Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Can anyone recommend some good games that will play well on this PC?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 26, 2011 6:14:52 PM

Hi all,

I've recently acquired and will be assembling the following components for a really cheap build (it's all I could afford for now); and now I'm hoping to get a little input about what type of games I can expect to play on it once it's all put together. I'll more than likely be upgrading the processor and definitely the graphics card in the near future. The ones I have now are placeholders that I was able to get for cheap just to get a working system going right away. It's not a great system, but it's all I've got, so here goes:

Specs:

CPU: Athlon II X3 440 (No unlocked 4th Core yet; No O.C.'ing; Stock Speed @ 3 GHz)
Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 + w/ Arctic Silver 5
Motherboard: ASUS M5A78L-M LX AM3+
RAM: Corsair Dominator 8GB (4GB x 2) DDR3 1333MHz
PSU: Antec Earthwatts EA-650 650W
GPU: XFX Nvidia Geforce 9800GTX+ 512MB
HDD: Western Digital 160 GB 7200RPM SATA


Anyhow, what I'm looking for is to see if anyone may be kind enough to advise me on which fairly current games should be able to run well on this set up at perhaps a 1280 x 1024 resolution. Genre's doesn't really matter; but I guess if I had to pick, first-person shooters would be at the top of the list; then maybe action-adventure games like Assassin's Creed or even something like Dead Space would follow in a close second. Not expecting to play Crysis or Metro 2033; maybe just like Black Ops and Bad Company 2 until I upgrade. I know there are no definitive answers to this as there are many variables to consider, but if someone with any knowledge of or experience with these components/hardware or something close might be able to lend some assistance, I'd be truly grateful. Thanks in advance! :) 
July 26, 2011 6:42:58 PM

Angry Birds or Farmville
July 26, 2011 7:15:51 PM

You'l Be Able To PLay
1.Black Ops
2.AC-1,2,3
3.GTA4 (Low settings,Low Res)
4.NFS Undercover/Shift/HP
5.DiRT 3
6.FIFA 11

At 1280x1024.. U'll Be Able To PLay Most Games Pretty Good.. :) 
Related resources
July 26, 2011 7:18:29 PM

C'mon guys... not even Donkey Kong Country on snes9x?! I'm sad. -=laughing=-
July 26, 2011 7:31:22 PM

Pong?

Actually, the 9800GTX is roughly somewhere in between the Radeon HD 5670 and Radeon HD 5750 in terms of raw power. And is certainly more powerful than the 9600GT which is roughly the same as the Radeon HD 5670.

I have a 9600GT in my HTPC and I have used it to play Crysis, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect on 1920x1080 with medium quality or better settings with Windows XP.
July 26, 2011 8:08:24 PM

So far... I'm liking what I'm hearing. Thanks djabhi003 and jaguarskx for providing some good recommendations (although I did like and appreciate the others too, lol). If it'll play games like Black Ops, AC 1-3, Mass Effect, and - best of all - Pong :p  , I really do think this set up will keep me happy for another three to six months or so.

Yet, this card has got to be showing its age by now I would think. It's definitely a nice bump up from the 7800GS I was still running, but it's how many generations behind at this point in time? I haven't been keeping up and I have no idea how good the newest cards from either camps are supposed to be, but other than DX 11 support, smaller die, and faster clock speeds, are even the newest games able to fully take advantage of what these newer GPU's are capable of? With all the options ranging from three and four card SLI and Crossfire configurations, and monster cards now available in the GTX and HD lines, is the 9800GTX+ even still a viable choice in today's market (or should it only be reserved for games from 2007-2008 and before)? Just wondering... because I'd like to eventually upgrade and future proof myself a bit to be able to play even more games coming over the horizon. :) 

So, any other titles anyone could recommend that will allow this card to show it's muscle (whatever little muscle it does have)? Thanks everyone! :) 
July 28, 2011 3:01:28 AM

What is your screen's resolution?

If you like RPGs try Dragon Age: Origins. It's a great game! You might be able to max it at 1280x1024.

How about portal 1 and 2? Bioshock series?

Mafia 2?

I'd be careful with BFBC2 though. It's kinda cpu hungry. All those destruction will demand a lot from your CPU. You'll be able to run it though but you might have to tone down some things.
July 28, 2011 9:09:36 AM

i dont see why people are saying black ops will play well.
i have the game.. and i have a gtx260 (core 216 version) and my frames per second are hovering in the 40's for the multiplayer first person shooter portion of the game.
i dont know what frames per second are for the mini games.
but
you will certainly have to turn down some eye candy to play online at a frame rate that isnt choppy/chunky.
July 28, 2011 12:28:13 PM

Thanks for even more great suggestions! :)  I've been trying to use that site "Can You Run It" to get an idea of what recommended system requirements for some of the most popular games are, and finding I should be alright for some nice ones I'd really like to play (some including one's mentioned here by you folks). I don't have the system built yet, but it's been a nice point of reference; as well as your help.

@ jonbla

Well, the native screen resolution for this monitor appears to be 1360 x 768. It's actually not a computer monitor, but an Insignia 19" 720P LCD HDTV. Using my current 7800GS AGP (yes, I said it :lol:  ) and a DVI to HDMI cable, I can actually set the resolution to 1980 x 1080; not sure if it's outputting 1080i or 1080p, though. I don't really like such a high resolution for normal system use (like now), because everything is so tiny :wahoo:  . So I leave it at 1360 x 768, and change it in each application dynamically to run higher if I'm playing games like Half-Life 2 or Rainbow Six Vegas.

Dragon Age Origins looks awesome; and I definitely wouldn't mind finally playing the Bioshock series. Hope this computer will be able to handle both. I think BFBC 2 is going to have to wait until I upgrade. I was going to hopefully go with at least a GTX280 FTW and a Phenom II X4 955 or 965 BE in about four to six months. But then again, by that time, Battlefield 3 will be out, and my system will still be too underpowered to play that! :lol:  Oh, technology... ever moving at the speed of light.

I took a look around youtube to see if anyone had footage of the game running on this card, and here's what I came up with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU2p-iNkw9g . I generally don't like to go strictly according to what some person uploads on youtube, but I was crossing my fingers in hoping there might be some comparisons to be drawn from it. Their processor is a Q6600. I know it's a true quad-core, but is it better than an Athlon II X3 440 with the 4th core unlocked and OC'ed to about 3.2 - 3.4 GHz?

@ us11csalyer

You mean run epsxe on the new system with all the games I already... er, bought? I definitely hear you there. Gonna surely have to revisit some Xenogears, Parasite Eve 2, and FF VIII cranked all the way up with some nice filter plugins. :)  Mario is a given. It's total blasphemy any other way ;) 

@anwaypasible

Thanks for sharing your experiences with this title. I have it on XBOX 360/Live, but I was hoping I could finally run it in much finer detail on the PC. That's actually one of the gfx cards I was really strongly considering. I couldn't find one - even used - to fit my budget; so I got the 9800 GTX+ for $50 USD shipped, the absolute lowest I was willing to go on a graphics card. Does single player Campaign or Zombies fair any better for you with your card? Anyone try running it with a GTS 250 (essentially a rebranded 9800GTX)? I know network conditions can also play a big part in frame rates when playing online. Do you mind my asking what the rest of your system specs are (particularly the CPU)? If your processor and gfx card are both more advanced than the ones I have here, than chances are good that I'll definitely have to turn down quite a bit of eye candy in order to play the game; which is unfortunate. Not surprising though, it looks like I fall shy of the recommended system requirements:

