New Computer

Since you have saved so much money now, why dont you go for higher speed memory ? get 800mhz ones :) Or if possible then rather 1066MHZ ones !

Tests show that memory speeds do have a effect on game frame rates. It is proved that with a difference of about even 200 mhz, different can be as high as 30 - 40 frames !
 
I currently have about $300, with a paycheck of approx $700 expected in the mail any day now (each week i don't get it, add $50 though so no complaints). However $600 for end of year schoolies (Aus people know what that is) means I have around $400, I will hopefully have earnt the other $1200 by FEB next year, which time this list will have completely updated.

In short, I am trying to keep the prices as low as possible, and although DDR3 is the future, DDR2 took at least 1 - 2 years to become the main, so I will probably pick up some cheap 667mhz ddr2's when ddr3 comes in, because hopefully the price will be lowered because of this.
 
I'm not saying get DDR 3. But since you are going in for a 1333 mhz fsb processor, you'll seriously bottleneck your pc with dual channel 667mhz RAM. I am just saying get atleast 800mhz ram :) DDR2 only mate :)
 
rickyp said:
I will either stick with my current XP Pro,
Click to expand...

Just XP professional in Intel Dual Core? If so, its not compatible. This Dual Core requires XP with SP2 as the minium requirement if i am right. Just few days back, i went and installed XP Pro in one of the IntelDualCore machines... In installation itself, it returned an stop error. Then i found an solution from microsoft tech help where they have asked to install XP with SP2.

I would personally prefer AMD family though ( AMD Dual Core ) ;)
 
surendar said:
Just XP professional in Intel Dual Core? If so, its not compatible. This Dual Core requires XP with SP2 as the minium requirement if i am right. Just few days back, i went and installed XP Pro in one of the IntelDualCore machines... In installation itself, it returned an stop error. Then i found an solution from microsoft tech help where they have asked to install XP with SP2.

I would personally prefer AMD family though ( AMD Dual Core ) ;)
Click to expand...
But AMD has terribly failed this time in front of core 2 duo ;)
 
Kshitiz_Indian said:
But AMD has terribly failed this time in front of core 2 duo ;)
Click to expand...

Just wait for AMD's quad-core design and its new three-tier cache structure. Hopefully, it should rock ;)

And i have read an small article,

In what is not a good day for AMD on the high end desktop/workstation market Intel has dropped their quad core pricing today. The Q6600 goes from $500+ to just $273 Surely with this move AMD will have to drop the FX70 series pricing.

Courtesy : AMDZone
Click to expand...

There is a tough competition still on between these two :p I am very much contented with AMD though. Opinion do differ between induviduals.
 
Last edited:
surendar said:
Just wait for AMD's quad-core design and its new three-tier cache structure. Hopefully, it should rock ;)

And i have read an small article,



There is a tough competition still on between these two :p I am very much contented with AMD though. Opinion do differ between induviduals.
Click to expand...
I know opinion differs but AMD is in serous trouble these days. The AMD Barcelona's cant seem to cross the 2ghz mark now, and they will be useless unitl they get atleast 2.4ghz !

Moreover, how good will these quad cores do to us anyway instead of some $10 price gap :p ? We cant buy them , most of us cant - even the_gas cant lol. :D
 
Sorry, I just assumed if you ran XP you ran it with SP 2 on these days....

anyway, can you guys help me out with a screen? 17" or 19" wide screen, whatever a good bargain one is. I am under the impression that viewsonic are the best atm.
 
I have got a 17" Viewsonic widescreen at my home, and its pretty good. But to do justice to your graphic card i guess you must go for a 19" one atleast.

I dont know much about its performance but viewsonic delievers excellent bang for the buck :)
 
yeah well their contrast ratio's (what I have come to believe is what your looking at?) is always higher for the same price.

also, e6600 or e6550???

e6600 costs about 80 more, but its apparantly VERY good
 
Last edited:
Marko, i searched around, and found the e6600 retailing around $230 to $250. Just wanna say, why not go for the q6600, which goes around for about $270 to $ 300 ? that makes a much more sweeter deal, plus you get the power of 4 cores. ITs so future proof !
 
quad cores are very untested at the moment, sort of like ddr3, however, by the time I get the computer, I will most likely be looking for a basic quad core. I'm trying to work out which version of Vista to get, what are the differences between home premium and ultimate? as far as I can see, its nothing but useless for home users.
 
rickyp said:
quad cores are very untested at the moment, sort of like ddr3, however, by the time I get the computer, I will most likely be looking for a basic quad core. I'm trying to work out which version of Vista to get, what are the differences between home premium and ultimate? as far as I can see, its nothing but useless for home users.
Click to expand...
I guess you can easily trust them.
Read this - http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2963&p=6

The article says that it makes sense to go for the q6600. Just see the light rendering benchmarks, and see how when newer software will begin taking advantage of the four cores, IT CAN OUTPERFORM X6800, WHICH IS i guess more than double in price than the q6600, and moreover, has onyl 2 coreS !
 
Quad core certinly seems the way to go for the future.

However there is no shame in owning a dual core processor when most people are still on single cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Top