Can a 400-500$ PC run recent games?

[Dirkmetal]

These all look like ok builds to me.

 

 

 

I would do the following to vesuvius27's build.

 

Replace the CPU with this - better performance, unlocked and cheaper $64.99.

 

Replace the DVD with this - SATA connection for only $2 more (trust me its a lot easier to work with).

 

Replace the RAM with this - after rebates its $19.99 for 4gb of ram :shock:

 

Replace the motherboard with this - $69.99 after rebates, but AM2+ socket (better for the CPU and great onboard).

 

Replace the graphics card with this - $49.99 after rebates

 

Vista Home premium 64 bit $99.99 - don't give me any rubbish about Vista. This allows the full 4gb to be usable as well as play DX10 games if you decide to upgrade.

 

 

 

$426.93 pre rebates, $376.93 after. So add a case + psu and you've got a damn good build.

 

 

 

Full specs would be

 

X2 7750+ 2.6ghz AM2+ (black edition)

 

GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-US2H AM2+ (780G)

 

Powercolor HD4670 512MB

 

CORSAIR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800

 

LG 20X DVD±R DVD Burner (SATA)

 

Western Digital Caviar 320GB (SATA)

 

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit (OEM)

 

 

 

I think I win ;)

 

If you want to up it to $500 replace the 4670 with a 4830 and get a Antec case/psu combo.

 

Great stuff! But most of us like being able to USE our comp other then look at the nice "ON" LED, and listen to the soothing hum of the CPU fan.

 

No speakers + no monitor + no interface = a useless box.

 

 

 

Perhaps read the OP next time before being a [bleep]?

 

Well you'll still have no sound!

 

 

 

But yeah my post was a bit rude. I was looking to this thread for future ideas myself (I need those things)

[JoeDaStudd]

But yeah my post was a bit rude. I was looking to this thread for future ideas myself (I need those things)

 

This thread is about building a PC for a similar price to a console with equal or better performance.

 

When you buy a console it doesn't come with speakers.

 

 

 

However I would like to mention the HD4670 has audio over HDMI (7.1 I believe) so if you was to attach it to a TV with HDMI input then you wouldn't need any other equipment to get audio.

 

So that would/could cover the audio and visual side of things leaving the interface. A halfway decent keyboard and mouse will only set you back $30 at the most.

[Laura]

I prefer Macs now because of Vista, not the other way around. I don't hate Vista because I like Macs. That and I have an XP partition on here and use Windows everyday. Just because I use and prefer Macs now doesn't mean I hate Windows.

 

 

 

None of the games he wants to play require 4GB of RAM, nor is he going to use it all. And, what is to stop him from buying 64-bit XP? It's not a comparable variable because both systems can use those amounts of memory.

 

 

 

You really think it is wise to use 64 bit XP? Sure, that's great and all if you want 90% of your programs to simply not function (including games). :lol:

 

 

 

Vista 64 > XP 64. There isn't even any comparison honestly. XP 64 blew chunks.

 

 

 

 

 

Also 4GB of ram these days is seriously like $30. There is no reason not to have that much.

It's a 700MB difference at most, and it's not going to make a difference if he's not going to use it. Crysis doesn't even take up 100% of my 2GB of RAM.

[Nadril]

If 700Mb doesn't make a difference than why do you keep talking about the performance difference between XP and Vista? (Considering the one thing Vista does worse than XP is use more RAM.)

[Laura]

What use is Vista, even with more RAM, if he wants to game? He's going to get more FPS in XP.

[Mylez]

What use is Vista, even with more RAM, if he wants to game? He's going to get more FPS in XP.

 

 

 

Yup. I see a +30% FPS difference now using XP with both Crysis and Fallout 3. :

[Nadril]

What use is Vista, even with more RAM, if he wants to game? He's going to get more FPS in XP.

 

 

 

Vista handles a lot of things better than XP, but in turn also has a higher minimum requirements. IIRC Vista pages RAM better (takes more of it to run well, but it also handles said RAM a lot more efficiently).

 

 

 

Yup. I see a +30% FPS difference now using XP with both Crysis and Fallout 3.

 

 

 

Sorry, but if you are finding a 30% FPS difference between XP and Vista than you either are not running Crysis/Fallout 3 very well at all (difference between 10 and 13 fps or something lol) or simply had a big driver issue with Vista.

 

 

 

Considering you are running it @ 50fps in XP I doubt you will drop down to 35fps in vista. Or if you're running 30fps than dropping down to 20fps in vista.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is any performance gain you are going to get with XP is so completely negligible that it doesn't warrant not getting Vista. It would be nice if we could get blade in here (He knows a lot more about Vista than I do) to actually get some facts straight. Just trust me though when I say that you should always get Vista 64 for a gaming desktop, unless it is a severely low end model (I.E using 4-5 year old parts).

[OldJoe]

Not that anyone cares what i say, but if i got a new OS now... I probably would get Vista. That being said, i prefer XP.

 

But yeah... Get Vista 64-bit, i think Microsoft will offer a free upgrade to Win7 (i think i've heard it some month ago).

[Mylez]

Not that anyone cares what i say, but if i got a new OS now... I probably would get Vista. That being said, i prefer XP.

 

But yeah... Get Vista 64-bit, i think Microsoft will offer a free upgrade to Win7 (i think i've heard it some month ago).

 

 

 

Really? I've got a partner pack version of Vista x64, will that still work? :o

[JoeDaStudd]

Vista and XP both work differently.

 

I know a lot of games did have issues but it was mainly drivers and such.

 

The ram usage works the opposite on Vista as it does on XP. XP tries to use as little ram, where as Vista uses as much of the available ram as possible (the whole super fetch thing and such).

 

So you can't just put vista on a PC and go wow it uses more ram it must suck.

 

Heres a two articles from this year or late last

 

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2 ... 500,00.asp

 

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/win ... /page2.asp

 

 

 

Some games Vista is better, some XP. Its worth noting the worse the build the better XP is for it.

 

 

 

Personally I would never recommend XP with a new build without it is completely necessary. Its like recommending 2000 over XP 3 or 4 years ago.

 

 

 

If I remember rightly 98 or 2000 is a better gaming platform if you looking for pure performance so why hasn't anyone recommended on of them?

 

Because there outdated, lack full support or bad hardware support.

 

Sadly enough XP will soon be in the same league (its had a longer support and sale time then any other MS OS if I remember rightly), Direct X10 is just the start of Vistas take over.

 

Give it 2 maybe 3 years and XP will stop being supported by most software developers.

 

 

 

Its buy Vista now or buy it later.

 

 

 

O and Windows 7. Let it get to the first service pack then we'll see.

 

 

 

Just my 2 cents.