MINIMUM System Requirements:
• OS: Windows XP, Vista, 7
• CPU: Dualcore Intel 3 GHZ or AMD 6500+
• RAM: 1GB
• HDD: 12GB of free space
• VIDEO: Shader 3.0 or better; 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT DirectX 9.0c or better / Ati x1900 or better
• SOUND: DirectX 9.0c-compatible
• DirectX: 9.0c

Recommended system requirements:
• Intel Processor - Quadcore Intel 2.6 ghz
• AMD Processor - Phenom II 955
• Nvidia Graphics Card - DirectX GeForce GTX 260
• ATI Graphics Card - ATI Radeon HD 5800 with 512 MB VRAM – DirectX 10
• RAM Memory - 2 GB
• Hard Disk Space - 12 GB
• Direct X - 9

Once again, I was hoping there were some truth to these youtube uploads, but I don't completely count on them. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what my own personal equipment will be capable of once I have it up and running. Here's some Black Ops supposedly running on the 9800GTX+. Looks like it'll run (technically), but definitely not fired up on all cylinders with all the bells and whistles enabled (I have no idea what this person's settings or resolution are... probably no AA.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eucYvZoO5k

And finally, some Crysis on the exact same card I have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcVOqXYjeQ&feature=rela... . At that resolution (1280 x720), I hope I'm able to get 50-60 fps on Very High like this person claims. I'd settle for that in an instant.
July 28, 2011 3:08:38 PM

RevOne said:
@anwaypasible

Thanks for sharing your experiences with this title. I have it on XBOX 360/Live, but I was hoping I could finally run it in much finer detail on the PC. That's actually one of the gfx cards I was really strongly considering. I couldn't find one - even used - to fit my budget; so I got the 9800 GTX+ for $50 USD shipped, the absolute lowest I was willing to go on a graphics card. Does single player Campaign or Zombies fair any better for you with your card? Anyone try running it with a GTS 250 (essentially a rebranded 9800GTX)? I know network conditions can also play a big part in frame rates when playing online. Do you mind my asking what the rest of your system specs are (particularly the CPU)? If your processor and gfx card are both more advanced than the ones I have here, than chances are good that I'll definitely have to turn down quite a bit of eye candy in order to play the game; which is unfortunate. Not surprising though, it looks like I fall shy of the recommended system requirements:

MINIMUM System Requirements:
• OS: Windows XP, Vista, 7
• CPU: Dualcore Intel 3 GHZ or AMD 6500+
• RAM: 1GB
• HDD: 12GB of free space
• VIDEO: Shader 3.0 or better; 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT DirectX 9.0c or better / Ati x1900 or better
• SOUND: DirectX 9.0c-compatible
• DirectX: 9.0c

Recommended system requirements:
• Intel Processor - Quadcore Intel 2.6 ghz
• AMD Processor - Phenom II 955
• Nvidia Graphics Card - DirectX GeForce GTX 260
• ATI Graphics Card - ATI Radeon HD 5800 with 512 MB VRAM – DirectX 10
• RAM Memory - 2 GB
• Hard Disk Space - 12 GB
• Direct X - 9

Once again, I was hoping there were some truth to these youtube uploads, but I don't completely count on them. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what my own personal equipment will be capable of once I have it up and running. Here's some Black Ops supposedly running on the 9800GTX+. Looks like it'll run (technically), but definitely not fired up on all cylinders with all the bells and whistles enabled (I have no idea what this person's settings or resolution are... probably no AA.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eucYvZoO5k

And finally, some Crysis on the exact same card I have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcVOqXYjeQ&feature=rela... . At that resolution (1280 x720), I hope I'm able to get 50-60 fps on Very High like this person claims. I'd settle for that in an instant.


single player zombies gave me:
min. 46
max. 94
avg. 76

but this was at 1024x768 85hz
8x anti-aliasing
anisotropic at maximum
texture quality at extra
shader warming yes
shadows yes
bullet impacts yes
number of corpse large


dead ops arcade gave me:
min. 61
max. 94
avg. 87


my system is a gtx260 (core 216) with a core2duo e6600 @ 3.24ghz with 3.25gb of ddr2 ram on windows xp

i have read some games perform much worse on windows 7 than they do on windows xp.
a loss of 20 frames per second and you might not be able to play some games at all.


**edit**

black ops multiplayer..
min. 28
max. 94
avg. 61

game settings..
1024x768 @ 85hz
anti-aliasing 16x
texture filtering automatic
anisotropic filtering maximum
texture quality extra
shader warming yes
shadows yes
bullet impacts yes
field of view maximum
July 28, 2011 4:24:32 PM

Thank you for posting some in-depth results about your setup. Is my Athlon II X3 440 comparable performance-wise to the e6600? I've read that the GTX 260 Core 216 is not a huge jump over the 9800GTX+ when both are running side by side at their native, stock speeds; but the 260 Core 216 can outperform the 9800GTX+ by a margin of 10 to 20% when overclocking. The GTX260 Core 216 looks to be a great overclocker, too. I should have just gotten that one or a GTX280 Superclocked instead.

I'm simply wondering if with my setup, a game like Black Ops will look and play better on my PC than it does on my XBOX 360. The TV I play the 360 on is 1080p @ 60MHz, but I've heard that most 360 games at that resolution are just upscaled 720p, anyway. Additionally, I never get a constant 60fps with the 360 when I play online multiplayer anyhow, because of fluctuating network/server conditions. If my computer monitor can display 720p (the resolution I was hoping to play most games at), I'm wondering if it'll be any better than playing it on the 360 with my TV. Even at 1024 x 768 as you have it, it looks like you were able to max out everything else pretty well. Hopefully, I can achieve similar results, if not close.
July 28, 2011 7:55:53 PM

Good games or new games/ Those terms are not equal or even related.

Best solution

July 28, 2011 8:01:17 PM
Share

you should have no issues playing any game as your system is quite well ballanced, cpu-gpu wise. the 98gt is a very capable card as long as you stick to dx9 modes. when you use dx10 settings the card will show some weakness. crysis for instance doesnt play to well at all on dx10 mode. but can run on high settings outside in dx9 mode.
so just pick the games you want to play and away you go. just remember limit your rez and you may have to reduce quality some on newer titles.
July 29, 2011 7:57:51 AM

RevOne said:
Thank you for posting some in-depth results about your setup. Is my Athlon II X3 440 comparable performance-wise to the e6600? I've read that the GTX 260 Core 216 is not a huge jump over the 9800GTX+ when both are running side by side at their native, stock speeds; but the 260 Core 216 can outperform the 9800GTX+ by a margin of 10 to 20% when overclocking. The GTX260 Core 216 looks to be a great overclocker, too. I should have just gotten that one or a GTX280 Superclocked instead.

