my pc rarely clocks itself over 800mhz. My wife uses my old pc (intel 3.6 gig monster) and it sounds like a vacuum!

Rick Sanchez · #4 29th July 2007, 12:59

Well I could build my own PC (I have done in the past), but that requires tedious purchasing of parts, looking to see if they work fine together, putting it together etc. Ugh. I'd rather it just all be there ready for me.

And I know AMD CPUs have a better reputation - my old PC has one - but I couldn't find another PC with that sort of mental spec and at that price.

I already have a laptop - I'm using it right now, actually - so don't really want another one.

Thanks for the replies, but I'd like some more opinions. Come on, there must be more computer nerds on here?

Rick Sanchez · #5 29th July 2007, 13:16

Found this one:http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...link:middle:uk

Same money, better PC...

Rick Sanchez · #6 29th July 2007, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by dualcore

You thought about a barebone system, that way you dont have to look for the majority of compatable stuff like mem and MB, then you can please yourself on amd chip size etc.

we use corsair mem sticks with the A-Bit motherboards we have, they go fine with other MB makes too as he has done a few for mates in the past with no compatability problems.

Yeah, but I don't think I'd save much - if anything. The CPU in that PC I just posted costs around £200 on its own. £499 seems a bargain.

Rick Sanchez · #7 29th July 2007, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterCaster

Damm I love Pc Nerd Threads.

To be fair that is a good deal for the price and what your getting Godfather, only concern of mine would be the processor, its shit. I bought the computer I'm using now in October 2004, its 3.4ghz, Intel Pentium 4 with 1 gig of ram. To be fair, for the money, that one on ebay is ok, but seriously, processing speed is what you want over anything else. Hardrive space means very little when it comes to running high spec games. Last 3 computers I have had were Dells and this is the last one because they are very errenous in my opinion and really are not built for gaming, neither are laptops, which are basically just work stations..... for work... and the fact they are portable is all they are good for. That's why I'm going to get a custom spec Alienware PC next round. You get more bang for your buck. I'm not a complete nerd so I can't quote every spec and say whether its good or not. But I know enough to know what I want when I buy one, if you know what I mean. Computers really are not like used cars, they have to compete with ever updating software and technology, so you really want to spend in the region of one and a half thousand, at least, and that will last you a good five to six years without any serious slow down on the latest games. You get what you pay for..

http://www.alienware.co.uk/main_gaming.aspx

Shit?! A quad core Q6600 is shit?! The motherf**ker runs at 1066mhz/10.66Ghz.

If that's shit in your books then you must have pretty high standards. Jesus.

paulthequiet · #8 29th July 2007, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfather

Shit?! A quad core Q6600 is shit?! The motherf**ker runs at 1066mhz

If that's shit in your books then you must have pretty high standards. Jesus.

I was about to say, there's nowt wrong with that processessing speed given its a quad core. I think the only problem with muti core is that games aren't designed to take advantage of them, though that will change. At least that's what I always hear. Having said that I know our core 2 duo kicks the crap out of the pentium 4 we used to have.

Looks like a good system to me

Rick Sanchez · #9 29th July 2007, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by dualcore

Well blame ebuyer, I copied the link direct from the site, or summit is latching onto external links from here. I use mcafee and wasnt alerted to any trojans!

Intel are overated and expensive crap IMO, AMD have a larger scope for expansion and compatability with graphics cards etc from low to high end specs, the processors are better value for money and a well built amd system does you a lot longer.

He has the athlon64 x2 4600 with an a-bit an8-32x and g-force 8800GTX graphics, he has had the system about a year now and it still wipes the floor with his friends so called high end intel with same power on graphics on bench marking etc. That chip can now be bought for less than 100quid since he got it.

I run his old amd xp 3000+ in this which was his old system and he got that a good few years ago now and its still a bloody good system.

Well, I can't see how it 'wipes the floor' with it. What Intel CPU did he have? His system is a damn good one anyway, so I'd say it wipes the floor with most.

