Decent Gaming Rig

[Conor88]

Trying to get a decent gaming pc, going to fit it all myself. Wanting to spend roughly £400-450 for it.

What will i need

Basics:
New case
Motherboard (PCI-Express)
Processor (64bit)
Memory
CD-Rom Drive / DVD Rewriter
Cooling Fan
120GB Hard Drive
Power supply
Cooling fan
Already have a decent Gfx card.

Anything else i will need?

 

[Adam K]

errr, £450 won't really get u a decent gaming rig.

 

[Conor88]

I think it will if i budget and know what to get, atleast run BF2 and Quake 4

 

[zack40]

try these there one offthe cheapst iv found http://www.cclonline.com/

 

[Conor88]

thanks zac

 

[Acejon]

Can be done cheaply, but you've gota question if spending 4-500 quid on one that does the job now is worth it when new games demanding greater physics and power will be arriving when/if the new PS3 is launched, UT2007 for example next May will require alot of gaming umph.

I'd recommend getting the best sli mobo you can and compromise on a less expensive PCI-e graphics card and processor. Doing that you will get a decent machine for now but will enable you to spend a bit more in the future. I play everything turned upto High on me upgraded Dell D4600. Specs are;

P4 3.2 Prescot
2.5Gb PC3200 DDR2
128mb 6600GT (AGP) OC'd
300 watt PSU
Audidgy 4 sound card

I get roughly 6500 marks in 3DMark 05 and a very high figure in Aquamark compared to alot of people running a similar spec. I run CS Source, HL2 DM, Quake 4, UT2004, FEAR all on full detail with everything turned on using a 1024x768 resolution and get 40-50 FPS in all my games, during large battles or games with alot going on it sometimes drops as low as 30 but its usually pretty consistant.

Unless you wana go Roy's route and do the big upgrade now, doing it on a budget and getting a good gaming rig can be done cheaply.

 

[martynh]

Check out this other thread, you might have seen it already...
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1963191#post1963191

 

[Aberclio182]

Can be done cheaply, but you've gota question if spending 4-500 quid on one that does the job now is worth it when new games demanding greater physics and power will be arriving when/if the new PS3 is launched, UT2007 for example next May will require alot of gaming umph.

I'd recommend getting the best sli mobo you can and compromise on a less expensive PCI-e graphics card and processor. Doing that you will get a decent machine for now but will enable you to spend a bit more in the future. I play everything turned upto High on me upgraded Dell D4600. Specs are;

P4 3.2 Prescot
2.5Gb PC3200 DDR2
128mb 6600GT (AGP) OC'd
300 watt PSU
Audidgy 4 sound card

I get roughly 6500 marks in 3DMark 05 and a very high figure in Aquamark compared to alot of people running a similar spec. I run CS Source, HL2 DM, Quake 4, UT2004, FEAR all on full detail with everything turned on using a 1024x768 resolution and get 40-50 FPS in all my games, during large battles or games with alot going on it sometimes drops as low as 30 but its usually pretty consistant.

Unless you wana go Roy's route and do the big upgrade now, doing it on a budget and getting a good gaming rig can be done cheaply.

Sorry dude can not see how you can possibly run Fear all on full with that graphics card.

my old spec

althon 64 x2 4600 939
6800 ultra oc'd agp
2gb ram

struggled to run fear at full.

 

[Griff]

£400 - £500 ? Buy a 360 instead.

There certainly wont be anything "decent" about a gaming pc knocked together for this budget. Sure you may be able to run BF2 but why spend £500 to play it with a low resolution and all the settings on their lowest??

 

[Munson]

Sorry dude can not see how you can possibly run Fear all on full with that graphics card.

I was thinking the same thing but I come accross this all the time. It depends how fussy someone is.

F.E.A.R. will run fine on that machine, but with evrything up very high it isnt going to average 40+fps and maintain nice visuals. People make Compromises and live with them. It's personal interpretation really. One mans smoothness is another mans lag nightmare. Mind you when you're running everything at 1680x1050 you kind of need some serious horsepower in F.E.A.R.

My old 6800Ultra rig could just about maintain playable rates for me in FEAR at 1024x768 and that was blurry non-native :dead: Luckily my new Dell letterboxes non-native so if I have to reduced from 1680x1050 in something like Crysis, then it'll still be sharp. Going off topic...

