Just got myself a new gaming rig :)

Holy freaking hell. I thought this thread was on what game he should get.

some good recommendations:

the Witcher
the orange box
Supreme Commander
Pirates of the Burning Seas
COD4
Sins of a solar empire
 
don't listen to people telling you to upgrade you ram. Games are almost 90% GPU dependent, the rest CPU, as long as you got 2 gigs of ram, it doesn't matter. There have been several tests showing no improvements in Crysis performance going from 2 gig to 4 gig ram.
 
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.


They were never 700. The highest retail they were up to $560, at least that was on Newegg. :confused:
 
Oh yea, Sins of a Solar Empire, I remember hearing about that :). I'll look into it, thanks for all.
 
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.

Ever heard of the placebo effect? Of course it seems faster to you because you've paid the money and that's what you want to believe. Also, like I said, in some cases it will be faster, just not worth the extra money faster. Oh and btw in regards to those PC World tests, they were tests using real world apps, the same apps you, myself and everyone else uses such as IE, Firefox, Photoshop, Adobe, etc.

Also, I see a lot of people saying it's only $40 to go up another 2gigs, and of course that's entirely dependent upon what RAM you're getting....but even if we agree it's $40 then to some it's not worth paying even $40 for 2/10ths of a second here or there. Now if it was $10 then maybe it'd have a cost to value ratio worthwhile. But that's just my opinion of course. Some people may find every little way they can get more speed no matter what the cost it's worthwhile. I personally don't see that it's worth it though and it just so happens the experts such as PC World and the PC vendors (at least the ones I spoke to) agree with me.

Unless you're editing video or doing CAD or something, which i'm sure the OP is not, then it's not worth the $$$ to go from 2gig to 4gig.

Also here are my games i'm enjoying on my new PC, as you can see some are a bit older and i've found them for pretty cheap on Ebay:

Sims 2
Simcity 4 (got this at circuit city for $19)
Pirates! (the original not the burning sea thing)
Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts (got this for free with my video card)
Lost Planet (got this for free with my video card)
Age of Empires III Gold w/the Indians add-on CD (got this on ebay for $15)
World in Conflict (got this on ebay for $20)
Crysis demo (still undecided if i'll buy it or not)
Neverwinter Nights Platinum (got on ebay for $7)
Titan Quest (if you like Diablo you should like this and it can be found cheeep)
Mythos beta (look in these forums for an invite and it's free)
 
They were never 700. The highest retail they were up to $560, at least that was on Newegg. :confused:

In Canada they were, and they were past that in american dollars, I remember the price gouging. It was phantom edition for a reason, heh :p.
 
don't listen to people telling you to upgrade you ram. Games are almost 90% GPU dependent, the rest CPU, as long as you got 2 gigs of ram, it doesn't matter. There have been several tests showing no improvements in Crysis performance going from 2 gig to 4 gig ram.

ok if u like to shut eveything down then play crysis with 2 gigs... go for it

with my 4 gigs... i can leave alot of stuff running in the background and fire up any game and see no performance hit...

try that with vista 64 and 2 gigs of ram...and enjoy the slide show and load times
 
ok if u like to shut eveything down then play crysis with 2 gigs... go for it

with my 4 gigs... i can leave alot of stuff running in the background and fire up any game and see no performance hit...

try that with vista 64 and 2 gigs of ram...and enjoy the slide show and load times

Yeah on Vista 64, 4 gigs I would say is the good stuff, I can leave a lot of stuff running in the background and still enjoy a game.
 
Yeah on Vista 64, 4 gigs I would say is the good stuff, I can leave a lot of stuff running in the background and still enjoy a game.

Same here, but with 2 gigs and 32 bit.

The only time I notice any slow down is when i'm exiting out of a game. The game will close and it will take a pretty good while (20-30 seconds) before my system is back to it's fully responsive self. But I always have firefox, xfire, steam, crylaunch, fraps, and some windows explorer windows open heh.
 
Ever heard of the placebo effect? Of course it seems faster to you because you've paid the money and that's what you want to believe. Also, like I said, in some cases it will be faster, just not worth the extra money faster. Oh and btw in regards to those PC World tests, they were tests using real world apps, the same apps you, myself and everyone else uses such as IE, Firefox, Photoshop, Adobe, etc.