I'm simply wondering if with my setup, a game like Black Ops will look and play better on my PC than it does on my XBOX 360. The TV I play the 360 on is 1080p @ 60MHz, but I've heard that most 360 games at that resolution are just upscaled 720p, anyway. Additionally, I never get a constant 60fps with the 360 when I play online multiplayer anyhow, because of fluctuating network/server conditions. If my computer monitor can display 720p (the resolution I was hoping to play most games at), I'm wondering if it'll be any better than playing it on the 360 with my TV. Even at 1024 x 768 as you have it, it looks like you were able to max out everything else pretty well. Hopefully, I can achieve similar results, if not close.



black ops online multiplayer doesnt look good.
the single player or online version of zombies doesnt look good either.
but
the dead ops arcade has some neat effects.
i dont picture much being different between the two versions.

black ops zombie or online multiplayer doesnt run very well despite the 61 fps average.
i would suggest you knock it off your list and go grab modern warfare 2.
the graphics are better.. the lag is less.. the bullet registration errors are less.. the game runs faster.. the weapons are more accurate and thus fun.
July 29, 2011 4:59:31 PM

@CompTIA_rep - You're absolutely right on that one :lol:  (See my comments about Black Ops below) Well, I was hoping to find out which of the popular, more fairly recent games wouldn't require the latest hardware to run; as my setup will start out running 3 year old tech in it. The good thing is, gfx cards are replaceable/upgradable; and I could either move to a Phenom II X4 955 BE or 965 BE in the next few months. Or, since the mobo's an AM3+, I could wait and see how Bulldozer does, and wait to do my upgrade for when that comes out... in 2045 A.D. :p 

@HEXiT - Thanks! That really sheds a brighter light on what I can expect. I know the G92 is showing its age by now, but I've read things about it still being a pretty capable card. I was hoping to run Windows 7 (I'm still on XP SP3 right now), so I was wondering if that will limit me to running things in Direct X10 at the most. I know the card is not DX11, or even DX 10.1 capable, but does Windows 7 even allow DX9 gaming? Sorry about my naivety when it comes to these things. That was probably a stupid question, but honestly, until I have this newer system running, I've been stuck with a Pentium 4 and a 7800GS AGP card up until now. :lol:  I know you probably wouldn't want me to hold you to this, but it's nice to know that even a beast like Crysis should be able to run on my config when you look at it on paper (or a screen, I suppose). I guess I'll just have to wait and see for sure. If it turns out I can't run Crysis or it's not playable at High settings with a moderate resolution, I won't be too heartbroken. I went into this setup thinking I wouldn't be able to run it at all, let alone actually play it. :)  Thanks for your feedback!

@anwaypasible - Well from the looks of your description of the online multiplayer, Black Ops will play exactly like the XBOX 360 version :lol:  If I didn't know any better, I would actually say you were describing the console version of the game; because all of those very same points could be used to illustrate it on the XBOX 360, as well. The bullet registration errors should be a crime in that game. It's a shame, I can't pull myself away from playing it; but I've developed this sort of love/hate relationship with Black Ops. Even in Modern Warfare 1 - hell, in Call of Duty 2 for that matter - the guns felt more precise. But I can't bring myself to stop playing it -=laughing=-. Not to get too far off topic, but the point is, I thought the PC version would actually be able to offer something more over the XBOX 360 version; if not just in graphics, then at least in terms of gameplay mechanics. I probably will not be able to run it at all yet, but once it comes out this November, I'll just have to see how Modern Warfare 3 does. There's also Battlefield 3. Oh, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Those games might be the catalyst for my excuse to upgrade the CPU and GPU to something much better.

So far, here's the list of games I'm hoping to be able to play with this setup:

  • The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
  • Bioshock 1 & 2
  • Dragon Age Origins
  • Assassin's Creed series
  • Dead Space 1 & 2
  • Alien Vs. Predator (2010)
  • Prototype
  • Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena
  • Far Cry 2
  • DC Universe Online
  • NBA 2K11
  • Homefront (Medium Settings)...


    There's quite a few more, just too many to list. Just hoping my expectations are realistic thus far. Thanks for sharing your thoughts everyone. I know the best thing to do is simply wait until I have it all together and try each game, but coming from such an old system, it's hard not to get a little excited over the prospect of better gaming opportunities. Just wanted to see what others who have been long ahead of the curve would recommend as good, recent titles that are well worth a playthrough or two on the PC. Thanks again everyone! :) 
    July 29, 2011 6:22:32 PM

    I suggest looking here: http://mmohuts.com/ . they review a lot of free games and have system requirement along with pro/cons and other information for the game.

    Here is their YouTube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/MMOHut?blend=1&ob=5 they have 80k+ subscribers. if you don't trust the links i gave you above you can simply search mmohut on the YouTube and find it yourself.


    Hope this helped,


    ~Austin~
    July 30, 2011 5:04:43 AM

    pcmark says my processor at stock has an average score of 1508
    with mine overclocked to 3.24ghz .. the version 7 of their software gave me a 1900 something.

    your CPU comes up as 2500 points.

    an athlon x4 955 or 965 will bring the score up to about 4200 - 4300

    i could get a core2quad to bring me up to 4300 - 4600
    but
    both of us are still way behind the core i7 processors that are pulling in 10,000 - 11,000
    July 30, 2011 6:20:05 AM

    my question is that if you were on a budget why did you waste 30-40 bucks on 8 gb of ram and another 30-40 bucks on a cpu cooler that could have been well spent on a gpu and for the cpu and gpu just being a place holder? prolly should have waited a month or two later and got what you really needed instead of wasting money now and being impatient.
    July 30, 2011 8:32:07 AM

    dont listen to cbrunnem.

    the 30-40 bucks for 8gb of ram is a superb deal.
    30-40 bucks for a cpu cooler is a bit average and could lead to the wrong choice since many cpu coolers in that price range are only 5-10 degrees less at idle.
    but
    still better than the stock cooler if you need it cooled.


    the gpu is pretty good for many of the old games.
    but
    $50 could have got you a bit more.
    i dont know if it would have been easy to find.. so if the 9800gtx+ was an easy find, you should probably point yourself towards the 'correct' decision.
    since the gtx260 for $50 would be really hard to find.. or simply hard to find available.

    BUT

    there are gtx460 cards for $100 (sometimes $80)
    and that would have been the absolute best choice if your power supply could handle it.
    the insurance for high resolution is one thing.
    but
    the insurance for the eye candy is another thing.
    even then..
    some insurance to keep your frames per second from dipping down low to create a problem is another thing still.


    the 9800gtx+ is 10 - 30 frames per second slower.
    that means a lot when your video game is choking from frames per second dips.
    consider the architecture of the graphics card, based on the video games it is ment to play at an acceptable speed.
    your processor might prove to help you more than what my processor helps.

    my card has 111 GB/sec
    your card has 70 GB/sec

    you will see how some of the extra bandwidth doesnt get put into good use.
    especially if your processor is authorizing the GPU to work better.

    i think most games dont use much more than the faster clocks.
    not until dx10 games come out.. or if i use the card as a physics only processor.


    there are always three target points to reach:
    1. 40fps minimum
    2. 60fps
    3. 80fps

    perhaps your card is going to be the bellows of the bottom, and mine the tip of the top.
    but.. i fail to see how all of my extra memory and processing power is being fully utilized.
    and i dont expect the dx9 games to do much about it either.
    their life has come to a final conclusion = end of life
    only time can say if there are a list of dx10 games.. or if dx10 was a complete 'not worth it' for anybody.

    some of the dx9 games looked just fine.. and if dx10 can add water and make it easier for those type of graphics to be released.. that could fair well for competition from any newcomer gaming studios.

    if smaller maps mean better graphics.. i'd go for the better graphics route.
    July 30, 2011 4:24:53 PM

    anwaypasible said:
    dont listen to cbrunnem.

    the 30-40 bucks for 8gb of ram is a superb deal.
    30-40 bucks for a cpu cooler is a bit average and could lead to the wrong choice since many cpu coolers in that price range are only 5-10 degrees less at idle.
    but
    still better than the stock cooler if you need it cooled.


    the gpu is pretty good for many of the old games.
    but
    $50 could have got you a bit more.
    i dont know if it would have been easy to find.. so if the 9800gtx+ was an easy find, you should probably point yourself towards the 'correct' decision.
    since the gtx260 for $50 would be really hard to find.. or simply hard to find available.

