Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

$290 build

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 31, 2012 8:32:01 PM
January 31, 2012 8:40:14 PM

thanks anyone else that isn't a a "youngster"
m
0
l
Related resources
January 31, 2012 8:59:10 PM

copy and paste and use the form to fill out what your budget and parts you have/what you want to use the computer for. Otherwise we can't help you. For instance a 6670 would work fine for a media type build but for gaming is total crap.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 9:33:45 PM

what's a better graphics card at the price range of up to 80
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:11:42 PM

nothing you can't build a gaming computer for 290- you need at least 500 and thats for a low end amd gaming build
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:31:18 PM

supe12man said:
huh


People like you to fill out the form at the link he posted. It helps us get a better understanding of what your needs are and what you are looking for. It enables.. what should I say.. controlled chaos.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:38:33 PM

You don't seem to have an OS listed, that's at least +100 dollars. I'll be quite honest here, that rig won't do gaming very well whatsoever, I'd suggest you save a little bit more and get a better build going.

I just spent near $500 dollars on an i3-2100 and GTX 460 build, and that's without a hard drive or OS and I got over 75-100 dollars off at Microcenter. There is quite a decent amount of games that it can't run on high/max settings at 1080.

But if you HAVE to get a build soon, I'd guess it would be an OK build. :??: 
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:48:12 PM

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeRaNIVMDhM

this isn't good gaming? Is this nigga srs?

look at low vs max settings in arkham city. Looks exactly the same when in motion and graphical differences when standing still are negligible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIpQe9tjHEQ



i agree my good sir...it seems to me that bob lighting might have some mental issues haha dude thinks because he waste 500 on making a comp his is better than some old parts comp that can run the same game

nice use of money you dumb ass chump
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:48:58 PM


"All DX9 settings at their maximum values, High FXAA, 1280x800 resolution, v-sync off. Hardware accelerated physics off, DX11 features off."

"FPS: min 16, max 65, avg 58"

I wouldn't say so.
Plus that game doesn't look that great.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:51:36 PM

supe12man said:
i agree my good sir...it seems to me that bob lighting might have some mental issues haha dude thinks because he waste 500 on making a comp his is better than some old parts comp that can run the same game

nice use of money you dumb ass chump



Right, he's playing Arhkam city with DirectX 9 1280x800 no Physx, no v-sync and gets a minimal FPS of 16.
I'd like to see your cheap ass build play BF3 at 1080P max settings.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:52:38 PM

bob lightnin said:
"All DX9 settings at their maximum values, High FXAA, 1280x800 resolution, v-sync off. Hardware accelerated physics off, DX11 features off."

"FPS: min 16, max 65, avg 58"

I wouldn't say so.
Plus that game doesn't look that great.


look at the 2nd video. Max and low settings look exactly the same when in motion except for negligible graphics differences. If you really think those slight tweaks warrant an additional $800 then you have no idea what diminishing returns means and when to stop.

And no one takes into account minimum FPS in benchmarks. Average is much more important considering that the game probably only has a dip when it's during a graphically intensive cutscene which no one really cares about
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 10:59:18 PM

demonflame5 said:
look at the 2nd video. Max and low settings look exactly the same when in motion except for negligible graphics differences. If you really think those slight tweaks warrant an additional $800 then you have no idea what diminishing returns means and when to stop.

And no one takes into account minimum FPS in benchmarks. Average is much more important considering that the game probably only has a dip when it's during a graphically intensive cutscene which no one really cares about



Additional $800 dollars? Where did you pull that from?

$500 - $290 = $210 dollar difference.

AND I have double the RAM, a P67 motherboard instead of a cheap H61, a bigger PSU, a better processor and GFX card.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 11:10:59 PM

bob lightnin said:
Additional $800 dollars? Where did you pull that from?

$500 - $290 = $210 dollar difference.

AND I have double the RAM, a P67 motherboard instead of a cheap H61, a bigger PSU, a better processor and GFX card.


okay. I exaggerated. But your math is still wrong. Regardless. Going by your math.

I wouldn't pay an extra $210 for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoBkS5KNTA0

Granted the 6670 would actually perform better than min.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 11:14:16 PM

demonflame5 said:
okay. I exaggerated. But your math is still wrong. Regardless. Going by your math.

I wouldn't pay an extra $210 for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoBkS5KNTA0

Granted the 6670 would actually perform better than min.


How is my math wrong? 500 minus 290 is 210. 210 is the difference.
Plus, I'm sure the 6670 wouldn't play it in 1080P maybe 720P at low-medium settings.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 11:14:16 PM

bob lightnin said:
Additional $800 dollars? Where did you pull that from?

$500 - $290 = $210 dollar difference.

AND I have double the RAM, a P67 motherboard instead of a cheap H61, a bigger PSU, a better processor and GFX card.



min and max look the same in the video he posted brah...are you mentally challenged?
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 11:16:55 PM

supe12man said:
min and max look the same in the video he posted brah...are you mentally challenged?



Are you clinically blind? Less color depth, choppy shadows and just less detailed overall.

AND it's at 1080P which I can guarantee the dated 6670 will not do.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 11:26:20 PM




He has a better processor then you, a Phenom II x2 545 unlocked to a quad core, which BF3 is optimized for. Whilst you will have a dual core. AND the video is only in 720P, as far as we know, that's the definition he's playing it.

Second video is only 720P as he said in the description.


I'm going to be leaving now, don't expect any more responses till tomorrow.
m
0
l
January 31, 2012 11:57:01 PM

Listen everyone. We need to stop with the flaming. Bob and I were trying to help YOU. You came hear asking for help if it was a good build. We decided to give you constructive criticism. If you don't want it fine... build whatever you want. But don't come back to the forum complaining when 3-6 months from now your graphics card will only run everything on lower settings.

And if demon seriously thinks DDR2>DDR3 then he doesn't know what hes talking about.

I am however suggesting you to take the advice of people who know what they are doing when they build computers. Listen to the regulars or addicts or vetrans. They have experiance. They know what they are doing. WE know what we are doing. There is a reason for all of this and you may not like having to spend more money but its a fact of life. If you spend more money your system WILL be better LAST LONGER and in the long run save you some money. ( You won't have to rebuild in 1-2 years...)
m
0
l
February 1, 2012 12:15:20 AM

samdsox said:
Listen everyone. We need to stop with the flaming. Bob and I were trying to help YOU. You came hear asking for help if it was a good build. We decided to give you constructive criticism. If you don't want it fine... build whatever you want. But don't come back to the forum complaining when 3-6 months from now your graphics card will only run everything on lower settings.

And if demon seriously thinks DDR2>DDR3 then he doesn't know what hes talking about.

I am however suggesting you to take the advice of people who know what they are doing when they build computers. Listen to the regulars or addicts or vetrans. They have experiance. They know what they are doing. WE know what we are doing. There is a reason for all of this and you may not like having to spend more money but its a fact of life. If you spend more money your system WILL be better LAST LONGER and in the long run save you some money. ( You won't have to rebuild in 1-2 years...)



that's funny. Considering the past 3 years graphics cards can play the same exact games and look pretty much the same at low or max. Do you know why? Because game developers make games for consoles first then port to PC. That's why their requirements aren't that large.

next generation consoles are using 6670's and weaker cards. Which again will cause game developers to make graphically weak games compared to what the PC can handle. Therefore we will never need to upgrade for a Long time.

I know what I'm talking about. You don't.
m
0
l
February 1, 2012 1:18:17 AM

Oh yeah is that right deamon? You obviously know what your talking about.....run a 4000 series card in your pc for a couple of months and come back here with that same attitude. Not all game developers port to pc. You don't know what your talking about. Ever heard of WoW Diablo AVA? Bf3? All 4 of those games are prety big games ALL DESIGNED FOR THE PC. The first 3 were never even ported and I can tell you from experiance bf3 is way better on the pc. What about crysis 2? Hmm.... yeah consoles are only good for hanging with friends. If you want to game seriously or well then a 6670 won't do anything for you. And seriously Deamon if your just going to flame, call people names, and insult people, we don't need children like you on these forum. Lets put on our adult pants k?
m
0
l
February 1, 2012 1:30:08 AM

lol WoW, Diablo. Those games are easy to max with relatively old PC's because they're optimized for older PC's. Lol. The rig in the OP will blow those out of the water.

And good exception, Crysis. There's only a handful of games that really look tremendously better for paying exceeding amounts of money, but guess what. It's only like 2-3 games, if you really think it's worth paying $800+ just to max out these 2-3 games then you are at lost.
m
0
l
February 1, 2012 2:04:28 AM

I never said it was worth paying 800 Plus to max out a game(s).. I don't throw away money i earn. My current rig is
i52500k
z68 mobo
8 gigs of ram
6870
600 psu
500 gb hard drive
oem dvd drive
and A 1080p monitor

All for less than 700 after the rebates that should be in any day now (like 680 ish i think) All i was suggesting to the op was that if he wanted to game that at the very least he should get atleast 6770. But that doesn't call for overspending.
m
0
l
February 1, 2012 2:17:21 AM

First of all why come on here to ask for help then have in ill informed member of this site spew he BS and you don't listen to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. The link they posted is purely to help us figure out what you want to do/play on the computer.

On to helping you will want a kit of ram that is two sticks not one.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

With that GPU and CPU you may be able to play BF3 on low and may be able to play muilti-player maps.

Also you need a PSU.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

That GPU IS very weak if you want to game I would consider this the minimum.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
But you can get a much nicer GPU for not too much more.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I wouldn't consider building a gaming computer for under $600 ($500 at the very least) although it is do able. If you only want to run basic programs and surf the internet you are fine with that.

The numbers don't lie (and the included 6670 is better than the one you have listed too, because do GDDR5 memory)
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics...
m
0
l
February 1, 2012 2:51:08 AM

Wow, did I just stumble into an [H] thread or am I dreaming?

I'm sorry but anyone that is slinging names instead of benchmarks to prove their point seems quite out of line here. People spend their time here with no other motive than to provide help to others that have asked for it. There is no compensation for this help, there are no pats on the back.

If you don't like the advice you're given, that's fine. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to insult those providing it however.
m
0
l
February 1, 2012 4:01:41 AM

If you feel there is something that violates the forum rules, please feel free to report it. There's no need to fire back, and add yourself to the list of rule breakers. Let us know, and we'll take care of it.
m
0
l
!