I'm trying to put together a gaming PC without spending too much cash. The most demanding games I have my sights set on are mostly from the current spread of 360 ports/dual releases (Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol, Bioshock; Valve games; that kind of thing). From what I've read, it seems like I'd get the most bang for my buck by sticking with dual cores. The world of quad cores seems to be rapidly evolving anyhow, and I don't see the need to invest in old C2Qs/Phenom Is, much less spend the large amounts of money needed for Phenom IIs/Core i-whatsits, especially considering the added cost of the getting the latest motherboards and a set of DDR3 RAM. I'm going to be using Windows XP Pro (32-bit) for now.
So here's the big question: My dad's willing to give me an Asus M2A-VM motherboard and matching AMD Athlon 4050e CPU, plus a couple gigs of DDR2 RAM. "Free" is certainly a nice price for parts, and I'm not planning on playing Crysis, nor do I play demanding multiplayer games in which I must have constant 60 frames or somesuch. Still, I'm hoping to be able to run games like Mass Effect at high settings. (Haven't bought a monitor yet, but given I'll be buying something currently on the market it'll probably have a maximum of around 1600x900 or so, at least.) If the 4050 would drag down the performance I'm hoping for, I think I'd rather just bite the bullet and spend money on a more top-of-the-line kind of dual core now, rather than after I've already built a computer around the 4050. I am interested in trying overclocking, but while changing BIOS settings doesn't daunt me, I haven't tried my hand before at improving a computer's cooling set-up - so I'm probably not about to push any CPU as far as an expert might.
Is the 4050 workable, as long as I get a good video card? Or should I expand my budget to include a new motherboard & CPU as well?
If I should go for another CPU, any recommendations? From what I've seen, it sounds like the Intel Wolfdale chips are at the top of the dual core options, and I might be willing to spend about $100 on a less-than-uber version as long as a motherboard wouldn't add too much extra cost.
So here's the big question: My dad's willing to give me an Asus M2A-VM motherboard and matching AMD Athlon 4050e CPU, plus a couple gigs of DDR2 RAM. "Free" is certainly a nice price for parts, and I'm not planning on playing Crysis, nor do I play demanding multiplayer games in which I must have constant 60 frames or somesuch. Still, I'm hoping to be able to run games like Mass Effect at high settings. (Haven't bought a monitor yet, but given I'll be buying something currently on the market it'll probably have a maximum of around 1600x900 or so, at least.) If the 4050 would drag down the performance I'm hoping for, I think I'd rather just bite the bullet and spend money on a more top-of-the-line kind of dual core now, rather than after I've already built a computer around the 4050. I am interested in trying overclocking, but while changing BIOS settings doesn't daunt me, I haven't tried my hand before at improving a computer's cooling set-up - so I'm probably not about to push any CPU as far as an expert might.
Is the 4050 workable, as long as I get a good video card? Or should I expand my budget to include a new motherboard & CPU as well?
If I should go for another CPU, any recommendations? From what I've seen, it sounds like the Intel Wolfdale chips are at the top of the dual core options, and I might be willing to spend about $100 on a less-than-uber version as long as a motherboard wouldn't add too much extra cost.