    BUT

    there are gtx460 cards for $100 (sometimes $80)
    and that would have been the absolute best choice if your power supply could handle it.
    the insurance for high resolution is one thing.
    but
    the insurance for the eye candy is another thing.
    even then..
    some insurance to keep your frames per second from dipping down low to create a problem is another thing still.


    the 9800gtx+ is 10 - 30 frames per second slower.
    that means a lot when your video game is choking from frames per second dips.
    consider the architecture of the graphics card, based on the video games it is ment to play at an acceptable speed.
    your processor might prove to help you more than what my processor helps.

    my card has 111 GB/sec
    your card has 70 GB/sec

    you will see how some of the extra bandwidth doesnt get put into good use.
    especially if your processor is authorizing the GPU to work better.

    i think most games dont use much more than the faster clocks.
    not until dx10 games come out.. or if i use the card as a physics only processor.


    there are always three target points to reach:
    1. 40fps minimum
    2. 60fps
    3. 80fps

    perhaps your card is going to be the bellows of the bottom, and mine the tip of the top.
    but.. i fail to see how all of my extra memory and processing power is being fully utilized.
    and i dont expect the dx9 games to do much about it either.
    their life has come to a final conclusion = end of life
    only time can say if there are a list of dx10 games.. or if dx10 was a complete 'not worth it' for anybody.

    some of the dx9 games looked just fine.. and if dx10 can add water and make it easier for those type of graphics to be released.. that could fair well for competition from any newcomer gaming studios.

    if smaller maps mean better graphics.. i'd go for the better graphics route.


    why not listen to me? he said that the computer still isnt put together so he could probably still return some stuff and if he can get an extra 50 60 bucks he could probably get a 6850 which would destroy the 9800gtx and he wouldnt spend 250 for a gpu over the long run compared to about 150.

    the thing about the ram is that if he bought 4 now that wouldnt be a "placeholder" cause he could just buy 4 more later and not be wasting the 4 he already has unlike the gpu. once he buys a new one its a wasted 100 bucks.
    July 30, 2011 4:28:14 PM

    cbrunnem said:
    my question is that if you were on a budget why did you waste 30-40 bucks on 8 gb of ram and another 30-40 bucks on a cpu cooler that could have been well spent on a gpu and for the cpu and gpu just being a place holder? prolly should have waited a month or two later and got what you really needed instead of wasting money now and being impatient.


    Good points throughout, cbrunnem :)  The thing is, this has actually turned out to be a very cheap upgrade from the current Dell Dimension 4550 I've been running for years (I've still only got a Pentium 4 HT in this system). I had started a couple of other threads detailing how I went about this; asking folks many, many questions about newer hardware I could get to finally simply get myself out of the Pentium 4-era. Additionally, I'm only working part-time as a waiter, on top of paying to go to school full-time, so funding is extremely limited. I can see where it seems like I was simply being hasty, but I wish to assure you that there was definitely a method to my madness. :lol: 

    Here's a small breakdown of what I did, given my situation: I had a $100 gift card from Amazon to start. Unfortunately, that gift card could only be used on Amazon; nowhere else (no Newegg or anything like that). Plus, Amazon doesn't really have the best deals or prices on hardware you could find. So, I bought an Athlon II X2 240 and an MSI AM3 (not AM3+) motherboard that had HyperTransport 1.0 and PCI-e 1.0 for the least expensive I could find both from that site just using the gift card, then turned around and sold them both as a combo on ebay. What this effectively did, was give me actual cash in my Paypal account that could be used anywhere I wanted to, instead of just Amazon (by transferring the money to one of those pre-paid debit cards). I didn't pay for the gift card, so that's already a hundred bucks I didn't have to take from my own pocket to put toward the new build. Then I looked around the house to see if I had any other items I wasn't using that I could sell on ebay. For instance, I had a Gamecube Action Replay that was just sitting there collecting dust. I don't even have a Gamecube anymore, nor do I have a Wii. I probably spent - at most, and this is being generous as I don't remember what it cost years ago when I bought it - $24.99 USD. I had no idea this would happen, but when I listed it, it ended up selling for $61 USD; a profit of more than 50%. I found the 8GB of Corsair Dominator RAM - brand new - in an auction listed on ebay for $61 with free shipping. The Gamecube Action Replay sale alone paid for that in full. It normally retails at Newegg, right now, for $94.99 w/ free shipping: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... . I've seen it as low as $82 - not including the cost of shipping, whatever that comes out to - from other places. Right now, some site called Directron.com has this same set on sale for $42.99 ($47.99 w/shipping): http://www.directron.com/p8gx3m2b1333c9.html?gsear=1 , so admittedly, I could have got them for even cheaper; but this sale wasn't going on when I got mine.

    By the time I'd sold the Action Replay, and the two items I'd gotten from Amazon, I already had over $160 USD to play with. That already paid for the RAM (New - $61 shipped), CPU - a "New- Open Box" Athlon II X3 440 instead of the USED Athlon II X2 240 I sold - ($45 shipped), and the aftermarket CPU Cooler (New - $29 shipped), and some Arctic Silver 5 ($5 shipped), with still some money left over. The Athlon II X3 440 has the potential for being a quad-core if it unlocks okay; and even if it doesn't, it'll still walk all over my current Pentium 4 processor. Granted, not as good as a Phenom II X4 955 or 965, but it'll do the trick for now; plus I would have never been able to find either one of those Phenom II's for $45; even pre-owned. Then, I went back to ebay, and someone bid to pay $19 for an old Geforce 6200 gfx card I was no longer using that was in the Dell 4550 before I got the 7800GS. Combining this sale with the money I had left over from the other sales, I was able to pick up a used Antec Earthwatts EA-650 for $33 USD shipped. The guy claimed he only had it for about 6 months, but you can never be sure when buying through auction sites. So far, I've tested it with the old mobo that was originally in an eMachines T5026 (see below), and it seems like it's working just perfectly; so no complaints there.

    I had to RMA the CPU cooler because it wouldn't fit in my mATX case. The company paid for the return shipping, so I got a full refund (the original shipping was free). I'm getting the Geminii S for a couple bucks less than what I paid for the Hyper 212+.

    I sold a lot of 9 old Nintendo 64 games for another $30 (I don't even have the system anymore and I had to use my brother's console in order to test them all and make sure they still worked well). My mobo - an AM3+, HyperTransport 3.0, PCI-e 2.0 (an improvement over the board I got from Amazon), I almost ended up paying $47 for, but then ended up finding a better deal and picking that one up for $33 shipped, instead. I really wanted an AM3+ to give the board a little bit of a future for when Bulldozer drops.

    I originally had two Western Digital 320GB 7200RPM EIDE HDD's in this Dell, which was overkill for such an old system. With 640GB combined storage, I never came even close to using all that space. I didn't want to transfer an IDE drive to the new build; I wanted to go with SATA. I DOD wiped the secondary drive, and sold it as well, which ended up paying for the 9800GTX+ - $50 shipped.

    I used an existing mATX case from an eMachines T5026 system that my aunt gave me, which had a dead PSU. I gutted out the case, and am only going to reuse the case itself, the DVD-RW DL optical drive, and the 160 GB Western Digital SATA HDD that was left over from what was in there before (for now, anyway). I've already got a 720p LCD HDTV I use as a monitor with the Dimension 4550; plus my old keyboard, mouse, and PCI Wireless N Wifi Adapter.


    Grand total is around $256 USD shipped for this build. There would have been more money to play with, but Paypal and ebay have to take out fees for their services, as well, which came out as a small percentage of my final sales. The only truly second-hand items I purchased were the PSU and GPU; and both seem to be working just fine, so far. Everything else either is covered under manufacturer warranties or has a return policy from the sellers.


