Just got myself a new gaming rig :)

D

Direwolf20

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,467
So I've been running a P4 3.2 with a junky ATI video card for far too long now, and I finally managed to get myself a new gaming PC.

It's an Intel quad core, on an EVGA 680i motherboard (with SLI capabilities, but I only got 1 video card for now).

Got an nVidia 8800 GT and 2gb of RAM.

Finally, I can play the newer games like bioshock. That PC should be good for a while right? :)

What do you guys recommend I should pick up?

I got supreme commander on my old PC, but the framerate was awful, can't wait to get that going on my new PC as well. I picked up bioshock, and Crysis is on my 'To-Do' list. I'm sure these will keep me busy (in between WoW and Wife) but are there any other major titles that came out recently that you recommend? I know COD was big as well.
 
Definitely Call of Duty 4 and maybe Team Fortress 2, both great online FPS games =). And congrats on your new rig!
 
^ ignore him. 2GB will run any game on that system (assuming you're on XP). You may struggle with Crysis but the reality is everyone does at certain resolutions.
 
Yeah I would second COD4.
I didn't really enjoy the COD series since it was all WWII based and I didn't really dig that.
But with COD4 modern warfare, I thought I would check it out, and I must say it's a lot of fun !!!
Single player (although kinda short) was a lot of fun ( and I mean a lot of fun!) which made me buy the game only to be able to play multi player.

And like I said before on another thread, COD4 multi player has kept my attention since then, even though I own a bunch of other new games as well (didn't finish crysis and Bioshock, uninstalled GOW and UT3, haven' t even installed some other games like Timeshift)...

Congrats on your new Rig, and don't be a fool, don't buy Crysis just because it's pretty and you wanna test your machine...it's a little pricey for a test. Just get the demo and check it out...
 
inotocracy said:
^ ignore him. 2GB will run any game on that system (assuming you're on XP). You may struggle with Crysis but the reality is everyone does at certain resolutions.
Click to expand...

2GB is pretty much the minimum if you want the game right now, and since he went with a Quad Core and a 8800, I see no reason to limit a system with only 2GB given that 4GB of RAM is only like $30 more. 4GB would be much better suited for the rest of the system. If he went with a Core 2 Duo and a 8600 video card, 2GB would make more sense. And sure, if he is running XP, then its easier to get away with 2GB, however does not change the fact a system like that does better with 4GB to play with.
 
Direwolf20 said:
So I should bump it up to 4gb?
Click to expand...


What OS are you running? With a 32bit OS, you will only get to use ~3 to 3.5GB of a 4GB RAM layout. With 64 bit OS, you will get all 4GB. Also, if you are running Vista, I think you would be very happy with your results from going on to 4GB. If you are running XP 32 bit, its not going to be very noticeable, however if you are running Vista 64 bit OS, its going to be a huge boost. If you fall somewhere in the middle, performance gains will vary.

Regardless, its real cheap to do anyway, so I would do it even with XP 32 bit.
 
I've got XP 32bit.

EDIT: Maybe I'll upgrade the RAM when I get the 2nd video card for SLI down the road sometime. For now I think I'll be in good shape :). We'll see how things run.
 
your good for now, although ram is cheap,

i have 2 gigs, and have no issues...

Although i noticed an improvement when i upgraded from Vista back to XP

so maybe you need more for vista

2 gigs in xp is butter
 
lol i remember when 1gb was enough...oh those where the days.

also 600$ 6800gt's

and sli coming out...

i feel old and i built this computer 4 years ago
 
Direwolf20 said:
I've got XP 32bit.

EDIT: Maybe I'll upgrade the RAM when I get the 2nd video card for SLI down the road sometime. For now I think I'll be in good shape :). We'll see how things run.
Click to expand...

As cheap as 4 gigs of DDR2 is ... no way i would just use 2gigs ....prices forces towards 4 gigs

i am thinking about 6 gigs now.
 
no need for more than 2gigs what can you do that i can't with my 2gb all i do is game watch hd movies and surf the web if that is what your planning on doing too then there is no need for more and i guarantee crysis looks and runs better on my rig than yours and its not the price

if you disagree feel free to prove me wrong and post some screens with framerates showing @1680x1050 or higher in the crysis screenshot thread and these are just my old pics i've yet to take any screens with my new custom config with even higher framerates and better image quality
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1251098
 
POPEGOLD said:
if u are running vista 64 like me ....4 gigs is the sweet spot.. I cant even use a machine with old old XP anymore so using 2 gigs is not an option
Click to expand...

