|
A High End pc for 650 usd
|
|
|
UrDady
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
20. August 2006 @ 16:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
hi i got a deal on a custom build pc for 650 and thats wats included:
1 cpu p4 3.6 ghz with ht
2 2 gig ram
3 ati x1900 256
4 windows xp media center
i dont think theres a hdd included thanks in advance
CPU:e6600
MoBo:eVga 680i-A1
GFx: 2x8800gts
HDD:1.5tb
|
|
Advertisement
|
  |
|
|
|
UrDady
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
20. August 2006 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh and it has a 350 gig of hdd and a cdrw and dvd combo
CPU:e6600
MoBo:eVga 680i-A1
GFx: 2x8800gts
HDD:1.5tb
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2006 @ 14:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
And? What do you want, to sell it, or to ask our advice on it?
|
|
UrDady
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. August 2006 @ 16:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
no i need an advaice
CPU:e6600
MoBo:eVga 680i-A1
GFx: 2x8800gts
HDD:1.5tb
|
Senior Member
|
22. August 2006 @ 18:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
p4 isnt a high end proc so it isnt a "high end pc" maybe change the proc to pentiumd or core 2 duo
[
|
|
tocool4u
Suspended permanently
|
22. August 2006 @ 18:54 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
p4 isnt a high end proc so it isnt a "high end pc" maybe change the proc to pentiumd or core 2 duo
Yes but he got a deal for 650 USD....Thats really good for that type of PC. It has better specs than my PC that I built and I spent a grand on it. And that proccesor I would consider on the higher end, Besides just because the CPU isn't a Dualcore doesn't mean the whole system isn't high-end. You can have the best Pentium proccesor and crappy specs and it wouldn't be considered "high-end" I mean if one spec is off by a little bit it can still be considered high end. My 2 cents :)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. August 2006 @ 18:59
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. August 2006 @ 23:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
The processor is alright, nothing too fancy but overall that's astonishingly good value if it's US dollars. In the UK those components are worth £500 or so, so in US I'd expect about $750. If you can ask, try and get a Core 2 Duo E6300, that's probably even cheaper than that 3.6Ghz P4, and will blow it away performance wise, even in single core programs.
|
|
UrDady
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. August 2006 @ 18:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
thanks guyz so u guyz think its not a good buy
CPU:e6600
MoBo:eVga 680i-A1
GFx: 2x8800gts
HDD:1.5tb
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. August 2006 @ 02:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'd recommend looking for a Core 2 Duo, because P4 single cores are old tech, and they aren't cheap, really they're not. You can probably get a vastly superior core 2 duo for less than that P4 at the same store.
|
|
UrDady
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. August 2006 @ 07:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
but i am not getting it from a store i am geting it from someone who custom build it
CPU:e6600
MoBo:eVga 680i-A1
GFx: 2x8800gts
HDD:1.5tb
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. August 2006 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well then even more reason to ask for a Core 2 Duo instead!
|
Senior Member
|
24. August 2006 @ 12:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
The hardware is fine, it's a good rig, for a very cheap price. If it were me, I'd be 50/50; the price is definitely right, but gaming is about to really leap towards dual core setups. There's no knowing how future compatible this unit will be because of that, do you know how much L2 cache is on the processor, as well as it's FSB? This could make a WORLD of difference. A processor with hefty cache can do very well, even with the newer 64 bit and [some of] the dual core units. The extra ram definitely helps, especially if it's correctly set up for Dual Channel, check on that too. If the cache is good, and it's a true Dual Channel ram setup, it could be a really good deal.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. August 2006 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't know where your pro-cache opinion came from, but although it makes a difference, it's not huge. The price is right, but you could get so much better for the price if you bought the right CPU! Gaming isn't about to leap towards dual core setups, that's what I used to think, but many games producers have confirmed it isn't going to happen, not now, not really ever. Hence 4x4.
|
Senior Member
|
25. August 2006 @ 07:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
As far as the cache thing goes; depending on the applications, I have seen that the L2 cache can make a large difference in keeping the front side bus speed effective; which especially with this kind of core, seems it would be very important. And I have seen P4's advertised with as much as 2 (and once, this could have been false advertisement, 2.5mb L2 cache) which would serve very well to prevent bottlenecking.
Not nearly as much as multiple cores obviously, but very significantly. The reason I am so interested in that particular element, is because the amount of cache can vary wildly, as low as 256kb, to 2mb. And with a range that wide, there's a difference when you get into some heavy applications.
Again, I'm not trying to say that it compensates completely for being single core, that would be a blatant lie, but it can make a big difference in his enjoyment.
And it's odd that you would say gaming isn't going towards dual core setups, because several big games have been doing so already. It seems rather backwards to say otherwise, knowing this. But if you have a reason for the statement, I'm always very interested in learning more, and I would genuinely be very interested. The way PC's have been leaning more towards simply making more threads, rather than faster threads overall, has been fascinating me, so this particular topic is very entertaining.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. August 2006 @ 07:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm aware that Quake 4 uses dual cores, but the difference is quite slight in performance, and numerous games developers have said that they don't want to use both cores. I really don't see what your obsession with cache is! Yes it helps, but for large real-world applications it makes very little difference.
|
Senior Member
|
25. August 2006 @ 16:06 |
Link to this message
|
Real world applications? You mean like programs that need to keep tiny bits of data for fairly constant use? Like small effects or soundbites? You mean like incessant repeated files, which are characteristic to almost every game in existence? Oh? Well then, considering that almost every game with a 3d engine can benefit well from more cache, I can't imagine how this would benefit someone.