    So, all in all - to summarize this very long post - this was a very inexpensive build for me. It's also my first time ever doing something like this (a custom built). I probably could have done much better, but I think I'll be happy with it for the mean time. The GPU and CPU can always be replaced/upgraded once things get more financially stable for me; and as I've stated, I made sure to get an AM3+ board so I can be ready for the next line of CPU's coming out of the AMD camp. If I had the money right now, I would have definitely built something a lot better, but I'm hoping this will meet my needs at least temporarily. It will just be such a relief to finally be able to say goodbye to this old Dell P4, though! :lol:  By the way, I'll probably be selling that on ebay also, once the new one is up and running! -=laughing=-
    July 30, 2011 5:06:53 PM

    cbrunnem said:
    why not listen to me? he said that the computer still isnt put together so he could probably still return some stuff and if he can get an extra 50 60 bucks he could probably get a 6850 which would destroy the 9800gtx and he wouldnt spend 250 for a gpu over the long run compared to about 150.

    the thing about the ram is that if he bought 4 now that wouldnt be a "placeholder" cause he could just buy 4 more later and not be wasting the 4 he already has unlike the gpu. once he buys a new one its a wasted 100 bucks.



    because the new games are going to be severely upgraded and require most of the computers from 3-6 years ago to be completely retired soon.

    most core2duo people are going to need a core2quad at the very least.
    no sense spending more than $50 on a graphics card when the new games are right around the corner.
    anything from today up until the release of the new consoles is probably going to require a quadcore processor.
    and that means quite a bit for the gpu too.

    the system is ment for games from like 2010 on back to whatever you can find.
    thinking about 2011 or 2012 with that system might prove to lend a hand if you turn down the eye candy.
    but
    2012 to 2013 with that system isnt practical at all.

    the 9800gtx+ is going to get used up.
    and the same with the CPU.
    why?
    because there are games that like to shove improvements down our throat to force us to go out and buy upgrades.
    and then the hardware industry comes out with something a little bit better for a little bit less money and people start selling their old stuff and getting the newest product.


    my computer ran crysis 2 'beta/demo' just fine.
    my CPU is worse than what the original poster has.
    and if new games can do their thing efficiently.. the 9800gtx+ is still going to fall flat.


    the games listed for playing are nothing the system cant handle.
    i would expect the person to stay there a while and play those games while the price of the newer stuff comes down.

    if you keep the 9800gtx+ for a year or two.. you should still be able to sell it for $50 because it can play high definition movies for a home theater pc.
    no reason to jump the gun into something in the 'middle' that isnt going to give you your extra $50 worth.
    you would be GAMBLING to wait for a new game that would run okay on the card.
    if that game never comes out.. you are stuck with the card or buy another one for sli/crossfire.


    as usual..
    there isnt much lean between one graphics card and version of games that allows them to blend well into the middle.
    with the new direct x versions.. this is especially true.
    otherwise the games that are released are going to 'baby' the hardware until it slowly reaches an ugly 100% usage and causes stutters while trying to play the game.

    people with gtx460's are going to need to go sli
    and that is going to try and hold on into the 60's as usual.
    the newer cards like the gtx590 will eventually dwindle down to needing to be sold or another one bought.


    that $150 could go far for yesterdays games.
    but it is like already being in a bicycle accident where you are about to flip over the handle bars.
    take note that the rear wheel is already off the ground and the spiral forward has begun.
    the only way to actually please yourself for a year is to check the game release dates and look for a game that is scheduled to be released.. and that game can use the graphics card bought for $150.

    otherwise..
    that tumble forward is going to come quick, and when you do get a game to 'play'
    you'll have to turn everything off and reduce the resolution to keep the movement from stalling and choking.

    IF
    you think it is okay to spend an extra $100 for 6-9 months of playing the same old video game when it gets released in the upcoming months.. that is your decision.
    but
    i dont think the list has anything worthwhile.
    i also dont think the list spoken about in the original question has anything at all to do with needing more graphics power.

    if the 9800gtx+ falls short within that list.. i apologize.
    the CPU is supposed to help some.
    the graphics card can be overclocked if you test it for errors and start from the beginning and work your way up slowly.

    talking about yesterday, we were.
    talking about tomorrow, i said it is a gamble and look at the game release dates.
    you have to consider what games are going to be played.
    if nothing from today or tomorrow is going to FIT .. then the extra $100 shouldnt either.

    i really cant see how waiting 3-4 months for a video game to come out that can be played on the extra $100 card is going to justify that extra $100 when the game play might not last but 6-9 months (could last 2 years though)
    but
    that means going without all of the other games that come out onto the market, because the system simply wont run 'em.
    you'll have to sit and choke for each game that comes out that you cant play.. as other people go out and spend money to play the game the first day it comes out.

    that 9800gtx+ was probably bought new with a valid warranty.
    no real need trying to fight your way through used products to get a boost in performance for the same money.
    not unless the warranty is transferable.
    but another person's responsibility could prove disaster.
    July 30, 2011 5:19:15 PM

    cbrunnem said:
    why not listen to me? he said that the computer still isnt put together so he could probably still return some stuff and if he can get an extra 50 60 bucks he could probably get a 6850 which would destroy the 9800gtx and he wouldnt spend 250 for a gpu over the long run compared to about 150.

    the thing about the ram is that if he bought 4 now that wouldnt be a "placeholder" cause he could just buy 4 more later and not be wasting the 4 he already has unlike the gpu. once he buys a new one its a wasted 100 bucks.


    Got the wheels turning in my brain now :lol:  ... I'm wondering: what if I just resold one of the sticks of RAM and the 9800GTX+? I'd lose dual channel, but the single 4GB stick should be sufficient enough to run most games I would think. I wanted 8GB originally, because I'm studying to become an animator, and we're coming up on the terms where I'll start using Maya and such. The Dell Dimension I have now would choke on those programs. Assuming I got - let's say - $70 - $80 for both the single 4GB stick of RAM and 9800GTX+ sale, I don't think I could find an HD6850 - even used on ebay - for that much. Maybe - and that's a big maybe - I could get a 5770 for that much, used. I could at least get a GTX280 (maybe a FTW version, if I'm real lucky) for that price or lower.

    Even if I did get the 6850, would my Athlon II X3 440 bottleneck that card? I'd like to try to OC a bit (3.4 GHz?), but I'm not sure how well the Geminii S is going to perform, yet. And if I'm lucky, I may be able to unlock the 4th core, if it's any good (my mobo supports this). I have a Propus-based Athlon II X3 440, not one of the Deneb-based ones; so no L3 cache potentially available.
    July 30, 2011 5:23:11 PM

    but..

    why isnt the new computer up and running?

    hopefully you will be smart enough to play those old games for a year or two and then go back to see what the hardware prices are.

    for $47 ... that motherboard might work the entire time, and it might fail early.
    but
    maybe it is one of them motherboards that lets you overclock the processor, and if you try a different processor with a different overclock.. the whole thing is cranky and doesnt work.

    all you are waiting on is the CPU cooler right?
    July 30, 2011 5:42:03 PM

    anwaypasible said:
    but..

    why isnt the new computer up and running?

    hopefully you will be smart enough to play those old games for a year or two and then go back to see what the hardware prices are.

    for $47 ... that motherboard might work the entire time, and it might fail early.
    but
    maybe it is one of them motherboards that lets you overclock the processor, and if you try a different processor with a different overclock.. the whole thing is cranky and doesnt work.

    all you are waiting on is the CPU cooler right?


