Purchasing advise on a PC
Quote:
Originally posted by Ipod mondo
Yes, yes. After countless macs. I have decided to go over to the dark side. For gaming
Now, I'm only interested in good games and high fps. SLI, the works Any buying advise from the PC/Mac hybrid group?
Originally posted by Ipod mondo
Yes, yes. After countless macs. I have decided to go over to the dark side. For gaming
Now, I'm only interested in good games and high fps. SLI, the works Any buying advise from the PC/Mac hybrid group? hey how about going to pcinsider, why empower the dark side???
i don't know how i ended up on top here....hmmmm get the mac pro with separate graphic chips
Comments
Originally posted by Ipod mondo
Yes, yes. After countless macs. I have decided to go over to the dark side. For gaming
If money isn't too tight, definitely build your own. That way, you have total control over how it looks and where your money goes. If you're buying right now, AMD is the way to go, but Conroe might just change that.
If all you're bothered about is gaming, hardly any support dual core, so get a cheap Venice core Athlon64. - These OC very well (my 2.0Ghz does 2.6 on stock cooling) Also, make sure you have decent RAM, and do not skimp on a PSU that will fry all your expensive components.
Finally, I can recommend Abit mobos - loads of options for overclocking, but I have a very poor Graphics card, so really can't comment on that side of things.
David
Originally posted by iMacfan
If all you're bothered about is gaming, hardly any support dual core, ...
This is going to change very quickly as new games are designed primarily for XBox 360 and PS3. Multicore processors will become a must-have for gamer PC's.
I am also thinking about picking up a PC, but I'm more interested in getting a cheap PC than a top-end PC. It turns out that the Mac Mini is the cheapest (and best) small form factor PC out there today. I can build a bottom-end PC in a desktop enclosure for lots cheaper, and it's better suited to my intended needs, but the mini has added value in the size and in the fact that it can become a media-center device rather easily during the 99% of its life where I'm not using it as a PC.
Tough decisions.
There are a couple of reasons:
1. Intel is coming out in July with a new architecture that is definitely worth a look.
2. AMD is transitioning to the new AM2 platfrom, new chipsets from VIA/ Nvidia and new CPU cores.
3. SLI/ Crossfire setups are starting to transition to 2 chips per card which will reduce complexity and give you more headroom.
If you can wait 2 months, I would definitely do it. Lots of things are on the cusp right now and it's worth to let a bit of time pass to get the early compatibility bugs worked out.
Originally posted by Ipod mondo
Yes, yes. After countless macs. I have decided to go over to the dark side. For gaming
If budget is a consern (which it probably isnt for someone tossing acronyms like SLI around), and you have to choose a faster proc or more RAM, go for ram...if you are building a new gaming rig, 2 gigs is the miniomum I would use...trust me, a buddy of mine is a hard core gamer, he has an x1900xls and 2 gigs of main memory and Oblivian uses every ounce of it. (and looks jaw droping doing it)
Thanks, Mondo
Originally posted by Splinemodel
If I were you, I'd wait until the Mac Pro debuts. It might be a good way to kill two birds with one stone. If not, then you can always buy a PC then. For what it's worth, the iMac Core Duo benchmarked faster than an Athlon X2 4400 PC, so the whole AMD thing isn't as big of a deal as some people make it out to be.
I'd wait too. First, the MacPro is likely to be using an 5000x chipset with Woodcrest Processors and FB-DIMM DDR2. Nice for those in the high end professional category, but the FB-DIMMs are significantly more expensive than even the most high end regular DDR2 DIMMs. Second, you may be seeing something more up your alley.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
I'd wait too. First, the MacPro is likely to be using an 5000x chipset with Woodcrest Processors and FB-DIMM DDR2. Nice for those in the high end professional category, but the FB-DIMMs are significantly more expensive than even the most high end regular DDR2 DIMMs. Second, you may be seeing something more up your alley.