Same 4 gigs is awesome.

You'll hear a lot of people bagging on Crysis. I would recommend it myself.
 
punbx360, are you on vista?

I have 2bg in vista and my ram is around 95% when gaming, and nothing open in the background.
 
I'd recommend checking out Company of Heroes and the Orange Box if you haven't done so yet.
 
N3mi5is said:
punbx360, are you on vista?

I have 2bg in vista and my ram is around 95% when gaming, and nothing open in the background.
Click to expand...

you make a valid point no i have vista ultimate but only use it for media center stuff i use xp pro to game if you are using vista as your main then 4gigs would make more sense i agree and switching to 64 bit too
 
It's cheap to upgrade, but if you're on a 32-bit OS, you're not going to see much difference between 2GB and 4GB in any games. It made my 3dMarks go up a whopping 200 points, and I gained all of an additional 1-2 FPS in Crysis.
It's an easy and affordable upgrade, but don't think it'll make your performance really change THAT much.
It's mainly better for the OS itself more than games.
 
Direwolf20 said:
So I should bump it up to 4gb?
Click to expand...

No, 2gig is enough, don't listen to these people who just think more is better. Trust me, I just bought a new PC with similar specs to yours, nearly indentical in fact and it runs everything just great.
 
Haha ya, I've got Orange box too :). TF2 is fun, but I play it for spurts. Like I'll play for a couple days, and then not again for a couple weeks. Its definitely fun though.
 
shaunh20 said:
No, 2gig is enough, don't listen to these people who just think more is better. Trust me, I just bought a new PC with similar specs to yours, nearly indentical in fact and it runs everything just great.
Click to expand...

Yeah if you run benchmarks its about the same. If you like, actually use the computer, leave a few apps open in the background, maybe listen to some music, work on some docs for work, poke through a PDF, and then play a game, 2GB runs out really fast. And if you do NOT plan on doing a bunch of shit at once, then why the hell would someone buy a Quad Core anyway? Not to mention load times are usually faster with over RAM 2GB, faster saving too, faster app switching... I think anyone saying "2GB is enough" never ran Vista with 4GB. I already said the difference would be minimal with XP 32 which he has, but to deny that 4GB on Vista is a huge improvement would be foolish.
 
Were talking XP, not Vista. The performance jump would be minimal with XP, if any.
 
ocellaris said:
Yeah if you run benchmarks its about the same. If you like, actually use the computer, leave a few apps open in the background, maybe listen to some music, work on some docs for work, poke through a PDF, and then play a game, 2GB runs out really fast. And if you do NOT plan on doing a bunch of shit at once, then why the hell would someone buy a Quad Core anyway? Not to mention load times are usually faster with over RAM 2GB, faster saving too, faster app switching... I think anyone saying "2GB is enough" never ran Vista with 4GB. I already said the difference would be minimal with XP 32 which he has, but to deny that 4GB on Vista is a huge improvement would be foolish.
Click to expand...

inotocracy said:
Were talking XP, not Vista. The performance jump would be minimal with XP, if any.
Click to expand...

exactly the op has already stated he is running xp 32 i can do all of the above with my quad and 2gigs with no lag all i do is multi task
 
ocellaris said:
Yeah if you run benchmarks its about the same. If you like, actually use the computer, leave a few apps open in the background, maybe listen to some music, work on some docs for work, poke through a PDF, and then play a game, 2GB runs out really fast. And if you do NOT plan on doing a bunch of shit at once, then why the hell would someone buy a Quad Core anyway? Not to mention load times are usually faster with over RAM 2GB, faster saving too, faster app switching... I think anyone saying "2GB is enough" never ran Vista with 4GB. I already said the difference would be minimal with XP 32 which he has, but to deny that 4GB on Vista is a huge improvement would be foolish.
Click to expand...

Even with Vista PC World ran tests and the performance increase from 2gig to 4gig was very negligible. They said that bottom line it wasn't worth the upgrade. Also, while I was shopping I asked both AVADirect and VigorGaming about what they recommended and they said 2gig was enough, 4gig was not necessary. Now one would think if there was any reason whatsoever to buy more and spend more money then the vendors would be telling you this but them not even recommending it when they could speaks volumes IMO.

Is more and/or faster typically better in computers? Of course it almost always is, but it boils down to the cost vs. value ratio. If you are really interested in any improvement whatsoever then sure, get 4gigs, but the guy who is asking about this is asking in regards to is it really necessary to do so for games sake and the answer is definitely not.