    Yeah, it would be up and running already, but I had to return the Hyper 212+ because it didn't fit in the mATX case. So now I'm just waiting on the shipment of the Geminii S. And that's exactly correct - I'm coming from a 7800GS/Pentium 4 based system, so I've got A LOT of catching up to do in gaming. In fact, the 7800GS isn't even operating at full capacity, because this blasted Dell only provides an AGPx4 slot (7800GS is an AGP 8x card). I've missed out on pretty much everything that's come out after 2006. If this "newer" system will allow me to at least play Dead Space, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Oblivion, so on and so forth, with reasonably nice settings, at a decent resolution, and putting up good frame rates, I'll be pleased. If anything, it'll keep me busy for a little while until either prices drive down on newer hardware (which I couldn't even dream of doing any upgrades with the Dell P4 system, but I'll be able to with this one), or wait until my finances improve, and rebuild something "cutting-edge" from the ground up when the time comes. I only have a year and a half left before I graduate.

    If the Athlon II X3 paired with the 9800GTX+ can handle at least these types of games (stuff from between 2007 - 2009, or as recent as it'll allow), I'll be okay for a bit. My monitor is only a 720p HDTV, so I'm not looking to play the "latest and greatest" @ 1920 x 1080 or higher; just looking to put up at least 1280 x 1024 resi's with no major issues. Then, once I've got more cash on hand, I could just sell the 9800GTX+ for a little bit to put toward my next card, which should be something later and more capable. Same with the CPU. My mobo and PSU aren't the best, but they should have at least a little bit of life left in them to let me conduct at least a single upgrade to better tech within the next year or so, I'm hoping. Plus, this is also only my first-ever experience actually building a computer. For what I spent (or rather - didn't spend on the hardware), it'll give me such much needed practice and experience for when I ultimately do decide I have the money and can afford to do a "beast build" with the latest stuff available. Yeah, I would have loved a Core i7 with Crossfired 6890's, but this is the best I could do given the situation. Besides - Dead Space looks like so much fun! :lol:  I don't need much at the moment; I've got my nose in the books most of the time and the rest of me running around a restaurant half the time, so I just need something that'll let me relax and get some at least decent gaming on during my down time. I'd be happy with just that for now...
    July 30, 2011 5:43:44 PM

    i really dont think anybody is going to want a single stick of ram.
    specifically because you lose (or never gain) dual channel speeds.

    selling the graphics card is also a gamble.
    i think you need to keep the ram and the graphics card because selling them for anything more than what you paid for them is not likely to happen.
    people want the same deals you got.
    and i dont expect anybody to pay much more for the graphics card.

    say you do sell it for $10 profit.
    and you do sell the stick of ram for $30

    i dont necessarily see what you plan on doing with $80
    you would have to go back to the pool of fighting with other people to get the product for the lowest price.

    i would hate to see you being outbid again and again.. with people who are winning the auction for like $10 more.


    does your operating system support 8gb of ram?

    you realize fighting with the other auctioners isnt something you should be doing if you need the computer for college work.
    there are some 6670 graphic cards for $80
    and
    there are some gt440 graphic cards for $80 over at newegg.com

    but that would be like not testing the thing before you sold it.
    and
    you would be fighting to get your money back without losing any.
    and
    you would have to go to work and make some more money to bring things up to the price of the other card.
    plus
    you havent read the benchmarks to know if there is any reason to get something a bump better than the 9800gtx+

    i would think the 9800gtx+ was the beast of its generation.. except for the one that had two 9800gtx cards on one pci slot.
    so if it really is that much of a beast for the 9000 series lineup..
    i think it should help do something in the maya program.
    compared to one of the wimpy versions of the 'gt 440' from nvidia.
    but
    maybe the 6670 does something better for you.
    July 30, 2011 5:50:20 PM

    maybe this comparison does something for you:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-card...

    i cant find the 9800gtx+ to use for comparison.
    but
    the 6670 versus the 9800gt is here:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics...

    you would need to compare the 9800gt to the 9800gtx+
    but there should be a big difference.
    and that means the 6670 would be the same thing.. or a bit less than the 9800gtx+


    actually..
    i just found a review of the 9800gtx+
    it says the 9800gtx+ gets about 20 more frames per second than a 9800gt
    and it can run bioshock at 1280x720p at probably 100fps or something like that.

    see the benchmark results here:
    http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_9800gtx_/8....


    all settings on maximum.. but they used a quad core processor for those results.
    and it says if you overclock the card (which you really dont need to at all)
    you could get another 10 frames per second to keep your frames from dropping below 40 fps.

    the only time i ever overclock my card is if i am trying to keep my frames above 40 so the movement is smooth.
    but
    those games and that card....
    you got yourself one seriously decent deal.

    now maybe you need to save up like $80 to get a 64bit operating system to use all of that ram?
    July 30, 2011 6:03:24 PM

    anwaypasible said:
    maybe this comparison does something for you:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-card...



    Actually, that helps out a lot. :)  Thanks for sharing that with me. It'll give me a better idea of what to expect from this card.

    There was also this article that I was reading: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-ii-x3-440-ga... . It's from May 2010, so I'm hoping that means I'll be alright for playing stuff from at least that time and before then.

    And this one: http://thetechjournal.com/electronics/gaming-electronic... . The Athlon II X3 440 is on that list and this one was written in April 2010.


    My Dell Dimension 4550 is from 2002, I believe... I'm certain this system should make me a lot happier. :) 

    Thanks for all your help, everyone! :) 

    EDIT: Here's some more results for the XFX 9800GTX+ (my card) with Crysis: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_9800gtx_/6.... . I wouldn't mind playing it at High settings, with 2x AA, @1280 x 1024, and getting 38 frames per second (hopefully, they recorded the minimal, and not the average). That's playable for me. I mean seriously - I'm still only playing Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 on this Dell system! :) 
    July 30, 2011 6:07:23 PM

    yea..

    if you are happy with that one link, see the other two i put up.
    they should really make you realize why you dont need to sell the card and hope for something else to come along.
    July 31, 2011 5:35:41 PM

    I'm now thinking I may get either a Phenom II X2 550 3.1 GHz (previous owner able to unlock to a quad-core); or a Phenom II X3 720 BE 2.8 GHz (not known whether fourth core can unlock; but has an unlocked multiplier). My mobo has the ASUS "Core Unlocker" feature: http://event.asus.com/mb/2010/Unlocker/Core-Unlocker.ht... . The person with the X2 550 just used ACC to unlock theirs. Advantages?

  • Gain an L3 Cache over the Athlon II X3 440.
  • Definitely know the Phenom II X2 550 is capable of unlocking to a quad-core; whereas I'm not sure yet that the Athlon II X3 will.
  • Higher OC potential with either the Phenom II X2 550 or X3 720 BE over the Athlon II X3 440.

    Second opinions, anyone?
    July 31, 2011 7:27:31 PM

    i'll give a second comment..

    you dont know your motherboard will unlock the cores as stable as the other motherboard did.
    you also dont know if running the unlocked core has corrupted (or somehow slowed down) the processor.

    you also have no idea how stable your motherboard is going to be when you start overclocking.



    sure..
    you could get a processor that is well-known for being stable while overclocked.
    but
    then you would learn, with more certainty, the motherboard doesnt like to be overclocked.

    so you are willing to significantly slow down at default speeds and put all your hope towards the overclock being stable?
    that is dumb if you havent checked reviews to know if the processor AND motherboard will overclock with any success.
    July 31, 2011 7:57:05 PM

    The mobo specs list it as having a 95W TDP max for supported CPU's... If I attempted unlocking/overclocking with ANY of these processors (the Athlon II X3 included), will that hold me back from being able to do either? The Athlon II X3 is already a 95W CPU...

