Building a Gaming Computer

AMD's CPUs are cheaper for what they are, but Intel's are faster. If you have a budget, go with AMD. If you're fine with spending a lot, go with Intel.

I wouldn't necessarily say they are faster.
They seem to be on the same level, and each one occasionally beats out the others.
The AMD's outperform Intel in Gaming, so I can't agree with that statement.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say they are faster.
They seem to be on the same level, and each one occasionally beats out the others.
The AMD's outperform Intel in Gaming, so I can't agree with that statement.

Ok, maybe not "faster"

You can get more out of them per clock cycle.

For single threaded applications (most everything), there's not much difference. You see more of a difference with largely multi-threaded applications.

Most games are not multi-threaded yet.

In my experience, Intel CPUs overclock better.
 
Yes I guess you're right.
But we have to get some insight on the 265 from people to be sure about that :D
 
the cm-690 case has alotta space and is tool less

however
its a dust magnet
its a mesh like covering all around the case
so i hope you have alotta dust off
cuz i have to clean mine very often
 
Wow guys, more help & faster than I expected!

It appears the consensus is definitely an AMD build w/ the Phenom II, so I'll look into that.

Somebody mentioned the CM is constantly attracting dust, anybody used the Antec 900 case before that can say any reason to use one over the other? I rather like the look of the Antec 900, and I hear good things about its cooling capabilities. Both have the power supply mounted at the bottom, but only the CM 690 has the vent hole underneath it to exhaust heat from the PSU, will that cause problems in the Antec? or does it have enough ventilation & cooling to prevent overheating problems?


For those who asked what I planned to run I thought I mentioned it in OP but I run mostly MMORPGs (World of Warcraft atm) at Ultra settings (except shadows) and I want to run at 1680x1050 resolution preferrably.

Looking @ MONITOR:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009127


If I do end up wanting to spend a bit more, what performance differences would I notice picking up the i7 over the P2, with triple channel DDR3 memory? Significant?


edit: Any reason NOT to go with the
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341017
over the
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341016

I'm not sure I'll need the extra 100W PSU, but after rebates & promo code its only $5 more.


My current set-up is coming out to ~$800 after taxes (before buying monitor, keyboard, OS)




If I wanted to maybe cut down my budget a bit temporarily in a way that would be easily upgradeable in the future, which big powerhouse pieces should I go for now, and what would be the easiest to upgrade in the future without having wasted a lot on a temporary piece?
 
Go with the Phenom II 955 and DDR3 instead of the 940. It has both DDR3 and DDR2 memory controllers so you won't have to buy a new board later.
 
Computear,

I'm in the process of buying a laptop right now and I thought it was interesting that all of my requirements for the computer completely matched yours. Would you or anybody else be able to recommend a laptop with similar specs or a little lower preferably in the 600$-900$ price range?
 
He COULD go with the 955 but it doesn't seem he will need it.
Also DDR3 will be more expensive and I could see his price going WAY up..
There is absolutely no reason for you to go with the 500 Watt supply. (I mean come on you want to lose 100 watts for $5? ;))
I would go with the 940 and DDR2 RAM.
Right now DDR2 isn't being used to it's full capability so why go with DDR3?
 
He COULD go with the 955 but it doesn't seem he will need it.
Also DDR3 will be more expensive and I could see his price going WAY up..
There is absolutely no reason for you to go with the 500 Watt supply. (I mean come on you want to lose 100 watts for $5? ;))
I would go with the 940 and DDR2 RAM.
Right now DDR2 isn't being used to it's full capability so why go with DDR3?

because something as simple as a bios update in the future may get the DDR3 working to it's full capacity...?
 
because something as simple as a bios update in the future may get the DDR3 working to it's full capacity...?

I'm saying that DDR2 isn't even being maxed out.
Most programs don't need more then 1066 DDR2 RAM, and programs rarely use more then 6 gigs, so I would stick with DDR2 RAM for now.
 
Back
Top Bottom