I'd also recommend the Dell 2209WA, features an E-IPS panel for under £200 and I've never looked back :) Only downside for me is the lack of 1:1 pixel mapping although it supports Interlaced signals VIA VGA which not many monitors these days like, I use it for my Wii sometimes at 480i (GC) and 480p (Wii)
Nice round up guys, glad you put something in for the £500-600er's and picked the 4870 1GB I was after :) That is actually the build I was gonna make only with a Corsair HX450 and Coolermaster HAF 932 (already bought, got for £10 more than the 922 on CCL XD), interesting to see you recommending the MSI 770 but I'm still torn between that and the GB 790X for Crossfire as I plan on getting another 4870 1GB.
trig - 192SP 260s are cheaper, not the full fat 216SP.
Newegg sold out of the Sapphire in the time it took me to write that link last Friday and today. I don't magic an article out in a morning :P (although I wish I could!)
The 250s have come down a lot yes, but all the cheap ones when we planned the system.. 10 days ago were on offer only and out of stock. I'll probably change it to a 250 next month. :)
P182.. Akasa Omega.. Antec 902.. too many choices - we had to pick one.
"...but for the price it's certainly hard to ignore the HD 4870 X2, and for 24 or 30in monitor gaming there is no single card capable of generating the FPS needed for very high image quality or extremely large resolutions. (...)"
In this months issue of Custom PC, the guys have tested a number of AM3 boards and come out with a surprising result
Was English your first language? :)
Considering the cut and paste (quite rightly, and understandably) nature of parts of this article could you not have copied in the monitor section from last month or included blurb as to why the most important part of a pc was being left out?
trig - 192SP 260s are cheaper, not the full fat 216SP.
Newegg sold out of the Sapphire in the time it took me to write that link last Friday and today. I don't magic an article out in a morning :P (although I wish I could!)
The 250s have come down a lot yes, but all the cheap ones when we planned the system.. 10 days ago were on offer only and out of stock. I'll probably change it to a 250 next month. :)
P182.. Akasa Omega.. Antec 902.. too many choices - we had to pick one.
And P183?? :-S
never understood why stuff differs in price so much over there...216sp 260's over here are $170 before $20 rebate. cheapest x2 was $370 i think...feel sorry for you guys pause not...
Originally Posted by Toka Considering the cut and paste (quite rightly, and understandably) nature of parts of this article could you not have copied in the monitor section from last month or included blurb as to why the most important part of a pc was being left out?
I must say that I question the wisdom of the Gaming Workhorse CPU.
An E8400 (E0) with its 6MB of L2 Cache, which OCs like stupid to 3.6 with no extra voltage, would easily outperform the Quad in games, while costing a mere £117.73 inc. VAT (http://www.kikatek.com/product_info.php?products_id=66014).
This leaves us with an extra £121.40 to spend on graphics.
Add that to the cost of the 275 (£165.08) and we have £286.48 to spend on graphics. That will get us the 4870 X2 with £46 to spare
Originally Posted by Faiakes I must say that I question the wisdom of the Gaming Workhorse CPU.
An E8400 (E0) with its 6MB of L2 Cache, which OCs like stupid to 3.6 with no extra voltage, would easily outperform the Quad in games, while costing a mere £117.73 inc. VAT (http://www.kikatek.com/product_info.php?products_id=66014).
This leaves us with an extra £121.40 to spend on graphics.
Add that to the cost of the 275 (£165.08) and we have £286.48 to spend on graphics. That will get us the 4870 X2 with £46 to spare
It's not a gaming machine alone. It's a workstation-gamer for the serious multi-tasker, a dual core is not enough - we're trying to build up levels of computing power.
The whole point of the workhorse PC is that it's got plenty of MHz for hardcore gaming with future potential in mind with those extra cores, as well as enough cores for crazy multitasking (bar Core i7). If you wanted to drop in a dual core - swap it out for the tri-core in the enthusiast overclocker, but then I'd argue just swap out the E8xxx for an E7xxx that'll do 4.2GHz just the same for less money.
Perhaps you should define a Gamer's PC category. Personally, I belong in that. I want a setup that will get me more frames, couldn't care less about the rest. (although usually a good Gamer's PC will be decent at most things).
Perhaps you should define a Gamer's PC category. Personally, I belong in that. I want a setup that will get me more frames, couldn't care less about the rest. (although usually a good Gamer's PC will be decent at most things).
If you just want a machine to game on, buy an Xbox. :P
Seriously, most people want to use a PC to do multiple things and if you just only ever want to game, take the list as a guideline to make your own within the budget you want :)
multi-core gaming is the future. you can't expect your 10Ghz single core to last forever.
look at those people whine about GTA4 is apparently buggy. whereas my GTA4 on my quad core plays perfectly smooth from day one.
besides, the few FPS difference won't get you as far as the smoothness or the amount of background task you can do.
can you tell me you don't install a game while playing another? Folding while playing games? exctracting/compressing file while playing game?
it's like the arguement between 8GB of RAM and 4GB of RAM. the difference between 800Mhz and 1066Mhz is unnoticeable, while doubling the size is very noticeable in any OS.
Why would I be installing one game while playing another or exctracting/compressing???