    I couldn't get a Phenom II X4 955 even if I had the money to able to buy it... Well, chalk it up as a lesson learned. This is my first time ever building, so I have the experience for next time, I suppose.

    July 31, 2011 8:30:34 PM

    you guys need to cut down on how much you right lol. that being said i didnt have time to read all of it just skim.

    just from what i skimmed anway might be behind the times.... 1 stick of ram will loose you dual channel speeds but that does not affect gaming performance. it will hinder rendering but you cpu is already the bottleneck there. also in all honesty you have a decent rig except for you gpu. so if you could return you ram, gpu, and cpu cooler and buy 4 gb of ram and a better gpu then that would be ideal. 4 gb and a 6850 will be about 180ish.

    when you start to render you can add more ram and upgrade the cpu later.
    July 31, 2011 10:55:39 PM

    oh..
    take it from the person who is too lazy to take TWO minutes to read something.

    seriously revone..
    it took me about 90 seconds to read what you wrote in that long post.
    there are some people who are beginning to whine and seriously complain because they cant finish the post in 30 seconds or less.

    you dont want to lose dual channel.
    there isnt much of a chance to be 'behind the times'
    dual channel is dual channel.. doesnt matter if it was ddr or ddr2 or ddr3
    it will help, and cbrunnem tried to SNEAK it past you when he/she said 'it will hinder rendering but your cpu is already the bottleneck'


    those 3d programs are heavily graphics card dependant.
    they work specifically with 3d graphics cards.. because that is what the program is for!!
    sometimes they use 'cuda processing'
    sometimes they use 'hardware acceleration' because of direct X or openGL

    if you try to overclock or unlock the processor.. it might work and prove some reviews wrong.
    how many of the same model graphics cards come out?
    there are lots of people with a gtx260 and they all get different overclocking results.
    you could go as far as 'everybody has an evga gtx260'
    but
    that doesnt mean everybody has the same overclock result.


    motherboards are a bit different though.
    if the board wont overclock.. and you read like 10 or 12 people saying the same thing.. chances are good that it wont overclock.
    but
    you could always try and see if things are different.

    when a motherboard wont overclock.. it is usually because of one or two things:
    1. there isnt enough voltage somewhere (you could solder an extra 'jumper' wire to send the voltage to the place it is needed)
    2. the voltage on the motherboard is too dirty because of the pieces on the motherboard.

    if either one is the reason the motherboard wont overclock.. it is going to be the EXACT same for everybody that buys the motherboard.


    since this is supposed to be school related for maya..
    you could go to a much better forum to learn how long it takes to render a scene with a 9800gtx+ and a different card.
    would you want to be arguing about it (and GAMBLING) this much to save 10-20 seconds on the render?
    when i press render in truespace.. sometimes it takes time, but usually only takes 2 seconds.

    TWO seconds..
    i cant click on the render button and look down at the keyboard to check if the caps lock is on.. because the rendering is already done.

    that is for only 1 or 2 objects with textures and light/shadow processing.
    maya could take longer if you are trying to ask for a bunch of things without saving it and burning it in.
    if you burn it in.. you wont have to wait for the rendering to happen.
    almost everybody burns something in eventually to save some processing.
    July 31, 2011 11:05:04 PM

    anwaypasible said:
    oh..
    take it from the person who is too lazy to take TWO minutes to read something.

    seriously revone..
    it took me about 90 seconds to read what you wrote in that long post.
    there are some people who are beginning to whine and seriously complain because they cant finish the post in 30 seconds or less.

    you dont want to lose dual channel.
    there isnt much of a chance to be 'behind the times'
    dual channel is dual channel.. doesnt matter if it was ddr or ddr2 or ddr3
    it will help, and cbrunnem tried to SNEAK it past you when he/she said 'it will hinder rendering but your cpu is already the bottleneck'


    those 3d programs are heavily graphics card dependant.
    they work specifically with 3d graphics cards.. because that is what the program is for!!
    sometimes they use 'cuda processing'
    sometimes they use 'hardware acceleration' because of direct X or openGL

    if you try to overclock or unlock the processor.. it might work and prove some reviews wrong.
    how many of the same model graphics cards come out?
    there are lots of people with a gtx260 and they all get different overclocking results.
    you could go as far as 'everybody has an evga gtx260'
    but
    that doesnt mean everybody has the same overclock result.


    motherboards are a bit different though.
    if the board wont overclock.. and you read like 10 or 12 people saying the same thing.. chances are good that it wont overclock.
    but
    you could always try and see if things are different.

    when a motherboard wont overclock.. it is usually because of one or two things:
    1. there isnt enough voltage somewhere (you could solder an extra 'jumper' wire to send the voltage to the place it is needed)
    2. the voltage on the motherboard is too dirty because of the pieces on the motherboard.

    if either one is the reason the motherboard wont overclock.. it is going to be the EXACT same for everybody that buys the motherboard.


    since this is supposed to be school related for maya..
    you could go to a much better forum to learn how long it takes to render a scene with a 9800gtx+ and a different card.
    would you want to be arguing about it (and GAMBLING) this much to save 10-20 seconds on the render?
    when i press render in truespace.. sometimes it takes time, but usually only takes 2 seconds.

    TWO seconds..
    i cant click on the render button and look down at the keyboard to check if the caps lock is on.. because the rendering is already done.

    that is for only 1 or 2 objects with textures and light/shadow processing.
    maya could take longer if you are trying to ask for a bunch of things without saving it and burning it in.
    if you burn it in.. you wont have to wait for the rendering to happen.
    almost everybody burns something in eventually to save some processing.


    try again. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING...
    dual channel is minimally better then single channel.

    if you are trying to say that the gpu has a bigger role in rendering then a cpu then you just need to leave and never come back. that has to be the single handed most wrong statement i have seen on here. the gpu has very little effect on rendering but with play a role in veiwport speed. you kinda show a little bit of ignorance outside of the gpu comment when talking about a 2 second render? man i was doing 2 second renders in 9th grade and now we are talking overnight renders for one low res frame.

    this has became a bickering war. someone else said to ignore him and i just pull out more then one wrong statement from him and proved that single channel ram will sufice for now. i would recommend getting a better gpu as that is your weak point then the cpu and ram. if you can you can try to overclock but i would return the cpu cooler and ram to buy a better gpu if you can.
    July 31, 2011 11:57:42 PM

    i think your trying is getting you into stupid situations.

    i have been with only one stick of ram and lost dual channel speeds.
    there is a big difference.
    the operating system will tell you right away when you remove one stick.
    but
    the operating system isnt as quick to tell you the difference if you have been running one stick for quite some time and then put in a second stick.


    you sound like a teenager that has ran the operating system for months without two sticks of ram.. then went out and bought another stick, but didnt see any differance.
    so you brought the second stick of ram back to the store for your money back.
    OR
    you reinstalled the operating system after erasing the hard drive, and then EVERYTHING was faster... but you thought it was because the install of the operating system was fresh.


    how dare you tell me a CPU has a bigger role in rendering than a GPU.
    your logic, rationale, and sanity is on the line when you do.
    a CPU will render a scene at 1 or 2 frames per second.
    the GPU will render the same scene at 30 to 60 frames per second.

    when does it become a bickering war?
    how about when very very few people know if the GPU processes the 3d wires or if the CPU processes the 3d wires.
    for all some of us know.. the vertices might be all the CPU can afford to process.
    that means the GPU would need to process the edges and the faces with the textures and lights/shadows.

