›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Rym's New Computer

RymRym
edited January 2010 in Technology
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.
«1345

Comments

  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    Do you really need a DVD burner for games and podcasting? Does anyone buy games on DVD anymore?
  • RymRym
    Do you really need a DVD burner for games and podcasting? Does anyone buy games on DVD anymore?
    Possibly not. I have enough lying around to stick a crappy one in temporarily just to build the machine.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited January 2010
    Windows 7 Ultimate is silly. I got Home Premium, and it has not limited me in any way whatsoever. Professional is the same as Home premium, except it also has the XP mode, which I have never needed. I got burned by Vista Ultimate, and I learned my lesson.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • AprecheApreche
    Also, 3x2GB ram? WTF? AFAIK you still need to have an even number of sticks to get dual-channel enabled. That makes a huge freaking difference, a much bigger difference than 2 extra gigs of ram you will never use. I have 4 gigs of RAM, and I never ever have even come close to using it all at once. Right now I'm using 33% of it, and if gaming it goes up to maybe 70/80 depending on if I close the browser and iTunes or not.
  • RymRym
    edited January 2010
    except it also has the XP mode, which I have never needed.
    I need XP mode to run Cool Edit most likely. Of course, I could just buy Audition and be done with it. Cool Edit gets harder and harder to run every year. I will have to research to see if I can run it without the compatibility mode. If so, cheapest Windows for the win.
    Also, 3x2GB ram?
    It's pretty cheap, and my board has six DIMM slots. The manual says to populate three at a time. Also, crab people. I went to the DDR3 2000 list and hit the top selling link without looking.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Personally ( and I'm sure Scott will disagree with everything I have to say ) I would skip the solid state drive. Handy in a laptop, but in a desktop they just aren't as nice. Much more expensive than they're worth.
    Also, 3x2GB ram?
    LGA 1366 is tri-channel, rather than dual. On the subject of memory, DDR3 2000 is all well and good, but can the CPU and MB really support that?
  • ChurbaChurba
    (and I'm sure Scott will disagree with everything I have to say)
    Also, Water is wet.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Also, Water is wet.
    Yes, but this water is wetter than normal based on historical information.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Also, crab people.
    Out of curiosity, can you explain what you mean by "crab people?" I'm familiar with the South Park episode, but I don't get what you mean.
  • CremlianCremlian
    Well when I was researching video cards I ended up with a GTX 260 because the difference and price between that and a 290 was not worth the few frames..
  • VhdbloodVhdblood
    I am in love with the new Radeon HD line. I have a 3850, another friend has two 4890s, and yet another has a 4850. All the cards run like a dream, and the price points are low considering the benchmarks. Also, nvidia's drivers have all been shit anytime I've used them. Catalyst ftw.
  • JayJay
    I am in love with the new Radeon HD line. I have a 3850, another friend has two 4890s, and yet another has a 4850. All the cards run like a dream, and the price points are low considering the benchmarks. Also, nvidia's drivers have all been shit anytime I've used them. Catalyst ftw.
    The 4850 and 4870 are priced very low for there performance compared to equivalent nvidia cards. When I was looking for video cards I noticed the 4870 consitantly out preformed the GTX 260 in benchmarks but was sold for roughly 50 dollars less (Canadian). Radeon is the best bang for your buck.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Do you really need a DVD burner for games and podcasting? Does anyone buy games on DVD anymore?
    Possibly not. I have enough lying around to stick a crappy one in temporarily just to build the machine.
    Don't forget, Rym, You can install Windows 7 with a USB drive. I always do because it seems to make the install go quicker.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Almost invariably, a DVD burner becomes useful at some point. Mostly when it comes to transferring data to people who use older tech or making boot discs.
  • sucrilhossucrilhos
    As for what vid card you should get If you aren't planning on using nvidia's 3d vision I suggest you go with AMD/ATI. Currently they have the best price to performance ratio in the market. The HD 5870 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131185&cm_re=hd_5870-_-14-131-185-_-Product ) is the fastest single chip card ever, and for 100 dollars less you can get the HD 5850 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131184&cm_re=hd_5850-_-14-131-184-_-Product ) witch is basically the same thing but underclocked. They don't come cheap but I think they are pretty worth it.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    As for what vid card you should get If you aren't planning on using nvidia's 3d vision I suggest you go with AMD/ATI. Currently they have the best price to performance ratio in the market. The HD 5870 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131185&cm;_re=hd_5870-_-14-131-185-_-Product) is the fastest single chip card ever, and for 100 dollars less you can get the HD 5850 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131184&cm;_re=hd_5850-_-14-131-184-_-Product) witch is basically the same thing but underclocked. They don't come cheap but I think they are pretty worth it.
    I second this, but I doubt he'll go for a non-nVidia card.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited January 2010
    You people are ridiculous looking at $300 and $400 video cards. Even if ATi beats NVidia on the incredibly high end, it doesn't matter. Buying such a high end card like that is completely retarted, regardless of brand. Also, all of the cards you are looking at are two-slot monstrosities. No matter how powerful it is, that power is outweighed because it's loud, gigantic, and power-hungry.

