Am I right in thinking this is a pretty good deal?

[Guest]

Hello, I have my eye on two particular systems, but with my limited knowledge I'm having trouble deciding on which one to get. I am favouring this one, it has a GeForce 8800GT 512MB and is the cheaper deal of the two. The other is this one, it has a GeForce 9600 GT 512MB (I think it may be overclocked), which apparently isn't as good as the other card, yet the system is a bit more expensive.

Both look like good deals to me, am I correct? If so which should I ultimately go for?

 

[Onus]

The second one looks better to me. It is certainly more expandable. The PSU in it is much more substantial, so you could easily upgrade the GPU (or other components) if you need to.
What will you be doing with this PC? What apps / games?

 

[dirtmountain]

Of the 2 i'd go with the 2nd, the Intel build. It has an easier path to upgrades if you decide you want more performance in the future. While the 8800GT is a more powerful card, the 9600GT is still a decent gaming card. Both builds are decent budget builds. You're spending more on getting them pre-built and could build a better system for the same amount of money. For OS i'd personally go with XP pro, but both will handle Vista.

 

[dagger]

2nd is more upgradable. While the 1st gives you more gaming performance at the moment (8800gt is significantly faster than 9600gt). 2nd one cost more. Both suffer from lack of ram. Vista uses 1+gb, while games like Crysis and Supreme Commander can hog 2+gb after a while of gameplay. Nearly all new games use at least 1+gb. Professional applications can hog far more. 2gb is not enough.

Frankly, both of them are pretty bad. You should ideally build one yourself. Better bang for the buck, for a balanced system, and you get quality parts instead of what they have.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the helpful replies. I have been using my ancient AGP rig with it's Nvidia 8600GS for way too long now and I have been looking for an affordable, reasonably future proof pc ever since Company Of Heroes: Opposing Fronts chugged along at a horrible frame rate. I don't expect a powerhouse system for £500, but I would like to play Crysis on some of the nicer settings, if possible. So yes, I am basically upgrading in order to play the newer games out there.

So from what I can gather, the reason the system with the lesser graphics card is slightly more expensive is because the system has the better overall hardware and because it can be easily upgraded, when the time comes? Will the processing power and ram allow for a better graphics card, should I choose to upgrade it?

If you guys think the system with the 9600GT is capable of running Crysis in a decent manner, I'll go for it.

 

[dirtmountain]

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=724&p=4

 

[dagger]

Thanks for the helpful replies. I have been using my ancient AGP rig with it's Nvidia 8600GS for way too long now and I have been looking for an affordable, reasonably future proof pc ever since Company Of Heroes: Opposing Fronts chugged along at a horrible frame rate. I don't expect a powerhouse system for £500, but I would like to play Crysis on some of the nicer settings, if possible. So yes, I am basically upgrading in order to play the newer games out there.

So from what I can gather, the reason the system with the lesser graphics card is slightly more expensive is because the system overall has the better overall hardware and because it can be easily upgraded, when the time comes? Will the processing power and ram allow for a better graphics card, should I choose to upgrade it?

If you guys think the system with the 9600GT is capable of running Crysis in a decent manner, I'll go for it.

9600gt is not enough to run Crysis with playable frame rates, not by a long shot. It may be enough for Company of Heros though.

 

[Mondoman]

I pretty much agree with dm above. One good thing is that both MBs and PSs are decent quality, although I think you'll find the P35 chipset-based Intel system much more stable and overclockable than the nVidia chipset-based AMD system.

 

[Guest]

Sorry dagger, I missed your reply since you posted whilst I was typing my own. I don't intend on upgrading to Vista for the foreseeable future and I honestly don't play games for extended periods of time, so I was kinda thinking the 2Gb of ram would be enough, for me. Especially when I consider the fact that I have gotten along fine enough with just 1Gb for all this time.

 

[Mondoman]

Try out the 2GB; if it's not enough for you, you can easily add more.

 

[Guest]

Just a quick update. In the end I never went with either of those systems since someone elsewhere pointed me towards this: http://www.cube247.co.uk/?customise=26

I've just ordered it!

Thanks for all the help

 

[dagger]

Just a quick update. In the end I never went with either of those systems since someone elsewhere pointed me towards this: http://www.cube247.co.uk/?customise=26

I've just ordered it!

Thanks for all the help

That's better value than the other two. Shortcomings including 9800gt being a renamed 8800gt, still decent, but not ideal by today's standards. 1gb vram does not help. Also, that proprietary motherboard will not allow you to overclock that e8500, which is a waste.

 

[Guest]

I'm only a recreational user, I wouldn't even know how to overclock even if I wanted to. I'm not super fussy about performance, I'm quite content to play at 1024x768, but I expect I shall go up to 1280x1024 with the new system. Basically, I think I'll be perfectly happy with the fps the system gives me at that resolution.

Either way, its a HUGE step up from my current setup, which honestly still runs most games on higher settings.