Also, I see a lot of people saying it's only $40 to go up another 2gigs, and of course that's entirely dependent upon what RAM you're getting....but even if we agree it's $40 then to some it's not worth paying even $40 for 2/10ths of a second here or there. Now if it was $10 then maybe it'd have a cost to value ratio worthwhile. But that's just my opinion of course. Some people may find every little way they can get more speed no matter what the cost it's worthwhile. I personally don't see that it's worth it though and it just so happens the experts such as PC World and the PC vendors (at least the ones I spoke to) agree with me.

well then the experts have no idea what they are talking about... i have had 2 gigs under vista64 and 4 gigs under vista..... so i know the difference first hand..and i can leave whateva i want running and run whateva i want.... full freedom..... and i am future proof....more demanding games wanna suck up more ram... its there for them.

and its cheap to get 4 gigs... so why the hell would anyone stick with 2 gigs...What are u going to wait till ram prices go UP to but it then?

your argument makes no sense.... you think when the games coming out this year will need LESS resources or more..
 
well then the experts have no idea what they are talking about... i have had 2 gigs under vista64 and 4 gigs under vista..... so i know the difference first hand..and i can leave whateva i want running and run whateva i want.... full freedom..... and i am future proof....more demanding games wanna suck up more ram... its there for them.

and its cheap to get 4 gigs... so why the hell would anyone stick with 2 gigs...What are u going to wait till ram prices go UP to but it then?

your argument makes no sense.... you think when the games coming out this year will need LESS resources or more..

My arguement makes perfect sense, if there is not much difference now, then wait and prices will fall. Prices fall in the computer industry so waiting is always a good thing. The price vs. performance ratio right now is not worth it to myself and regular users. I suppose if you want to be future proof as you appear to be then it's a worthwhile investment. But how hard is it to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in a few months? Not hard for most of us that come to this forum. Hence my position on all of this.
 
Ever heard of the placebo effect? Of course it seems faster to you because you've paid the money and that's what you want to believe. Also, like I said, in some cases it will be faster, just not worth the extra money faster. Oh and btw in regards to those PC World tests, they were tests using real world apps, the same apps you, myself and everyone else uses such as IE, Firefox, Photoshop, Adobe, etc.

Also, I see a lot of people saying it's only $40 to go up another 2gigs, and of course that's entirely dependent upon what RAM you're getting....but even if we agree it's $40 then to some it's not worth paying even $40 for 2/10ths of a second here or there. Now if it was $10 then maybe it'd have a cost to value ratio worthwhile. But that's just my opinion of course. Some people may find every little way they can get more speed no matter what the cost it's worthwhile. I personally don't see that it's worth it though and it just so happens the experts such as PC World and the PC vendors (at least the ones I spoke to) agree with me.

Its got nothing to do with placebo effect. I can assure you that I am not bullshitting about 4GB being better just because I paid for it. I am super critical of everything I buy, if there was no big difference, I would be telling everyone 4GB on Vista 64 is a waste. While you are busy reading up in PC World like its some kind of Bible, I've actually done the 2GB -> 4GB move myself, and known a lot of people online and in person that did the same thing and they ALL were happy with it. Especially with a Quad Core setup, 4GB gives you a lot more usability with multitasking. Anyone who pays for a Quad Core and a GeForce 8800 video card is just gimping themselves with 2GB of RAM if they are running Vista 64. Why buy the Quad Core and a 8800 in the first place if you do not want a system that runs damn fast all the time, with apps open, in everything you do? The $40 spent on RAM is a bonus for everything, while those 4 cores and great video card will rarely get to full stretch their legs. Vista is a RAM whore, if you want to game on 2GB you need to be very anal retentive about making sure everything possible is closed down before running RAM heavy games, and even then you might get some swap file action on 2GB.
 
Its got nothing to do with placebo effect. I can assure you that I am not bullshitting about 4GB being better just because I paid for it. I am super critical of everything I buy, if there was no big difference, I would be telling everyone 4GB on Vista 64 is a waste. While you are busy reading up in PC World like its some kind of Bible, I've actually done the 2GB -> 4GB move myself, and known a lot of people online and in person that did the same thing and they ALL were happy with it. Especially with a Quad Core setup, 4GB gives you a lot more usability with multitasking. Anyone who pays for a Quad Core and a GeForce 8800 video card is just gimping themselves with 2GB of RAM if they are running Vista 64. Why buy the Quad Core and a 8800 in the first place if you do not want a system that runs damn fast all the time, with apps open, in everything you do? The $40 spent on RAM is a bonus for everything, while those 4 cores and great video card will rarely get to full stretch their legs. Vista is a RAM whore, if you want to game on 2GB you need to be very anal retentive about making sure everything possible is closed down before running RAM heavy games, and even then you might get some swap file action on 2GB.