    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?
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • CremlianCremlian
    Hey Scott, the GTX 260 is about 200 dollars...
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    You people are ridiculous looking at $300 and $400 video cards. Even if ATi beats NVidia on the incredibly high end, it doesn't matter. Buying such a high end card like that is completely retarted, regardless of brand.
    So is building an i7 system. Building a high end computer is usually not about logic.
    Also, all of the cards you are looking at are two-slot monstrosities. No matter how powerful it is, that power is outweighed because it's loud, gigantic, and power-hungry.
    You mean like an 8800GTX? Where did you get the idea that a two slot graphics card is going my be loud? My 3870 is whisper quiet and only uses one power connector. And what does it matter that it's two slots? What other cards do you really need to install into a computer these days? Network is integrated, as is sound and USB. Being two slots is just not a big deal.
    How aboutthis card? It's only $120. It's one slot. It's quiet.
    That doesn't even support DX 10.1. What you're saying is buy a graphics card that's 3 years out of date for this otherwise cutting edge system. If you want to build it to last, go DX 11. I'd suggest any of these ATI 5770 cards. They're sub $200.
  • AprecheApreche
    That doesn't even support DX 10.1.
    What difference does it make? Is there even one single game out there which requires DX 10.0 or DX 11? Who cares?

    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.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    edited January 2010
    The water is quite wet indeed.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • RymRym
    So is building an i7 system. Building a high end computer is usually not about logic.
    i7 is the current best consumer architecture, and processors don't drop in price nearly as quickly as videocards do. I'm perfectly happy to buy a $120 video card now, and replace it with another $120 video card that's twice as fast in a year or two, rather than buy a $300 one now. I am not perfectly happy to incrementally upgrade a CPU (gleaning maybe a 10-15% performance increase) at a much higher incremental cost.

    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.
  • sucrilhossucrilhos
    You people are ridiculous looking at $300 and $400 video cards. Even if ATi beats NVidia on the incredibly high end, it doesn't matter. Buying such a high end card like that is completely retarted, regardless of brand. Also, all of the cards you are looking at are two-slot monstrosities. No matter how powerful it is, that power is outweighed because it's loud, gigantic, and power-hungry.