    that exact information is top-secret?


    let one not forget 3dmark06 used to try and use the CPU to render 3d graphics with the 'red valley' scene.

    here is a link for some proof of the program trying to use the CPU to render a scene and getting 1 frame per second:
    http://3dmark.com/3dm06/9343059


    but HEY..
    if 1 frame per second actually does happen, doesnt that good and well mean ONE frame was rendered in ONE second !!?


    you are going on and on about how a 3D graphics card isnt rendering 3D scenes.
    maybe that is why your rendering takes 'overnight' to finish.
    no reason to push your frustration out on me, since those are YOUR problems.. not mine.


    now..
    if you were using some serious server to use the CPU's to render the graphics, that would prove to be something different when only a single geforce 440mx is installed for video.

    but if you were talking about a server.. that would be cheating/misleading like a punk.
    no reason to respond to me as if i didnt catch the possibility.
    August 1, 2011 1:06:51 AM

    anwaypasible said:
    i think your trying is getting you into stupid situations.

    i have been with only one stick of ram and lost dual channel speeds.
    there is a big difference.
    the operating system will tell you right away when you remove one stick.
    but
    the operating system isnt as quick to tell you the difference if you have been running one stick for quite some time and then put in a second stick.


    you sound like a teenager that has ran the operating system for months without two sticks of ram.. then went out and bought another stick, but didnt see any differance.
    so you brought the second stick of ram back to the store for your money back.
    OR
    you reinstalled the operating system after erasing the hard drive, and then EVERYTHING was faster... but you thought it was because the install of the operating system was fresh.


    how dare you tell me a CPU has a bigger role in rendering than a GPU.
    your logic, rationale, and sanity is on the line when you do.
    a CPU will render a scene at 1 or 2 frames per second.
    the GPU will render the same scene at 30 to 60 frames per second.

    when does it become a bickering war?
    how about when very very few people know if the GPU processes the 3d wires or if the CPU processes the 3d wires.
    for all some of us know.. the vertices might be all the CPU can afford to process.
    that means the GPU would need to process the edges and the faces with the textures and lights/shadows.

    that exact information is top-secret?


    let one not forget 3dmark06 used to try and use the CPU to render 3d graphics with the 'red valley' scene.

    here is a link for some proof of the program trying to use the CPU to render a scene and getting 1 frame per second:
    http://3dmark.com/3dm06/9343059


    but HEY..
    if 1 frame per second actually does happen, doesnt that good and well mean ONE frame was rendered in ONE second !!?


    you are going on and on about how a 3D graphics card isnt rendering 3D scenes.
    maybe that is why your rendering takes 'overnight' to finish.
    no reason to push your frustration out on me, since those are YOUR problems.. not mine.


    now..
    if you were using some serious server to use the CPU's to render the graphics, that would prove to be something different when only a single geforce 440mx is installed for video.

    but if you were talking about a server.. that would be cheating/misleading like a punk.
    no reason to respond to me as if i didnt catch the possibility.


    bro you need to get on the same page as us. when we talk about rendering we are talking about rendering like 3d modeling programs not games. no one talks about rendering and games in the same sentence. you rant didnt even make sense if you are talking about game renders or whatever you were babbling about. all i can say is that when rendering, the cpu does the work. when gaming the gpu does the work. you can not dispute that.

    i just provided you a link that showed that dual channel is not much faster. 2-3 frams on average yet you still wanna say dual channel is much faster? explain your reasoning.

    also not a teenager and a OS will most of the time be faster after a clean install so dont know where your going with that.



    if thats your rig in the link, that one nice rig.... ;) 
    August 1, 2011 6:37:22 AM

    first of all, i dont like you and i dont want you to talk to me ever again for the rest of both of our lives.

    second of all, 'all you can say' is breaking the forum rules in half a dozen different ways.

    third..
    i dont have to believe something that contradicts the evidence in front of me.

    fourth, your sentence is missing some comma's.

    fifth and final..
    using the word 'we' is a threat of mob action, as well as an example of your attempts of oppression.


    you said 'explain your reasoning'
    LOOK UP at the previous post.
    August 1, 2011 7:12:37 AM

    Hey folks, don't sweat it too much... I really appreciate getting information from different perspectives and ranging from the differing experiences of different people. Therefore, all help thus far, by everyone that has posted has been greatly appreciated. For someone like me who doesn't know the first thing about modern computer technology, it's really nice to have a place like this to come to - not only to ask questions, but to get good, quality answers. I didn't mean to incite any debates :)  (although friendly debate can sometimes be healthy).

    Anyhow, I'm really beginning to feel like this system is going to do everything I need it to; at least for now. When finances improve (hopefully soon), I'll certainly be revisiting this thread and taking some pointers from all the good bits of info throughout. I guess to answer my own original question in a way, I found this web page that shows the optimal settings for Black Ops - one of the games I REALLY wanted/hoped to be able to play - under a 9800GT, right from the Nvidia site: http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/OPS/Call-of-Duty-Black-... . Even if I ran the game at 1900 x 1200 according to that site, with those settings, I'd still average a very playable 43 frames per second. At 1280 x 1024 - the resolution I plan on playing at - I can expect to average 52 frames per second. To me, coming from this Dell P4 that can't even run Modern Warfare 1 @ 1024 x 768 with Medium settings, that's VERY playable indeed.

    Also, I think I'll be okay, as the 9800GTX+ is a nice step up from the regular 9800GT, which is what they're showing on that website. When finances improve for me, I can look at upgrading; be it the CPU or GPU or both at the same time. But for now, this was pretty cheap for me, and I think I did okay considering. At least when the time comes for upgrading, I'll already have -maybe not the best, but a decent enough mobo, PSU, and RAM to work with building around. Also, the fact that I can upgrade at all is also a huge benefit to me when you look at the idea that I was still running an old Socket 478-based system with a long dead upgrade path and an obsolete AGP x4 slot with a 7800GS still running in it.

    Just doing some basic math, I paid about $135 USD altogether for my CPU ($45), GPU ($50), AND a decent AFTERMARKET cooler ($30). That same $135 would have MAYBE gotten me either a Phenom II X4 955 or an HD6850 by itself. Heck, I even managed to score a Bulldozer ready motherboard for a whole $33... to me, that's a bargain. Plus, with 8GB of memory already in tow, I won't need to worry about that part; at least not for a little while more to come anyway. And all I did was sell a very few old things laying around the house that I WASN'T using AT ALL. I hope no one gets me wrong here; I'm not saying any of this to try to seem boastful in any way. But the point I'm trying to illustrate is that I can't stress enough how grateful I am that it all worked out the way it did. I now actually have a real computer that is of substantial use to me for barely any cost at all. And to me, that means a lot in and of itself.

    Here's another game I really was hoping I'd be able to play at decent settings: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWv87v2GDKU . That guy's running it at 1600 x 900 using an Athlon II X3, 2GB DDR3 RAM, a 500W PSU, and a GT240... The 9800GTX+ alone beats the GT240, I'll have the same CPU, and 4x the amount of ram shown there. Not the best the computer world has to offer these days, but darn if that doesn't look pretty playable in my eyes.

    My sincerest thanks to everyone here at TH for all your kindness and assistance in helping me with this build. Without the knowledge of others, or their willingness to share it, I would have been completely lost as to where to even begin with putting together my first custom built computer in my entire lifetime.
    August 1, 2011 7:47:02 AM

    Locking the thread before the trolling and insults can continue flying.
    August 1, 2011 2:15:15 PM

    Best answer selected by revone.
    !