I have an AMD PC and an Intel laptop. Both good in different ways, to be honest. I'm not really interested in those sorts of arguments. It's like the whole tedious Mac vs PC debate.

And I'd say the 6600 quad seems awesome, myself.

Rick Sanchez · #10 29th July 2007, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulthequiet

I was about to say, there's nowt wrong with that processessing speed given its a quad core. I think the only problem with muti core is that games aren't designed to take advantage of them, though that will change. At least that's what I always hear. Having said that I know our core 2 duo kicks the crap out of the pentium 4 we used to have.

Looks like a good system to me

Really? Never heard about that myself. I hear these CPUs can easily handle the most high-end games there are.

paulthequiet · #11 29th July 2007, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfather

Really? Never heard about that myself. I hear these CPUs can easily handle the most high-end games there are.

Well I'm no expert, I just recall reading it somewhere. . Though I also read that even if the game can only use one core the other is free to stop windows slowing things down so its still faster. Experience with mine says everythings fine. Older games getting confused is probably more likely but then there's often problems with older games regardless.

Arfed · #12 29th July 2007, 21:19

Dual core is the best for games atm as games really can't make good use of more than two cores yet; you would be better off spending the money for the two extra cores on a better gfx card.

Also, while AMD were previously well known for producing better value processors, they are now playing catch up with Intels more recent dual cores (for more than a year now they haven't been able to compete, Intel give you more performance for your money atm).

Be careful what gfx card you get; if you plan on buying many new, performance intensive games then you don't want to buy a cheap gfx card as they are much more important than the processor in terms of performance. Read up on things a bit:
www.tomshardware.com (not 100% unbiased I'm sure but it's the only useful site I know for reviews)

Rick Sanchez · #13 29th July 2007, 22:15

I've looked into it more, and all it says is that quad core is basically too complicated for most games; it still easily handles them, however.

I'm not really into playing cutting-edge games on my PC, as I have an Xbox 360 and that's all I need for that. The graphics card may not be in the cutting-edge league, but it's still a damn good card, and coupled with the, well, mental CPU, the system could easily handle most games anyway.

What I've really bought the system for is for future-proofing, and because I want to run several programs at once and not have my PC either crash or slow down to a slug's pace. It really pisses me off.

Anyway, thanks for your replies, and I'm going to buy it tomorrow. It'll leave me skint, but I don't care.

Rick Sanchez · #14 30th July 2007, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterCaster

Quad Core? What the shit? Alots changed in 4 years

I got alotta reading up to do, been thinking about a new system recently actually. One I got now has Radeon x800 graphics card, still runs smooth, like to know more about this new type of processing.

Yeah, sometimes they read 2.6GHz, or whatever (which is probably why you said it's shit, which is fair enough), but really that's 2.6GHz X 4. It's insane power. It's not 4 CPUs, but four cores, each running at around 2.6GHz.

Rick Sanchez · #15 30th July 2007, 12:37

Well, I've just payed for it and now I'm officially skint.

Woo-hoo!

Rick Sanchez · #16 30th July 2007, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterCaster

So you mean its 2.65 but its just managed and powered more efficiently?

+ I just shelled out five grand for a car + insurance + tax, so I know how you feel

I think they say their clock speed is 2.6GHz because it's still one CPU, just with four cores. It has the power of 10.66GHz. If it was a single core CPU with the same power, then they'd officially say it's 10.66GHz, I guess.

(I said GHz way too much then. I feel nerdy).

Arfed · #17 30th July 2007, 18:04

Yea but you can't get the four cores to work together on any one task; at best, a power-hungry program will only be able to offload very small tasks to the other cores, fully using up one core while barely using any of the others.

You will very rarely use up all the cores and a lower-clocked quad core is often slower while in use than a higher-clocked dual core, because a faster core can handle the main power-hungry task better

(while still having spare power on the other core for running multiple programs)

Rick Sanchez · #18 30th July 2007, 18:20

Yeah, I read about that, but I also read about comparisons of top-of-the-range dual-cores and quad-cores; the quad-cores mostly came up tops on most power-hungry programs (such as Photoshop etc).