LowBudget Gaming PC $530

[hydroshock]

I'm not quite sure both about if it needs a bigger power supply and if the MoBo is gonna be any good, this PC isn't gonna be running many games (Just WoW and a few RTS games i believe is all my brother plays)

Just looking for any input and answers to my worries above.

Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16811108024

Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148149

Video Card (rebate covers shipping)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814150182

Ram
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16820145526

Mother Board
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16813131041

Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819116001

 

[hydroshock]

I did take a look at Motherboards again

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813138264

that one looked nicer

 

[f1nal_0men]

Not a bad setup, but no-name cases are crap, and no-name power supplies are a time bomb waiting to go off. So for the case I recommend the Antec NSK 4400 w/ 380watt this will keep the price still nice and low, and you'll get a power supply that you wont need to replace in 6 months.

Also the motherboard, the first one you listed has integrated graphics, if you don't need that feature you should try and stay away from boards that have it. Also the second motherboard you listed is for socket 939, obviously wont work with an Intel Pentium 805. So I recommend the Gigabyte GA-945PL-S3 as a decent board that does support conroe for future upgrades. And it's the same price as the Asus one.

 

[NamelessMC]

Looks pretty good.

The 775 motherboard leaves you the option of upgrading to a C2D later, and you could sell the ram/processor later on when you upgrade them.

That's if you plan on it. Even if you don't, the system will run really well by itself anyway.

For 530$ you'd be able to play most of today's games at high settings. (With the exception of Oblivion. It's just stupid trying to get that game to run at max settings)

 

[f1nal_0men]

For 530$ you'd be able to play most of today's games at high settings. (With the exception of Oblivion. It's just stupid trying to get that game to run at max settings)

And NFS Carbon
Highest playable setting: 1024x768 0xaa 0xaf med world, med shader, motion blur off, med car reflection update
And Gothic 3
Highest playable setting: -not exactly sure, but I'm going to guess around min quality everything 1024x768
And Rainbow Six Vegas
Highest playable setting: everything lowest possible 800x600
And G.R.A.W.
Highest playable setting: -again, not exactly sure, but once again most features will have to be turned off at 1024x768
And F.E.A.R.
Highest playable setting: med everything, softshadows off, volumetric lighting off 1024x768
And Age of Empires 3
Highest playable setting: High everything (not highest) 1024x768

Playable high settings = everything in game max 1280x1024 0xaa 0xaf with an average frame rate of at least 45, which isn't necessarily smooth either.

Don't mean to burst your bubble, but thats just being a little more realistic . To get all those games playing at 1280x1024 with good frame rate and everything max, x1950xt is minimum (because of Rainbow Six Vegas)

 

[f1nal_0men]

I got some proof too! I just run through a few games with fraps benchmarks as I go along to get some very unstructured, but reliable benchmarks. Specs are in my signature. So my system is considerably faster then what he will get getting,

NFS Carbon: Avg: 14.819 - Min: 9 - Max: 24

NFS Most Wanted: Avg: 39.118 - Min: 28 - Max: 50

FEAR (built in benchmark): Avg: 33.523 - Min: 17 - Max: 73

FEAR (playing): Avg: 34.266 - Min: 0 - Max: 156

I could do more, but I'm lazy. So even Most Wanted will not be playable on his machine at 1280x1024 max. NFS Carbon is absolute garbage, one of the most inefficient game engines on Nvidia cards EVER. I get better frames in RS Vegas at max quality... and yes my max frames is 73fps in FEAR, but thats when I'm in an elevator. When your actually shooting guys, my frames at the time sat around 25fps, when I was using slow-mo, 15fps.

In conclusion, the 7600gt used to be one hell of a card, but today it can't keep up. However, for the price it's worth every penny.

P.S. Now I find out that this computer is for his brother that only plays WoW and RTS games. I feel stupid . However, my comment stands, the 7600 can't run the majority of new games at high quality.

 

[NamelessMC]

In your sig it says 7800GS? Do you have a 7600GT or a 7800GS?

If so, there's a huge difference.

On my budget PC, I have a 7600GT, 1 gig of DDR400 ram, a 3000+ @ 2.4 gigahertz, and I'm able to play at higher frame-rates at the same settings you had those games at, but I'm on a widescreen monitor.

Of course, R6 Vegas has ridiculous graphic requirements and the graphics aren't even that good.

It even brings a 1950XT down to its kness and it just looks so plain.

 

[f1nal_0men]

Impossible.
7800gs is faster then the 7600gt
Benchmarks
1280x1024 (1.31 million pixels) = 1440x900 (1.29 million pixels)
So playing at 1440x900 is more-or-less the same resolution in terms of power needed to run.
Also keep in mind a Athlon 64 3700+ (relative speed) is no match for a Core2Duo e6400 (again, relative speed). Just take a look at Tom's cpu charts. I am a bit of a frame whore though. I must have min frames higher then 30.
*Keep in mind the benchmarks I did were when the games were at max quality 1280x1024, not at the 'playable' settings I specified.

 

[hydroshock]

haha thanks guys

I coulda swore when I found that second board I had it sorted for 775.

Yeah when I get around to building MY computer i'll be getting a newer DX10 card (but not one of the ones that cost more than this build lol)