    How aboutthis 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?
    Well I wouldn't suggest any Ferrari, I would suggest a Lamboghini Gallardo for being to me the prettiest car on automobile history. But that's not the case. Rym's been going on podcasts about money being no object to him. The best video card out there costs over 600 dollars, I don't think 300 or 400 dollars is too much on a video card, because when I get that game I love to play on Full HD and turn all the filters on and see fraps on my monitor displaying 60 fps with no drops, my spine will tingle. Sorry if yours doesn't. I do usually very much appreciate your opinions, I'm pretty addicted to the podcast, but not this one.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited January 2010
    You people are ridiculous looking at $300 and $400 video cards. Even if ATi beats NVidia on the incredibly high end, it doesn't matter. Buying such a high end card like that is completely retarted, regardless of brand. Also, all of the cards you are looking at are two-slot monstrosities. No matter how powerful it is, that power is outweighed because it's loud, gigantic, and power-hungry.
    As Scott Johnson already said, the cards in question are closer to $200. Additionally, while they may be two-slot cards, they aren't as large as their predecessors, and not as power-hungry either. As for being loud, that claim is false. Indeed, you will find that typically if you have the same card with a single-slot cooler vs a dual-slot cooler, the dual-slot version will be quieter. Why? Because the dual-slot cooler doesn't have to work as hard (i.e. spin the fan(s) as fast) for the same cooling performance.
    How aboutthis 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.
    You're missing the whole 23"+ category, with 1920x1200 or 1920x1080. That's 30% more pixels, which is significant.
    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.
    Moore's law and I have something to say to you there. I've had an 8800GTX for ~3 years already (basically the same card as yours, nowadays) and I can tell you now that it already can't quite handle high-quality L4D, although that's with 30% more pixels than you. Sure, it will run games on lower-quality settings for some time more, but I really don't see that card lasting 3-4 years.
    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?
    That's a terrible analogy. For one thing, if they were asking for a high-end sports car, a Ferrari might well be a good suggestion. Without knowledge of what Rym's asking for, the question cannot be answered for sure.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    i7 is the current best consumer architecture, and processors don't drop in price nearly as quickly as videocards do. I'm perfectly happy to buy a $120 video card now, and replace it with another $120 video card that's twice as fast in a year or two, rather than buy a $300 one now. I am not perfectly happy to incrementally upgrade a CPU (gleaning maybe a 10-15% performance increase) at a much higher incremental cost.

    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.
    It's your build you get to do whatever you want. I'd suggest you get the best 10.1 GPU that fits your budget.
    Well I wouldn't suggest any Ferrari, I would suggest a Lamboghini Gallardo for being to me the prettiest car on automobile history.
    Personally I think a Nissan GT-R would make a much better everyday all-rounder than a real, no-holds-barred supercar. Trunks and back seats are useful things.
  • sucrilhossucrilhos
    edited January 2010
    I'm perfectly happy to buy a $120 video card now, and replace it with another $120 video card that's twice as fast in a year or two, rather than buy a $300 one now.
    If that's the case this is a good option: HD 5750 , and if there is an AMD/ATI prejudice I guess this is your only option :GTS 250, but I still think it's too much of a bottleneck for the rest of the pc you are building and I would get at least, a 260.
    Post edited by sucrilhos on
  • RymRym
    edited January 2010
    It's your build you get to do whatever you want.
    Oh, I plan to. I'm just crowdsourcing to ensure that my consumer-level tech knowledge remains relatively up-to-date. I peaked pc-hardware-wise around 2002, and I've been admittedly behind the curve since, with a small boost the last time I built a computer.

    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.
    So, Rym, what is it you want? Maximum performance per unit price, or does it have to be a single-slot card?
    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?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I just got paid for my last gig, so I was just looking at buying a new laptop. Mine is 2 years old now, so I presumed that the new models would be way better. They are, but I think what I really need to do is spend 200 euro to double the ram, and maybe 300 for a super fast SSD hard drive. A faster processor would be nice, but the step up isn't worth buying a whole new laptop for. I mean, an aluminium case would be nice, and the light up keyboard, but they too don't add up to a good deal.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Can anyone honestly tell me that ATI cards are as well supported in Linux as NVidia cards are?
    Only someone very ignorant of reality. It's still my opinion that you're gonna wanna spend around $200 on a graphics card. That seems to be about the sweet spot these days for performance per dollar.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited January 2010
    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.
    Indeed. In fact, with regards to RAM nowadays, faster memory is pretty much just for those who are going to overclock their CPU. Have a look at this article. This, for $100, is a much better idea. You're also most likely paying more for the motherboard than you need to.
    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. ^_~
    I'd recommend looking at the following cards (the groups are cards with similar performance):

    $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.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
Sign In or Register to comment.