Is a high spec computer worth it?

I am a semi hardcore gamer and i am thinking of buying a £986 Gaming PC, but i am starting to have doubts already, is it really worth it? Should i go for a cheaper one?

CPU: i7 2600 (3.40 GHz)
Mobo: ASUS P8P67 Mobo
RAM: 4GB DD3 (Dual) 1333mhz
Graphics Card: HD 6870 Crossfire
HDD: 500GB
Optical Reader: None*
Card Reader: Internal 52 in 1
PSU: Corsair 650W
CPU Cooler: Intel Standard
OS: None*
Warranty: 3 Years
---
£986

OR


Case: Antec 300 Case with ATI red case fans.
Power Supply: Corsair CX 600W
CPU: Intel Core i3 550 3.20GHz Clarkdale overclocked to 4.20GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte H55M-UD2H Intel H55 (Socket 1156) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard
Cooler: Corsair H50 CPU Cooler
RAM: Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache
Graphics Card: HD 6870
Optical Drive: LG DVD+/-RW SATA Drive
OS: None*
---
£688

Which one would you go for if price mattered?
22 answers Last reply
More about high spec computer worth
  1. They arent even comparable in any way. If price matters get the cheaper one, if you can afford the more expensive one it will do quite a bit better. First decide your budget, then decide your parts, you get a boost for putting more money into your system, but you need to know how much you want to spend, then we can fit you for the best system for the money.
  2. If i get the more expensive one. How long will it last until its outdated? 3 years?
  3. Outdated by newer tech, about 9 months. Unable to play new games, impossible to know. Two 6870s will be pretty strong for a while, and it really depends on if you are willing to turn settings down slightly and if you get a bigger monitor in the future. I doubt you will let it go 3 years before you upgrade it anyway so its not really relevant.

    I dont know why people feel that new stuff will make the old stuff worse, a Pentium III is still perfectly good for what it was good at when it came out, just because there are hexacores doesnt mean that a little old single core is bad, its just as good as it was the day it came out.
  4. How bout outdated to the point where i am getting less than 30 fps on max settings?
  5. On what? Metro 2033? If so then its already outdated... You wont be able to play stuff totally maxed out with 2 6870s anyway, high yes, maxed no. And it always depends on what we pick as our benchmark, fallout new vegas isnt very intensive, mostly because its the same engine as Fallout 3 was, so its a new game that even systems that are a few years old have no problem with, unlike metro which beats up every system it meets at high settings.
  6. People still have problems maxing out Crysis and that released back in 2007/2008.
  7. Look, my hd6850, AMD Athlon II X3 440 @ 3.5GHz, and 4gb PNY 800Mhz RAM maxed out metro with 30-40FPS. That machine will run games max for about 2 years. (besides the new day crysis hardware whores) After 3 years you will run medium~high settings. It would be worth it.
  8. BTW, my res is only 1280x1024 though.
  9. If you want to save money don't go to the i3, go with AMD Phenom II X4 or something. Similar price but the quad is quite a bit better.

    As for GPUs, 6870s are roughly equivalent to 5850s. I have two 5850s in CF and they are playing games at max, 1080p. Most games I need Vsync as they hit over 100fps but only a couple games (Metro, Crysis) can actually put them to the limit and FPS average is below 60. Also it's worth considering how many games are console ports and hardly push the hardware. On top of that, it's not so bad to play at high instead of ultra to extend usefulness for another few years.

    Another consideration is if you're going with the expensive one, go with a 2500k instead of a 2600, or put a little more into it for the 2600k. You might not be into overclocking, but in 4 years instead of "needing" to buy new mobo and cpu, you can just double your CPU's speed with a little overclock and keep on keeping on.
  10. Yep, change the 2600 to 2500k, much more worth it
  11. 2500k = better gaming price/performance ratio. I also vote 2500k instead of 2600, unless you want a 2600k, which would really be worth it for gaming.
  12. 2600k with 6970, future proof enough?
  13. ^Yeah that would kick some ass
  14. I would go 2500k + hd6950 and unlock into a hd6970 and have some money lesft over to get another hd6950 unlocked into a hd6970.
  15. I think the 1st one is a better value even if it's more expensive.
  16. I'm going to throw a wrench in your gears and say that I'm perfectly happy with my Radeon HD 5770 on a Phenom II x4 965. It all depends on how much being able to max out your games is worth to you. That's really what it boils down to...
  17. Unifried said:


    CPU: i7 2600 (3.40 GHz)
    Mobo: ASUS P8P67 Mobo
    RAM: 4GB DD3 (Dual) 1333mhz
    Graphics Card: HD 6870 Crossfire
    HDD: 500GB
    Optical Reader: None*
    Card Reader: Internal 52 in 1
    PSU: Corsair 650W
    CPU Cooler: Intel Standard
    OS: None*
    Warranty: 3 Years
    ---
    £986



    i7 2600 with just 4gb? are you plan running 32bit os on your new rig? it's time to go 8/16gb + 64bit....
  18. cheesesubs said:
    i7 2600 with just 4gb? are you plan running 32bit os on your new rig? it's time to go 8/16gb + 64bit....


    As that has to do with anything you wrote. With 32bit you can see ~2.5-3.0Gb of RAM. For gaming 4Gb is enough. 8 is a future proof option witch he might be able to upgrade in the near future if he has to.

    First wait for intel to fix it's problems with the chipsets and after that decide, better do a custom rig. Also if you play at 1920x1080 you should consider anything above 560ti or 6950. Also a single video card is better then 2 video cards that are weaker. You get less problems. Also as others have posted here the 2500k is a better option because of the price/performance ratio.

    And yes, 8Gb of RAM sound better then 4Gb of RAM.
  19. ionut19 said:
    As that has to do with anything you wrote. With 32bit you can see ~2.5-3.0Gb of RAM. For gaming 4Gb is enough. 8 is a future proof option witch he might be able to upgrade in the near future if he has to.

    First wait for intel to fix it's problems with the chipsets and after that decide, better do a custom rig. Also if you play at 1920x1080 you should consider anything above 560ti or 6950. Also a single video card is better then 2 video cards that are weaker. You get less problems. Also as others have posted here the 2500k is a better option because of the price/performance ratio.

    And yes, 8Gb of RAM sound better then 4Gb of RAM.



    i just felt it's such a waste that a raw processor like 2600 would equip with just 4gb of ram...if it's appear on low end processor like e3400/5300 i wouldn't have such comment but 2600? such high end rig that came with just 4gb...that's seriously wrong...

    i knew 4gb can pretty much handle 99% of game(except starcraft2 /end war and supreme commander 2). so is e5300 can also handle these 99% game as well! in that case, who would ever need a 2600? some people will. they''re called "enthusiast"! in such ninch market 8/16/24gb ram are very common. 4gb just don't seem to be "suitable" to king of the hill.

    even the king needs the king size bed :D
  20. And if i remember right these are just the mid class CPU's from intel, the enthusiast is about to come out..he he.
    My CPU also needs a bigger bed ;) .
  21. You could buy big now, and upgrade less later. Or buy fair now, then upgrade every now and then.
  22. I could get a i5 2500k instead of the i7 if 8gb RAM is that important and replace the 650w (Corsair TX650) PSU with the 850w (Corsair TX850) to keep it under 1000 pounds.
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Graphics