Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Trying to build a good gaming PC

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 19, 2009 7:52:42 PM

Okay, I'm trying to build a computer to play Warhammer and maybe LOTRO, and I've compiled a list of parts from Newegg.com. What do you guys think? Would this system be enough to run Warhammer and LOTRO on full settings, or should I upgrade a bit?


https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/ [...] hangeQty=0

Let me know what you think, a friend of mine says it should work just fine, but I'd rather have more than just one opinion before I spend the $700. I don't really have a specific budget per se (no credit card), so whatever the cost is I'm just going to have to save up the money for it.

Thank you all for your help.

More about : build good gaming

April 19, 2009 7:58:26 PM

CapKaboom said:
Okay, I'm trying to build a computer to play Warhammer and maybe LOTRO, and I've compiled a list of parts from Newegg.com. What do you guys think? Would this system be enough to run Warhammer and LOTRO on full settings, or should I upgrade a bit?


https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/ [...] hangeQty=0

Let me know what you think, a friend of mine says it should work just fine, but I'd rather have more than just one opinion before I spend the $700. I don't really have a specific budget per se (no credit card), so whatever the cost is I'm just going to have to save up the money for it.

Thank you all for your help.

I can't see your list. Would it be possible if you listed the parts out for review?
April 19, 2009 8:01:18 PM

This board handles URLs wrong probably, part of the URL seems truncated to me.
Related resources
April 19, 2009 8:03:49 PM

Oh, sorry about that...changing it now.
April 19, 2009 8:12:08 PM

Case: COOLER MASTER RC-690-KKN1-GP Black SECC/ ABS ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

Power supply: Rosewill RP500-2 500W ATX12V v2.01 Power Supply

Motherboard: ASUS M3A78-EM AM2+/AM2 AMD 780G HDMI Micro ATX AMD

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 7750 Kuma 2.7GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache 2MB L3 Cache Socket AM2+ 95W Dual-Core black edition Processor

RAM: CORSAIR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

GPU: XFX GS250XYDFC GeForce GTS 250 512MB Core Edition 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card

DVD drive: Sony Optiarc Black 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-ROM SATA DVD-ROM Drive Model DDU1675S - OEM

HD: Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive

Monitor: Hanns·G Hi-221DPB Black 22" 5ms Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 1000:1 Built in Speakers

There we go, that should work better. Again, thanks to everyone for any help you can provide.
a b 4 Gaming
April 19, 2009 8:45:24 PM

Change the PSU, DVD and HDD to 550VX, SH-S223Q and WD6401AALS.
April 19, 2009 9:33:48 PM

All right, noted...how did everything else look? My goal is to be able to play WAR and LOTRO on maxed settings, or as close as humanly possible.

Thank you very much for your help :) 

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it...what kind of SATA cables should I need? I've never built a computer before, so I'm really pretty ignorant about the process.
April 19, 2009 9:48:11 PM

Pick a Phenom II X3 720 if you can, though its more expensive it'll provide a little more cpu power and is also more power efficient because its 45nm instead of 65nm.

And you could upgrade the GPU to something like GeForce GTX 260 Core216 or GeForce GTX 285.
April 19, 2009 10:30:49 PM

Yeesh, that new processor's almost three times the cost of the one suggested to me...hope it's worth it.

Any other advice?
April 19, 2009 10:40:42 PM

It may not worth it. A GPU upgrade would help you more honestly. Depends on your budget. Checkout some benchmarks of graphics cards and see what cards still fall inside your budget.
April 19, 2009 10:53:54 PM

why not get an amd 770 chipset board like the GIGABYTE GA-MA770-UD3, the 780 boards are slower and you get an integrated graphics card you're not going to use, the board is micro-atx too so space won't be a concern.
Graphics card wise I haven't perused the spec for those games but I think you will be ok with the 250, people don't like it because it's older technology but it's faster than the 4850 and if that fits your budget go for it.
April 19, 2009 11:00:36 PM

Well, my budget is really just how long it's gonna take me to save up the money...so the more expensive the part, the longer until I'll have enough to build the computer. Still, the graphics card you suggested looks pretty good, and the total for everything at this point is about $800 or so. Still have to add some cables though, don't I?
a b 4 Gaming
April 19, 2009 11:18:07 PM

CapKaboom said:
All right, noted...how did everything else look? My goal is to be able to play WAR and LOTRO on maxed settings, or as close as humanly possible.

Thank you very much for your help :) 

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it...what kind of SATA cables should I need? I've never built a computer before, so I'm really pretty ignorant about the process.

