CHeap ass gaming build, what d'ya think

marsay001

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2009
184
0
18,710
hey, just ordered my system today using it for gaming it is...

amd athlon x2 black edition 7750+

Asus M3N78-VM AM2+ 8200 uATX

saphire radeon 3850 512 mb

3gb ddr 2 800 mhz ram

160 gb hdd

dvd rw

and the beloved windows xp

i know not everything is top notch but iv read reviews and they seem pretty good it all came as a bundle, except GFX card. Every couple of weeks Il add some better parts, firstly the mo/bo will be upgraded, but yeah any opinions of the system, it was only 280 pound
 

rewindlabs

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
1,181
0
19,290
Nope none really...other than that you said mobo upgrade...i would have gotten a motherboard that supports phenom cpu's in the first place...otherwise sounds like fun
 

Helloworld_98

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
3,371
0
20,790
I've got a few.

1) that ddr2 isn't in complete dual channel so you lose some performance in some areas.

2) XP sucks for new builds, except for 64 if you only do gaming on it.

3) £10 more would've gotten you a nice 500GB HDD, or an extra £20 after that, a nice 1TB drive assuming the HDD cost you £30.
 

marsay001

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2009
184
0
18,710
it came as a kit though i now the hdd is small, seen a tb on aria for around 55 pound, which RAM should be looking at then
cheers
 
3 gig won't run in dual channel mode. You have to install memory in matched pairs to get dual channel mode. Like 1 gig and 1 gig, or 2 gig and 2 gig.
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with running XP.
It is a cheap very bottom end gaming system, but then, you paid a very cheap price. You pretty much got what you paid for.
Now my 2 cents on what you paid and what you have. Bascially you'll end up upgrading EVERYTHING, so I am not sure I would say it was a good move to buy what you did, even at the price you did. But.....however whatever you want to do.
 

marsay001

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2009
184
0
18,710
I don't see why you need to fork out so much money to play today's games at a good high setting, I could get cod4 on 1024 x 768 AA and AF off, but everything else on high and I got around 50 fps, that was an Athlon 64 3200, 1 GB DDR and a Radeon 1650 pro. and nah I didn't buy XP have a copy, but tbh I hate vista lol, I cant stand the thing !. when it all comes ill run some benchmarks and see how fast it runs, thanks for the ram advice.
 

Helloworld_98

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
3,371
0
20,790
^ COD4 is a very well ported game though and over 100fps at 1920x1200 is easy for high-end cards nowadays with that game.

also Vista is a lot better than people make it out to be, anyone buying a PC now should be using vista64 since xp32 can't use the amount of ram in today's pc's and xp64 doesn't have as good driver support.

Not to mention when vista sp2 comes out it will be about as fast as XP SP3 so what's there not to like? especially if it gets to vista SP3, then maybe it will be quicker than XP.
 

g3force

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2009
300
0
18,810

True, but there is only a negligible performance increase (roughly 5%) when running memory in dual channel mode vs. single channel in gaming applications.
 
didnt anyone think to ask what ram sticks ?

2 x 1gig and 2 x 512 mb will run in dual channel and the total is 3 gig .

More than 3 gig would be a waste on xp anyway , which also doesnt suck for gaming since you get higher frame rates in all games except the very latest DX10 releases which dont run so sharply on DX9 systems .
 

marsay001

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2009
184
0
18,710
Vista looks fantastic ill admit that but, i dunno it just doesn't feel as responsive as responsive as XP, although I think the main reason I don't like Vista is that all the ready built systems that have vista are just piled with *** like trial programs.......so ill admit Im judging it wrong so in a couple of months ill think about it getting. The RAM is 3x1GB

Read this review of this card, i was very suprised, so when i get an xFire mo/bo i think il get 2!

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd3850/
 

g3force

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2009
300
0
18,810

Which is why I mentioned gaming specifically. When running a memory intensive task or benchmark, you will feel a considerable difference between single and dual channel, and also between dual and triple channel memory kits. Otherwise, you won't feel the difference in gaming applications.
 

rewindlabs

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
1,181
0
19,290

Really? and why is there not much of a difference whilst gaming?
 

g3force

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2009
300
0
18,810

Good question. I have no idea (besides the numbers), though I assume it's because gaming doesn't require the full bandwidth of dual channel memory (in a similar way a 4850 doesn't require the full bandwidth of a PCIE x16 slot).
 

marsay001

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2009
184
0
18,710
got the system built it all up. I went for windows 7 and i must say its fantastic!

Anyway playing far cry 2 at the moment on ultra high at 1280 x 1024 and averaging 40 fps! rarely dropping bellow 30, really chuffed with this build, although this week I'm gonna add some more/better ram and a new GFX card.

Heres a question, hybrid SLI, shall i go for a nVidia card and take advantage of that?