New Computer

by **CheesieUnion** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 21:52

I ordered a new computer and this are the specs:
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

AMD Phenom X4 Quad-Core 9950 2.6GHz Black Edition

Kingston Valueram DDR3 3x 2GB 1066Mhz

Silentmaxx ST-11 Midi Black

Asus M4A78 PRO

XFX HD4870 XXX 1GB DDR5

Plextor PX-860A

Rate it or [s]hate[/s] it!

by **Spectre** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 22:57

Not half bad, but a 80$ motherboard for DDR3? I'm not sure about RAMs as well.

However this is just coz I haven't been into computers for some time, personally I'd go Corsairs instead. And a better graphics card instead of such a processor. :good:

by **Vulture** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:44

Nice!

by **CheesieUnion** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:35

Spectre wrote:Not half bad, but a 80$ motherboard for DDR3? I'm not sure about RAMs as well.

However this is just coz I haven't been into computers for some time, personally I'd go Corsairs instead. And a better graphics card instead of such a processor.

The videocard is already good 1 GB memory and HD.

by **Spectre** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:11

Dude, I'm not talking about how much RAM your graphics card has, but how strong it is.

by **CheesieUnion** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:19

Why isn't it strong?

by **Spectre** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12

I'm not saying it is not strong, but it could be stronger instead of that strong processor. I have Core2Duo E7300, overclocked to 3.0GHz, and a HD4850 card. It'd be better for me if I had, say, E5200 OCed to 3.0GHz, and a HD4890 card instead of stronger processor. You get what I mean?

But it's good, really!

by **Scary** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:50

Spectre wrote:I'm not saying it is not strong, but it could be stronger instead of that strong processor. I have Core2Duo E7300, overclocked to 3.0GHz, and a HD4850 card. It'd be better for me if I had, say, E5200 OCed to 3.0GHz, and a HD4890 card instead of stronger processor. You get what I mean?

But it's good, really!

Mmm I reallly cant get ur point but my english sucks so it prolly isnt ur fault. Id like to ask question: Which processor is better for gaming: Core2dua blabla 3.16ghz or quad core processor 2.66 ghz. Cause 1. one got faster ghz but less cores.
I hope u got my question. I really dont know much about computers so exuse me if my question is naabish :oops:

by **Spectre** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:09

It really depends.

Today's games, actually, there is... Only one, which uses quad-core. GTA IV. So if you do believe there'll be games which use quad-core, buy quadcore and you can overclock it with no problem to, say, 3.0GHz. And you won't have to worry what's in next 2-3 years.

And dual-core... Well, that's why I always thought about buying triple-core - say, 2 cores are doing with a dual-core game, and 1 core is doing with the rest (background applications, antivirus etc.).

Really nobody can help you unless he knows about whether there are quad-core games incoming.

by **DMG_Kowi** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 15:01

If I know well also Crysis makes use of 4 cores.

by **Spectre** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 16:31

It doesn't. Do you need proofs?

New Computer

New Computer

Who is online