I would NOT be surprised if the Mac Pro comes in a variety of builds, one of which uses plain 'ol DDR2 RAM and a (Conroe?). I wouldn't be surprised if the Quad G5 is replaced by a dual Woodcrest, and all the rest are Conroe based.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I would NOT be surprised if the Mac Pro comes in a variety of builds, one of which uses plain 'ol DDR2 RAM and a (Conroe?). I wouldn't be surprised if the Quad G5 is replaced by a dual Woodcrest, and all the rest are Conroe based.
If Apple has Conroe models starting at $2k, they'll sell as poorly as the PowerMacs did.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
If Apple has Conroe models starting at $2k, they'll sell as poorly as the PowerMacs did.
Yup.
Originally posted by Ipod mondo
Okay... I'll wait. 2 months aint a big deal for me, conroe is looking really nice with those beta benchmarks. Although Apple could still surprise me with some insanely configured computer or AMD with a FX-64, though that aint likely to happen yet
Thanks, Mondo
You speak voodoo
Originally posted by BenRoethig
I'm starting to believe that Apple gets the people on the lower end of the computer market (use wise) and the Power users, but doesn't understand those in the middle at all.
Um, the middle is the iMac. It has a 20" display and a pretty solid GPU. That's definitely middle. Entry level is the Mini. What Apple doesn't market to is the class of people who want a cheap tower. I think they understand it quite well, though.
Who ever said that a Conroe desktop had to start at $2000? In the past, we've seen much cheaper entry-level powermacs. A Conroe Mac Pro at the $1400-1500 price point would be fine. G3 and G4 powermacs were in that range.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Um, the middle is the iMac. It has a 20" display and a pretty solid GPU. That's definitely middle. Entry level is the Mini. What Apple doesn't market to is the class of people who want a cheap tower. I think they understand it quite well, though.
I think you just proved my point for me. If Apple understood them, they'd understand they don't want an iMac and its not because of price.
Seriously, they hire dozens of people in house and also consult big companies to study the market. If you don't think they understand their market, as well adjacent markets, you're a fool. At this point they have settled on a product strategy that they find will provide maximum return. Back when they had a much more varied product line, it clearly did NOT provide maximum return.
I feel like I've said this 100 times on this board, and even more than once to you in particular. Holy hell: this needs to be a sticky or something.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Apple understands, but chooses not to acknowledge.
Seriously, they hire dozens of people in house and also consult big companies to study the market. If you don't think they understand their market, as well adjacent markets, you're a fool. At this point they have settled on a product strategy that they find will provide maximum return. Back when they had a much more varied product line, it clearly did NOT provide maximum return.
I feel like I've said this 100 times on this board, and even more than once to you in particular. Holy hell: this needs to be a sticky or something.
Apple could release something that looks like a 1990s Dell and still sell it to you guys. Apple's product line has nothing to do with business sense and everything to do with what Steve Jobs thinks a computer should be. Apple is smart enough to realize that Mac users are usually fanatical enough to pay whatever price they dictate. That's how they get great profits with high R&D costs and a relatively small number of units sold compared to other makers.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Apple could release something that looks like a 1990s Dell and still sell it to you guys. Apple's product line has nothing to do with business sense and everything to do with what Steve Jobs thinks a computer should be. Apple is smart enough to realize that Mac users are usually fanatical enough to pay whatever price they dictate. That's how they get great profits with high R&D costs and a relatively small number of units sold compared to other makers.
What high R&D costs? Almost all of their hardware is off-the-shelf stuff. How much R&D does a Mighty Mouse require? How much for a MagSafe? Those costs are irrelevant when compared with the premium Apple charges on its hardware.
If you meant software R&D, it's not as high as some people think. Tiger's sales in 2005 can carry Apple's R&D in OS development for at least 2-3 years.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Motherboard form factors and power supplies are custom parts. The chips may be the same, but it takes significantly more to develop an iMac than it does an ATX tower.
Now that Apple has moved to Intel aren't they hgetting help with MB design?