Some sata cables come with the motherboard. Check the newegg pictures.
April 23, 2009 11:00:39 PM

Well, here's my new setup:

GPU - SAPPHIRE 100259L Radeon HD 4870 512MB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card

Case - COOLER MASTER RC-690-KKN1-GP Black SECC/ ABS ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

MOBO - GIGABYTE GA-MA770-UD3 AM2+/AM2 AMD 770 ATX AMD Motherboard

PSU - hec HP585D RETAIL 585W ATX12V Power Supply - Power Cord Included

CPU - AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400 Brisbane 2.8GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core black edition Processor

RAM - CORSAIR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

HD - Seagate ST3640323AS 640GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive

DVD - Sony Optiarc Black 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-ROM SATA DVD-ROM Drive Model DDU1675S

As I said before, my intention is to run Warhammer Online and LOTRO at maxed settings...do you guys think this'll do it?
April 24, 2009 1:48:44 PM

aevm said:
Neat. The CPU is a bit old, but still decent. You can upgrade it to quad Phenom 9850 with this combo:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.182265
You'd pay $170 for MB+CPU instead of $60+$75, so it's $35 more. Well worth it IMO.



I'd heard that having a quad-core doesn't provide much of an improvement for Warhammer, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm also very new to building computers, so I'm kind of ignorant about specs on certain parts...will the drop from 2.8 GHz to 2.5 GHz have an adverse effect on my gaming? Or maybe it's "quad core-ness" will make up for it..
a b 4 Gaming
April 24, 2009 2:22:35 PM

It depends. If you have things running in the background while playing (antivirus, downloads, torrents, etc.) then the quad-core will do better than the dual-core because the extra cores can handle the extra work. Reviews and benchmarks don't show that part, because they are very careful to stop everything from the background first.

In general, in a game that doesn't use cores 3 and 4, and with nothing serious running in the background, the higher-clocked dual-core should win. That's the theory. In practice, the graphics card is most often the limiting factor and the CPU doesn't matter. That is, you'd get the same fps with either CPU. Don't worry too much about this decision, OK?

April 24, 2009 3:09:46 PM

That CPU is still K8 (or K8L) its not the new Kuma K10 65nm chip or the soon-to-be-released Regor 45nm chip. If you need something now, you may want to go with Kuma instead, which has the product name AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7GHz. Its faster per MHz than the K8 cpu's. Once the 45nm Regot is introduced, all dualcores will use that core since it gan provide higher clooks, lower power consumption and also better overclock margins.

If you would spend more money on the triple-core Phenom II X3 720BE, you would have the 45nm chip right away; right now there are only triple-cores and quad-cores with this new chip. So its either a compromise between price and performance or you'll have to wait for AMD to release dualcores with the new design; which may prove an easy route to get above Intel's E8400's performance range for less money. Intel's 45nm dualcores are still very good for games because of its high clock speed and excellent overclock potential.
April 24, 2009 3:17:58 PM

Oh and games generally only use one processor core, so if you've got a 3000-core chip of 1GHz, you would have less fps than a single-core chip of 2GHz, assuming the two chips are of the same design. With dualcores, you already have one extra core basically doing nothing, but it can handle background tasks.

Actually both cores will be used, because windows' process scheduler will move threads from one core to the other, some load balancing algorithm. Might be to ensure a chip heats up consistently - not having one core have a much higher temperature than the other. But that's just a guess. In the Windows Task Scheduler (which you open with control-alt-del) you can see having both cores doing about 50% work each, that translates to 100% usage on one processor core.

Because most games can't use more than one processor core, its much more advantageous to concentrate on GHz and chip design, than on the number of cores. A good dualcore would keep to be the best gaming chip for the next 5 years i think. After that, gaming programmers will probably have found a way to end their stubbornness and begin concentrating on threading; which is what allows an application to do work on multiple processor cores simultaneously.
April 25, 2009 1:25:46 AM

All righty then, I think I'm ready...to build the Warhammer and LOTRO machine of my dreams! Thanks to everyone for your help, I'll be sure to post back here once I've gotten the rig built and running.
a b 4 Gaming
April 25, 2009 4:05:55 AM

sub mesa said:
Oh and games generally only use one processor core, so if you've got a 3000-core chip of 1GHz, you would have less fps than a single-core chip of 2GHz, assuming the two chips are of the same design. With dualcores, you already have one extra core basically doing nothing, but it can handle background tasks.

Actually both cores will be used, because windows' process scheduler will move threads from one core to the other, some load balancing algorithm. Might be to ensure a chip heats up consistently - not having one core have a much higher temperature than the other. But that's just a guess. In the Windows Task Scheduler (which you open with control-alt-del) you can see having both cores doing about 50% work each, that translates to 100% usage on one processor core.

Because most games can't use more than one processor core, its much more advantageous to concentrate on GHz and chip design, than on the number of cores. A good dualcore would keep to be the best gaming chip for the next 5 years i think. After that, gaming programmers will probably have found a way to end their stubbornness and begin concentrating on threading; which is what allows an application to do work on multiple processor cores simultaneously.


It has been my observation that on a cpu intensive game that the cpu utilization, as shown by task manager stays on the same core. This makes sense to me because the cache for that core would not be constantly purged by dispatching the game on rotating cores.
!