And I don't need to run 4gigs to know as you state, if everything runs great at 2gigs on my current setup it's not going to run even more great when I go to 4gigs.... ie. it runs great in the first place.
 
shaunh20 said:
Even with Vista PC World ran tests and the performance increase from 2gig to 4gig was very negligible. They said that bottom line it wasn't worth the upgrade. Also, while I was shopping I asked both AVADirect and VigorGaming about what they recommended and they said 2gig was enough, 4gig was not necessary. Now one would think if there was any reason whatsoever to buy more and spend more money then the vendors would be telling you this but them not even recommending it when they could speaks volumes IMO.

Is more and/or faster typically better in computers? Of course it almost always is, but it boils down to the cost vs. value ratio. If you are really interested in any improvement whatsoever then sure, get 4gigs, but the guy who is asking about this is asking in regards to is it really necessary to do so for games sake and the answer is definitely not.

And I don't need to run 4gigs to know as you state, if everything runs great at 2gigs on my current setup it's not going to run even more great when I go to 4gigs.... ie. it runs great in the first place.
Click to expand...

I noticed a difference with 4 gigs. Everything loads much faster, and I noticed it smoothed out gameplay, especially in Crysis. Maybe SuperFetch is actually doing its job. And the extra 2GB is like $40.
 
KillerTomato said:
lol i remember when 1gb was enough...oh those where the days.

also 600$ 6800gt's

and sli coming out...

i feel old and i built this computer 4 years ago
Click to expand...

I remember the day when I got my hands on the x800xt pe, right when they were released.. costed me $700+. Oh those were the days, that card was beastly.
 
haha makes you wanna cry when you look at how much u spent on old cards
 
Even with Vista PC World ran tests and the performance increase from 2gig to 4gig was very negligible. They said that bottom line it wasn't worth the upgrade. Also, while I was shopping I asked both AVADirect and VigorGaming about what they recommended and they said 2gig was enough, 4gig was not necessary. Now one would think if there was any reason whatsoever to buy more and spend more money then the vendors would be telling you this but them not even recommending it when they could speaks volumes IMO.

Is more and/or faster typically better in computers? Of course it almost always is, but it boils down to the cost vs. value ratio. If you are really interested in any improvement whatsoever then sure, get 4gigs, but the guy who is asking about this is asking in regards to is it really necessary to do so for games sake and the answer is definitely not.
Click to expand...

Sorry I actually use PCs, not sit around and run tests on them all day. 4GB on Vista 64 has been a very nice performance increase for me and everyone else I talk to that has tried it. Most system benchmarks are just shit and barely multitask. I see little point in spending the extra money on a Quad Core and then gimping the ram to only 2GB (like I said, this primarily applies to Vista 64). Why get a Quad Core if you do not plan to really be using the system? Just buying Quad Core for the epeen value or what? There is way more to a PC's speed than just benchmarks, and with 4GB on Vista the whole thing runs pretty damn smooth, everything launches faster, you can definitely feel it in the overall experience with gaming with transitions from game to game and faster load times, and the PC basically never has to access the swap file while you are playing or running apps. I've seen plenty of people use the "well it runs just fine now" excuse, but when/if they do move up to 4GB, they wish they did it sooner. Fact is the cost/performance ratio of going with 4GB over 2GB is definitely there, its one of the most inexpensive upgrades to make and it helps the entire experience.
 
to summarize what everyone has been saying in this thread if you are using vista you should have 4gb but if you use xp you do not need more than 2gb
 
Another vote for COD4 and Orange Box. I have both for the 360, but I would prefer them for PC if I had a good desktop. I want to try COD4 online with a mouse and keyboard so bad.
 
Ragenrok said:
haha makes you wanna cry when you look at how much u spent on old cards
Click to expand...

Agreed, but for the x800xt pe, it was money well spent, used it for many years, and it still runs some games pretty well to this day! :p

And yeah, really for FPS, I only prefer CoD4 and TF2 as of late, no other FPS captures my interest.
 
shaunh20 said:
No, 2gig is enough, don't listen to these people who just think more is better. Trust me, I just bought a new PC with similar specs to yours, nearly indentical in fact and it runs everything just great.
Click to expand...

False, I had 2GB, upgraded to 4 and it was night and day. If you have the cash, upgrade to 4. Ram is cheap now-a-days.

edit. And by that I mean, what ethusiast about anything wants something to run just 'great'. We was everything to run UNBELIEVEABLE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top