Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Rym's New Computer
I am close to purchasing all of the components for the new main GeekNights PC. I intend it to be my long-term gaming and production machine. The only basic component I haven't put a lot of thought into is the video card: do you have any suggestions?
The Current Build
This is the crab people version. I may go with a less powerful CPU, but possibly a larger SSH (that one can't fit the fullness of 64-bit Windows 7 AND XP compatibility mode).
My primary goals are longevity and quietness. I expect that I'll have to upgrade the video card in a couple of years, but that's about it. Storage isn't a concern except for having enough local space for games and production: I plan to offload all of my media onto a NAS.
I should note, for anyone else thinking about building a PC around now, that this build is excessively powerful, and yet even after the videocard, it's likely going to clock in at under $1600. If you're on a budget, you can build a tiny god for well under $1k.
The Current Build
This is the crab people version. I may go with a less powerful CPU, but possibly a larger SSH (that one can't fit the fullness of 64-bit Windows 7 AND XP compatibility mode).
My primary goals are longevity and quietness. I expect that I'll have to upgrade the video card in a couple of years, but that's about it. Storage isn't a concern except for having enough local space for games and production: I plan to offload all of my media onto a NAS.
I should note, for anyone else thinking about building a PC around now, that this build is excessively powerful, and yet even after the videocard, it's likely going to clock in at under $1600. If you're on a budget, you can build a tiny god for well under $1k.
Comments
How about this card? It's only $120. It's one slot. It's quiet. It's the same card I have in my computer, except mine is 8800GT, and this is 9800GT. My computer can play every game adequately. I even get a great frame rate in games like the Crysis demo and Shattered Horizon. I know that my monitor's max resolution, and Rym's, is 1680x1050. Unless you have one of those ludicrous 30" monitors, you won't need a more powerful card.
I can see all the weather in L4D2, Street Fighter IV runs just as well, if not better than, the 360 version. It basically never lags, period. I fully expect my 8800GT to last 3 or four more years before needing an upgrade. I see no reason why the 9800GT wouldn't last at least five years before games come out that it can't handle.
If someone came up on the street and asked what car to buy, would you tell them to get a Ferrari or a modified hot rod? No, you would suggest a normal car, I hope. So why suggest the completely impractical and overpriced video cards?
In a day and age where you can buy an ENTIRE COMPUTER for < $500, if you buy a video card for more than $100~ish, you are a fool.
There's also the factor that, by the time I want/need to upgrade my CPU, there will likely be new architectures and new motherboard bits that would require me to buy multiple new components, while video card upgrades are drop-in.
Furthermore, the analogy fails because the Ferrari is around 10 times the price of a normal car, whereas the graphics cards being suggested are less than twice the price. If you're taking that stance, Scott, why not criticize the choice of CPU as well? The price-performance curve for CPUs has a tendency to be less favourable than for graphics cards, in fact.
I would also like to confirm that for a DDR3 system, 3x2GB is the correct choice, since you get triple-channel. However, Rym, you can get 3x2GB for ~$150 rather than $200, so you should probably look at downgrading. RAM speed has essentially zero performance impact unless you overclock.
Apart from that, if Rym wants a one-slot card for around $100, then I must say that Scott is still making the wrong suggestion. The HD 4850 is the same price as the 9800 GT, comes in a one-slot form, and performs closer to the 9800 GTX than the GT. On the other hand, if you're willing to give up on a one-slot card, you can get a 9800GTX+ or GTS 250 (they are in fact the same card) at the same price point.
So, Rym, what is it you want? Maximum performance per unit price, or does it have to be a single-slot card?
Of course, things have changed rapidly. I remember doing extensive research on the impact of CAS latency and buying optimum RAM. This sort of optimization is now entirely unnecessary, as the performance differences at that scale are negligible in most cases.
My primary concern is ensuring that I am accurate in my assessment of which specs are arbitrary and which ones require attention. I'm fairly certain, for example, that three DIMMs will produce a measurable effect. The dual-slot ones actually seem to be quieter on average than the single-slot ones, at least when the GPU is relatively idle, due to better heat dispersion. I only care about loudness when I'm recording, not when I'm gaming (gunshots are louder than fans), so dual-slot isn't a factor. Specifically, I want Dragon Age, L4D, and Bioshock (remember that old game?) to play at 60fps with zero drops and reasonable settings. ^_~
What I don't want is SLI. I still maintain that it's a technological dead end that rears its ugly head every now and again when GPU technology reaches a plateau.
I trust NVidia over ATI due to the Linux driver issues. Can anyone honestly tell me that ATI cards are as well supported in Linux as NVidia cards are?
$100 HD 4850 512MB
$110 GTS 250 512MB (Note: This is the same card as the 9800 GTX+)
$125 HD 4850 1GB
$127 GTS 250 1GB (This card is smaller and more efficient than the 512MB version)
$130 HD 5750 1GB (Offers DirectX 11 and 3-monitor output, though its performance is pretty much the same as the other two. Out of this bunch, it's definitely my pick.)
$155 HD 5770 1GB
This is probably the last single video card that I would class as good value. The GTX 260 and HD 4870 used to offer the same level of performance for around this price, but now they're up at ~$175 and so they're no longer worth it when the 5770 offers new tech at a lower price. Anyone desiring performance above this point is probably better off going with a multiple-card solution.
Personally, I have to say that ATI's options are consistently better value. The HD 4850 512MB, HD 5750 1GB, and HD 5770 1GB are clear winners in the three groups. Judging by this article, while ATi used to be epic fail on Linux, this is no longer the case.
EDIT:
Some Googling has revealed Phoronix as a really good source on Linux display drivers. Look here for information.