To each his own, and for what it's worth i'll be upgrading to 4gig sometime, just not sure when. I'd still recommend people buying now buy 2gig from all that i've read (and believe me I read a ton when I went to buy a new PC).

BTW - that was a LOL moment, the PC world as a bible thing, too funny..
 
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

Hey, when I sold my Commodore 64 and got my Amiga it came standard with 512K. I ended up with 5MB of RAM and was never <3.9M free. I used RAMdisks all the time.... I ran for years on a 30MB MFM HD with both MSDOS and AmigaDOS on it with lots of free space.

Don't start an "I feel old" fest or I'll have to get started on PETs and audio cassette tape storage.
 
not to be redundant but the op is using XP not Vista so stop trying to justify 4gb of ram on vista 64 because its irrelevant this thread is about what games he should get to play on XP 32

Crysis
Call of Duty 4
Lost Planet Extreme Condition
Gears of War(with gamesaves hack)
Bioshock
Tomb Raider Anniversary
Portal
 
Playing devils advocate is immensely fun! Anyways, I ran 1gb under XP Pro for years and it worked great, I actually ran Crysis on a P4 3.2Ghz northwood with 1gb and a AIW x800xt! 1280 with high settings and no problem. However, my rig in my sig is amazing and playing COD4, I can alt+tab and it immediately responses to it and I can do whatever I want or need no problems at all and then pop back in with minimal waiting. Also I noticed that when the map changes in COD4, I wait on the server more then my system as everything sits in RAM.
Sum up: XP 1 or 2gb is fine, Vista and you are [H], go 4gb min!! 8gb might be better, especially for the e-peen.

Games:
Crysis
Call of Duty 4
TF2 or just go Orange Box, Portal is short but fun and makes your brain hurt thinking of ways you can move
Gears Of War
Bioshock
Medal of Honor: Airborne; love how you can drop down to a different point when you die and go from there.
 
Where's the love for 3GB?? ='(

That would disable dual-channel, and my God people! Look... show me numbers, on XP, where 4GB improves anything significantly over 2GB. To the guy who keeps bringing up how wonderful 4GB is in Vista: I'm talking XP because the OP is running XP! What do you need Vista for anyways?
 
lol sorry, I'm not trying to start a flame war.. but really though. What exactly do you need Vista for? 4GB makes a great difference in Vista, not so much in XP-- why argue it?
 
That would disable dual-channel, and my God people! Look... show me numbers, on XP, where 4GB improves anything significantly over 2GB. To the guy who keeps bringing up how wonderful 4GB is in Vista: I'm talking XP because the OP is running XP! What do you need Vista for anyways?

We already established the OP was fine with 2GB. The conversation has drifted since then.
 
I posted my list of games, i'm still waiting to hear what the OP thinks of them.

Its a long list ;). Haven't heard of most of them, but willing to check them out. I have a long list of games to checkout now, and very little time to play. Hell, I got this new PC on Monday, and baught Bioshock at the same time. I haven't even loaded Bioshock yet ;(. I'm itching to though.
 
Its a long list ;). Haven't heard of most of them, but willing to check them out. I have a long list of games to checkout now, and very little time to play. Hell, I got this new PC on Monday, and baught Bioshock at the same time. I haven't even loaded Bioshock yet ;(. I'm itching to though.

I got Bioshock on the 360 and it's great. I have heard the Bioshock on the PC has some terrible copy protection scheme but aside from that it's better than the 360 no doubt with superior control with keyboard/mouse and better graphics and sound.

Yeah if you want a bunch of PC games cheap then go on Ebay man, like I said, I found a lot on there for $7 to $15. Personally of all the games I have i'm embarrassed to say the one I like the best is the Sims 2. I played it a lot on my old PC. I think I just enjoy open ended sandbox type games because after a long day of work I don't really want to have to "win" or "lose" or learn a ton stuff to play like a lot of games make you do, I just like to play around.

Call of Duty 4 is insane great on the 360 too so I imagine that would rock your world on the PC.
 
Back
Top