I said dual core not single! (I'm not daft). The fact is most games can barely use o2 cores. When the software has improved to actually take full advantage, then quad core only.
Originally Posted by Faiakes Why would I be installing one game while playing another or exctracting/compressing???
I said dual core not single! (I'm not daft). The fact is most games can barely use 2 cores. When the software has improved to actually take full advantage, then quad core only.
Can anyone give me any advice on a graphics card for photoshop? The new CS4 utilises the GPU to render what's on the screen and also a few other enhancements.
Do you think rather than go for a graphics card with all the trimmings and latest direct x support, just go for one with brute force...
Originally Posted by Faiakes Why would I be installing one game while playing another or exctracting/compressing???
I said dual core not single! (I'm not daft). The fact is most games can barely use o2 cores. When the software has improved to actually take full advantage, then quad core only.
Apples and oranges...
it's very straight forward, PC are multi-tasking monsters. as Bindi said, for only gaming, Xbox is both cheaper and more effective. the only reason to buy a PC is to be able to do mulitple things at once, and a quad core does it much, much better than dual cores.
there is always the arguement of "when it's needed, i'll buy it". but look at those who have bought e6850 when they could have bought q6600. the e6850 are worthless now, whereas q6600 are still selling strong, with second hand value of £100.
Comments 26 to 48 of 48
ReplyNice round up guys, glad you put something in for the £500-600er's and picked the 4870 1GB I was after :) That is actually the build I was gonna make only with a Corsair HX450 and Coolermaster HAF 932 (already bought, got for £10 more than the 922 on CCL XD), interesting to see you recommending the MSI 770 but I'm still torn between that and the GB 790X for Crossfire as I plan on getting another 4870 1GB.
Also what's happened to the P180/2....are the new antec's really better? or just newer?
It's close enough to give you an idea :P
trig - 192SP 260s are cheaper, not the full fat 216SP.
Newegg sold out of the Sapphire in the time it took me to write that link last Friday and today. I don't magic an article out in a morning :P (although I wish I could!)
The 250s have come down a lot yes, but all the cheap ones when we planned the system.. 10 days ago were on offer only and out of stock. I'll probably change it to a 250 next month. :)
P182.. Akasa Omega.. Antec 902.. too many choices - we had to pick one.
And P183?? :-S
Agreed!
It is still the best single card ever!
Considering the cut and paste (quite rightly, and understandably) nature of parts of this article could you not have copied in the monitor section from last month or included blurb as to why the most important part of a pc was being left out?
never understood why stuff differs in price so much over there...216sp 260's over here are $170 before $20 rebate. cheapest x2 was $370 i think...feel sorry for you guys pause not...
Explained in previous posts.
An E8400 (E0) with its 6MB of L2 Cache, which OCs like stupid to 3.6 with no extra voltage, would easily outperform the Quad in games, while costing a mere £117.73 inc. VAT (http://www.kikatek.com/product_info.php?products_id=66014).
This leaves us with an extra £121.40 to spend on graphics.
Add that to the cost of the 275 (£165.08) and we have £286.48 to spend on graphics. That will get us the 4870 X2 with £46 to spare
It's not a gaming machine alone. It's a workstation-gamer for the serious multi-tasker, a dual core is not enough - we're trying to build up levels of computing power.
The whole point of the workhorse PC is that it's got plenty of MHz for hardcore gaming with future potential in mind with those extra cores, as well as enough cores for crazy multitasking (bar Core i7). If you wanted to drop in a dual core - swap it out for the tri-core in the enthusiast overclocker, but then I'd argue just swap out the E8xxx for an E7xxx that'll do 4.2GHz just the same for less money.
We write for a UK market sorry (there are enough US buyers guides!) - good spot though! It goes without saying the 4870 would get the buy ;)
Perhaps you should define a Gamer's PC category. Personally, I belong in that. I want a setup that will get me more frames, couldn't care less about the rest. (although usually a good Gamer's PC will be decent at most things).
If you just want a machine to game on, buy an Xbox. :P
Seriously, most people want to use a PC to do multiple things and if you just only ever want to game, take the list as a guideline to make your own within the budget you want :)
How dare you insult me, sir? I demand a duel to restore my honour. :)
look at those people whine about GTA4 is apparently buggy. whereas my GTA4 on my quad core plays perfectly smooth from day one.
besides, the few FPS difference won't get you as far as the smoothness or the amount of background task you can do.
can you tell me you don't install a game while playing another? Folding while playing games? exctracting/compressing file while playing game?
it's like the arguement between 8GB of RAM and 4GB of RAM. the difference between 800Mhz and 1066Mhz is unnoticeable, while doubling the size is very noticeable in any OS.
I said dual core not single! (I'm not daft). The fact is most games can barely use o2 cores. When the software has improved to actually take full advantage, then quad core only.
Apples and oranges...
Do you think rather than go for a graphics card with all the trimmings and latest direct x support, just go for one with brute force...
Thanks.
there is always the arguement of "when it's needed, i'll buy it". but look at those who have bought e6850 when they could have bought q6600. the e6850 are worthless now, whereas q6600 are still selling strong, with second hand value of £100.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums