My beloved laptop is finally taking its last gasps. I've had this old workhorse for seven years now, and I love it to death. But little yellow lines are starting to appear on the screen, and the other day it developed this adorable habit of not only shutting off, but shorting out the battery and the adapter whenever I press down too hard on the keyboard or touch it the wrong way. So that's the last straw for me. New computer time!
I think I want to go with a desktop this time around, mostly because they are cheaper than laptops. I actually have a newer laptop that's only a year old, but I haven't used it in months. I bought it because I needed something more portable to take with me to do research, and next year in grad school it's going to get a lot of use, but I wanted to reserve it for just school use, nothing else. That might change a teeny bit, but that laptop can't handle anything more complicated than basic computing.
I want to be able to play newer games, like SC2 or Civ V. What sort of specs will I need for that? The Dell I'm looking at has a half gig G310 NVIDIA, 8 GB of ram, Intel i7 2.93ghz, for $1049. Is that enough? More than enough?
I know someone is going to suggest that I build my own, but I really don't have the time to figure that out, not for it being my first time doing it. If I knew someone around here who could help me I'd consider it.
I haven't been serious computer shopping in several, several years.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Nothing on the market is 'more than enough' for Civ V, the way I understand it...hopefully that will change soon. You might check on some of the fan sites to see what people are using, laptop-wise, to play that game. (Maybe with the next expansion pack the devs will further optimize the game.)
Other than that, the specs look good for the price. Good luck. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Is that with a monitor and everything? It does seem like a pretty good price.
EDIT - also, if you ever decide to attempt building your own computer, I'd be willing to help out over Skype.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's a good machine in all but video card is what I'm reading. If tomshardware is right, the 310 ranks about with the Ti 4600- which is about where I was two video cards ago.
Unfortunately, systems made without gaming in mind often seem to skimp on the video card because people who mostly use their systems for e-mail, web surfing, and watching DVDs aren't likely to notice anyway.
I don't know if I'd want to run Starcraft 2 on it, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I run Starcraft II on a laptop with a built in Radeon card/board, and it runs fine as long as I use a cooling pad. Never even gets warm then.
Without it....well, it shut off a few times. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah it's with the monitor, 21.5 inch dell monitor. I might upgrade that, and I'll likely upgrade the warranty plan as well.
This is an XPS, so it takes gaming into mind, but, it's one of the low-end models. I'd like to play games, but I'm also on a bit of a budget. The video card can be upgraded:
nVIDIA GeForce G310 512MB DDR3 [Included in Price] ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB DDR3 [Add $50.00] ATI Radeon HD 5670 1GB GDDR5 [Add $100.00] nVidia GeForce GTS240 1024MB GDDR3 [Add $100.00] ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024MB GDDR5 [Add $180.00]
Juxtapose - price-wise, to get a similar computer for myself and then get the necessary software or what not. And including the time it would take me to actually do all this and get it set up, how much would building a comparable computer myself?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pricing all these components from NewEgg:
8GB RAM: $150 i7 2.93Mhz w/mobo: $325 (AMD equivalent: $240) Radeon HD 5770 $140 Case w/decent PS: $100 Card reader: $25 Blu-Ray/DVD burner: $75 2 1TB hard drives: $150 22" monitor: $150 Mouse: $7 Keyboard: $6 Windows 7 Home: $90 (sometimes cheaper with student discount)
This computer, as described above, is superior to the Dell in every way. But it's also more expensive. (Obviously, if you could reuse an existing case, or monitor, or anything, that'd help, but since you're just starting out, you can't.)
You can build a perfectly acceptable machine with slightly different specs for much cheaper, though, especially if you're willing to go for last year's technology.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think we may have gone through this before, but if there's anything like a computer recycling center in your area, it might be possible to get some components used for far cheaper. Freegeek in Portland, OR provided me with a 17" LCD monitor for about $50 several months ago.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seems to me these days that prices for name-brand vs. self-built systems are pretty negligable. The advantage is that, as Tom was getting at, the subsequent builds are significantly cheaper because you can reuse parts. Once you feel more comfortable looking at computers in a modular way, upgrading individual parts becomes really easy. And parts these days are designed to be quite easy to install.
I've also found that putting together my own stlystem made me better at fixing problems when they arise.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I was looking things over again, Lyr, and one thing I would say is that if you decide to go the route of buying the Dell, upgrading the video card to the Radeon 5450 looks worthwhile to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was going to ask about that again. I'm fine with upgrading the video card to the 5450. They also offer, on some systems, the nVidia GeForce GT220 for the same price (you just have to wait for it). Is it any better for the same price?
Also, how big is the difference between the i5 and the i7? or does it really matter which particular model it is?
In the other model I'm looking at, they offer these:
I really don't know enough about the specifics on processors, RAM and video cards. I don't even know what tri-channel RAM is. I've heard of DDR3, but never Tri-Channel. I figured they were the same but they were listed separately.
I think maybe next time around I might try building my own computer. That way I'll have a few pieces to start with and it might not be so daunting, and certainly will be a lot cheaper. But time is an issue. The computer I'm on now seems to develop a problem every day, and I want something up and running before next semester starts.
I appreciate all the advice. I remember a time when things were simpler and I knew what I was doing, and people came to ME for computer advice.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The 5450 seems to benchmark better than the 210, but not exactly to Crysis levels.
(I'll note that they're running things at higher resolutions than I tend do, but then, if you're getting a 21-inch monitor, most likely, so will you.)
As far as the i7/i5 comparison goes, Maximum PC seems to basically be of the opinion that the processors are very similar with regard to their power, but an i7 motherboard is going to offer greater expandability down the line.
Okay, one other option from HP, since I wanted to shop around a bit. I was leaning toward a Dell because I've always gotten them and I've always been reasonably satisfied with both the products and, at times, the customer service (though a pain in the ass, they eventually fix the problem).
That's for about the same price of the Dell. Is that something I could play Civ V and SC2 on? And similar games. And for that matter, is it better, the same, or worse than the Dell I described in the OP?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
That looks like a pretty good machine. bit-tech.net seems to think the i7 930 outperforms most of AMD's line (at least prior to the release of their 6-core computers), and the 460 is apparently capable of getting about 30 FPS in Crysis, which is no small feat.
Basically, I think you're sacrificing the tiniest bit off the CPU for a significantly better video card, which for gaming purposes is a very reasonable trade-off. Just about anything in the i7 line ought to be able to perform handsomely on most modern games; it really is the video card where you hit the bottleneck.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That video card should run Starcraft 2 at 1680x1050 with all graphics settings on Ultra and deliver a smooth framerate in all but the most taxing situations. I've got a Radeon HD 5850 that benches roughly on par with the GTX 460, and that's how I run Starcraft 2. [Edit: And I would have bought a GTX 460 instead of my Radeon if they had been available when I was buying my PC.]
My PC has a Core i5 750 under the hood, not an i7, so your chunk threshold will be higher than mine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cool. It's sounding like the HP is the better route to go then. It'll be a new experience for me, as I've dealt a lot with Dells, but never really with HPs. I bought a small stripped down laptop last year for school but I only use it for school stuff. I think they're just fine though. All the hardware is good. Even if I bought the most expensive graphics card through Dell, I still don't think it's great, not compared to what HP offers.
Now I'll need to buy a monitor separately. Are there any special considerations I should have for gaming? I know that a fast frame rate is important for gaming so there isn't any skipping. But is LED better than LCD? Certainly it's more expensive, but I saw a decently priced Viewsconic LED on Amazon, but I was worried about the frame rate. I'm also not sure what size to get. I figured 21.5 was a solid size. My laptop screen is 17 inches and that usually feels pretty good. 21.5 will probably feel like a drive-in movie theater.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ghosting isn't an issue I've really noticed with modern LCDs -- 8ms or lower response time seems to be prettu standard nowadays. I don't have any experience with LED displays.
You'd be surprised at how quickly you get used to a larger screen and want more space. I have 22"+17" at home and 24"+17" at work, and the minute I got the 24" display at work I found myself wishing I had it at home. My 22" is 1680x1050, while the 24" is 1920x1080, and the extra pixels make a huge difference. I'm basically waiting for my 17" to die so I can justify going to 24"+22" at home.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I have a 21.5 inch and its fine, but yeah, bigger is usually better :-). Though I've heard more than 24 inch is actually overkill. Don't know if that's true. And yeah, the majority of screens I've seen are 5 ms, so that shouldn't be an issue. I think I got a 21.5, 5 ms response time, with an HDMI port, for $110 on Newegg.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But is LED better than LCD?
LED is LCD—it's just an LCD with an LED backlight rather than a CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamp) backlight. I believe the major difference is that they have a better contrast ratio and use less power. The sharpness, gamut, and response time should be the same.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright, after considerable waffling back and forth, I've decided to go with the HP that I described above, and I'm going to buy the monitor right from HP as well. They're selling their 23 inch 2310M LCD monitor for $168, which I thought was decent. I saw it in the store today and it looked pretty sharp. Not as sharp as the LEDs, but the price seems to jump pretty drastically into an area I'm not prepared to go to.
Dr. Strangelove -
You know you were right about screen size. I figured the 21.5 inch would be fine, and it probably would have been, until I saw them all in the store. Now I want a 23 inch. It was only $30 more to upgrade on HPs website, so upgrade I shall! Unless anyone has a better suggestion off the top of their head. $168 is really my limit for what I'm willing to spend.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm still making do with a 17" LCD, which was a move up from a 15", so I'm the wrong one to ask.
But on the plus side, I never have to worry about my computer handling a resolution above 1280x1024.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My laptop screen is 17" right now. My old monitor was I think 19", and I sold that to my roommate. I was going to be fine with a 21.5" but then I saw the shiny 23" in the store, and it only costs like $30 more (thanks to the sale).
I hadn't considered that but, I wont run into any problems with a 23" screen as far as resolution will I?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
At that size it's probably either 1680x1050 or 1920x1080/1200. Hopefully one of the latter two. The 1GB Radeon 5850 should be comfortable at either resolution, but you may need to drop a few settings down from Ultra in Starcraft 2 if having a butter-smooth framerate at all times is important to you. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I am LOVING my two GTX460's in my machine right now. I'm able to run every game in Ultra settings. Honestly if you are going to build a gaming rig, you don't really don't need an I7. The Q6600 is a fraction of the price and is still an amazing processor with room to OC if you wish. The I7's are faster, but unless you do any video editing it is really not needed, as the Q6600 can still run everything you want. The bottleneck you are going to have is going to be your video card.
I would suggest going with DDR3 RAM though. It has come down in price enough to make it worthwhile.
I picked up one of the Nvidia 3d kits on Newegg when they were on sale a few months ago. I got a 23 inch Acer Monitor (120hz refresh rate) and the 3d kit for only $350. Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft look awesome. It really adds depth to the game. Just don't use them during the day time when sunlight is coming in through the blinds. While it creates a cool light effect, it gave me a headache. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
twinky
What about with the nVidia GTX460?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot that you got the 460. It's about the same as the 5850.
I figure in a year or so I'll grab a second 5850 on the cheap and be set for gaming for a good long while. I made sure to buy a PSU that has room for it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The benchmark link I sent suggests it ought to be sufficient at 1680x1050 and possibly higher. Admittedly, they're running on some ridiculous beast of a i7 980x, but even still, being able to approach 30fps on Crysis even without anti- aliasing is no small feat. On Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, it was able to crank out three-digit frame rates even with AA on.
If you're seriously concerned about the long-term, you might want to see if the motherboard has a second PCI-Express port for the possible future installation of a second card and running it in sync through Nvidia's SLI. But for the near future, it looks like the GTX460 should leave you with some breathing room. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, the extended product cycle of the Playstation 3 and XBox 360 is paying off dividends for computer users: most game companies aren't making games that would strain the existing console hardware to the breaking point, so the PC versions of those games usually aren't making most modern computers break a sweat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ordered! Build date is the 17th. Oy. Wish I'd ordered it a few days ago when the build date was the 4th. Guess a lot of people signed up for the last minute deals.
It ended up costing a bit more than I planned, but I also added a couple extras in. Looks like I'll have to pick up some extra shifts here and there at work. I'm very excited!
Thanks to everyone here for your help in what to get.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Does it have a second PCI Express slot? Just wondering....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know how many of those are extra or taken up, but it was advertised under the banner of expandability, so, I have to imagine it has some free spaces.
It arrived today! I'm very excited. I'm hesitant to set it up and plug it in yet though. I've been reading a lot lately about surge protectors, and I'm wondering if it's worth it to buy a new, more expensive one? I actually think what my laptop is plugged into is actually just a power strip, rather than a surge protector, which maybe explains why it keeps having power issues, but I have a nicer surge protector that my TV and soundsystem are plugged into in the other room that I was considering moving to my laptop. How powerful a surge protector does a computer need?
I was thinking about ordering this for my living room set up and taking the surge protector from in there to use for my computer. I know Monster and Belkin both sell surge protectors specifically tasked for computers, but I really don't see what the difference is.
I didn't even know there was that much variety in the level of protection that surge protectors offered.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think the more expensive surge protectors are sort of like buying the $60 HDMI cables from Best Buy. The benefits are mostly theoretical.
Then again, maybe I've just been lucky never to have any equipment fried by electrical surges. (I do use surge protectors...just relatively cheap ones.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I was thinking about ordering this for my living room set up and taking the surge protector from in there to use for my computer.
This $8 surge protector has a warranty for up to $25,000 of connected equipment. Maybe I'm naive or overly optimistic, but I really don't think you need a $100 surge protector. And as Mucus said, if you're going to spend that much money, it makes more sense to get a UPS.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. Get a cheap surge protector or spend more and get a real UPS.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
That said, it doesn't hurt to get an actual surge protector. Some go as far as to suggest a line conditioner, but honestly I haven't met a whole lot of people who go that far. The UPS Mucus links to has that feature as well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)