And no, Quake 4 doesn't see a huge benefit from dual core. Although, considering how long Dual Core has been in existence, that really makes sense. Not to mention that until the last couple months, dual core wasn't existent in the majority of PCs. That's hardly a good way to benchmark. If you want to benchmark use soemthing like Prey, a recent title, that benefits with HUGE gains using the dual core setup, despite the fact that programmers barely did any extra coding at all for it. Just the little bit helped. Before upgrading from a standard single core 64 bit athlon, I could barely get a decent framerate, now I can use the title with most settings on mid to high settings and still have a good framerate with good anti-aliasing. Same motherboard, same video card, same ram.
Oblivion utilizes it quite nicely as well. *Supposedly* BF2 utilizes it nicely, but I have yet to see this for myself.
Honestly, suggesting games that are as old as Quake 4 really isn't an effective way to suggest that games don't use dual core structuring. Although, some older games have been patched to include better support as well, such as F.E.A.R. and Serious Sam II(Why?)
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. August 2006 @ 00:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, I too hope games become dual-core assisted, but not fully dual-core optimised, because I like being able to run stuff in the background when I'm gaming!
|
Senior Member
|
26. August 2006 @ 00:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Interestingly enough, hardware developers are looking toward quad core options in the future. Which is very strange, details are unknown if this would be a multi-processor setup, or an actual quad core cpu. But it seems that this is the new evolution of hardware, since silicon threading seems to have reached it's capacity, so now we're finding new ways to work around that, henceforth multi-threading, dual channel operations, etc. All desigined to work in multiple pipelines to create a basic simulation of having two PC's on one task. Just think about it, we're going toward dual channel memory, which allows a faster FSB, by using interpolating ram in order to 'fill in the gaps' of performance for eachother, SLi cards to work in unison to produce one image, dual core(and possibly quad core or multiple dual core processors) allowing multiple threads. It's all going towards making multiple streams which can be individually dedicated towards specific tasks and routines. By dedicating entire pipelines and threads to single activities and processes, users can theoretically experience an exponentially improved performance ratio, because single games(when optimized) can utilize multiple threads and pipelines for each segment, which without actually supplying anything that is technically 'faster' can give what is overall a faster system.
It's inevitable to see which direction we are going with hardware these days, it was known that we were nearing the limits of silicon half a decade ago. Looking at how little our CPU speeds have increased since 2001 isn't a great statement for PC progression. But this multiple thread idea, this may be the next step, until we have a better, more instantaneously conductive material than silicon to build our processors from. In the next few years, something will inevitably change on a huge scale. If we've hit a brick wall on this technology, it is garaunteed that companies are researching new methods of microprocessors. And it's going to be a sight to see.
Sorry about my babbling, again, I love technology in every facet, and I especially love to see where it's going to.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. August 2006 @ 01:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
No that's certainly one of the more interesting babbles I've heard, and you're right, that is how we're going. I hear quad core is being developed both ways, two dual cores AND one quad core. Not sure how those methods are split between AMD and Intel, but last I heard Intel were promoting the latter and AMD the former. Of course one can only imagine the possibilities with two quad cores... :D
|
Senior Member
|
26. August 2006 @ 01:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm hoping to see intel dual core dual processor type setups myself, so that my very recent investment in a 3800+ X2 Dual won't be a waste. That'd make my day. Realistically, if both methods are done, I'm sure both companies will be perfectly compatible all the way around. Truly interesting stuff though.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. August 2006 @ 01:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
AMD and Intel compatible? What have you been eating/drinking/smoking?
|
Senior Member
|
26. August 2006 @ 15:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol; no. That's not what was intended. That will NEVER happen.
My hope is that instead of one company leaning towards quad-core single processors only, while the other goes toward 2x dual core; both companies might instead focus on BOTH solutions. Allowing users to opt either for a single quad core architecture unit, or to instead go for 2(or more) dual cores. I think it would benefit companies greatly if they gave consumers the option to either buy a cpu with more cores, or two combine more processors, or even both. I'm not talking a mix of brands, I sincerely hope that never happens, because it would implicate so many problems. But I do feel it would be in the best interest of the market if AMD and Intel each worked on their own way of allowing users to opt for more cores or more processors. Since, both options are being explored anyways. It just seems like it would be a great way to allow the pc gaming sect to expand again, because someone could buy a mobo with two cpu slots to start affordably, then later upgrade by adding another cpu without having to re-purchase everything else. It seems like it could really change the market and the consumer buying power, but that's just my opinion.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
|
UrDady
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. August 2006 @ 17:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
What do u guyz think about this one:
AeroCool ExtremEngine 3T Case
ASUS P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe Intel PCI Express Motherboard
(2)16x8x16x48x NEC DVD-/+R Player/Recorders
Western Digital 500GB SATA 3.0GB/Sec Hard Drive
2GB CORSAIR XMS2 DDR2 1066 PC2 8500 Dual Channel Memory
2 XFX Geforce 7950 GX2 Quad SLI Xtreme GPUs - QUAD SLI Enabled
10/100/1000 MBps Ethernet Lan
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 Dual Core CPU W/4MB CACHE 1066MHZ
Windows Xp Professional (CD and Key included)
OCZ 700 Watt Power Supply - NVIDIA SLI Certified
CPU:e6600
MoBo:eVga 680i-A1
GFx: 2x8800gts
HDD:1.5tb
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. August 2006 @ 00:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's absolutely ridiculous, nobody needs or can make use of two 7950GX2s, you may as well buy a single card like mine and save $900.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
27. August 2006 @ 03:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
u can make use of it if ure runing it at extremely high resolutions
[
|