 

[Aberclio182]

I was thinking the same thing but I come accross this all the time. It depends how fussy someone is.

F.E.A.R. will run fine on that machine, but with evrything up very high it isnt going to average 40+fps and maintain nice visuals. People make Compromises and live with them. It's personal interpretation really. One mans smoothness is another mans lag nightmare. Mind you when you're running everything at 1680x1050 you kind of need some serious horsepower in F.E.A.R.

My old 6800Ultra rig could just about maintain playable rates for me in FEAR at 1024x768 and that was blurry non-native :dead: Luckily my new Dell letterboxes non-native so if I have to reduced from 1680x1050 in something like Crysis, then it'll still be sharp. Going off topic...

aye roy thats the only thing i am lacking is a decent monitor for the new rig. just finshed my one. mates just got 8,130 in 3d mark 2006, few little tweeks like you said.

 

[zack40]

yes agreed^ mine struggles to run fear in full detail it's the danm softshadows what kills it..and i have 64bit amd 3800 ...1 gig of ram.. and a nvidia 7800 gtx..damn tho's soft shadows

 

[Munson]

aye roy thats the only thing i am lacking is a decent monitor for the new rig. just finshed my one. mates just got 8,130 in 3d mark 2006, few little tweeks like you said.

TheBeast2 topped out at 8948 when I was going for 9k in "Project9Ko2" (9k on air)

Currently throttled back to around 8500 scores and running with that OC in games. (c.14000 in 3DMark'05)

 

[Acejon]

F.E.A.R. will run fine on that machine, but with evrything up very high it isnt going to average 40+fps and maintain nice visuals. People make Compromises and live with them. It's personal interpretation really. One mans smoothness is another mans lag nightmare. Mind you when you're running everything at 1680x1050 you kind of need some serious horsepower in F.E.A.R.

Perhaps, but i've played it to death and am very fussy when it comes to visuals, i always want the best. I cannot prove the results, however my spec and setup are exactly as described previously. My point wasnt to show how good/not good my machine was, it was to offer my experience of a mid range rig that could do it all now, for a good price without hitting on performance and visual quality whilst in games.

I will however be upgrading next year and look forward to a huge jump in performance and visual splender as you have, but having played every new PC game and toyed with 360's, im very happy with my setup both in terms of performance and quality

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

As said, £500 will certainly not get you a gaming PC that will last long. Do you have a monitor ??? If not then you will need to spend a few hundred more to make sure that's up to spec.

Personally I used to be big into PC gaming, buying cutting edge stuff every couple of years, but spread the cost out and it's actually quite an expensive way of doing things.

These days my PC is built to process, and can still handle those old classics like C+C generals, or a true graphics junkie, Shattered galaxy

And for the new gaming side, I use an Xbox360. It's better than the PC I find for multiplayer, as it has a built controller and headset just for pick up and play, plus it will last a few years without costing thousands.

 

[David]

I was thinking the same thing but I come accross this all the time. It depends how fussy someone is.

F.E.A.R. will run fine on that machine, but with evrything up very high it isnt going to average 40+fps and maintain nice visuals. People make Compromises and live with them. It's personal interpretation really. One mans smoothness is another mans lag nightmare. Mind you when you're running everything at 1680x1050 you kind of need some serious horsepower in F.E.A.R.

My old 6800Ultra rig could just about maintain playable rates for me in FEAR at 1024x768 and that was blurry non-native :dead: Luckily my new Dell letterboxes non-native so if I have to reduced from 1680x1050 in something like Crysis, then it'll still be sharp. Going off topic...

for someone so obsessed with decent framerates and graphics quality, isn't it a bit of a joke that you bought a dell screen? or maybe i'm missing something here

 

[zack40]

dell do some of the best gameing pc's and lcd screes around imo had a few mi self.was well pleased with em. they also get good reviews for there lcd's http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/monitor?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs

 

[Rasclart]

The Dell Roy has is a very good screen, it uses the same panel as the Apple Cinema and has a decent response time without blurring and is Widescreen. You are talking about a £360 screen so its not a cheap Dell!

 

[Acejon]

Its all getting a bit úber personal isnt it?! Dell Screens are pretty nob on, but again that just my opinion. This thread could run and run because one persons 'opinion' differs to that of the next man (or lady...!). Pretty sure it was one guy asking if he could build a decent gaming rig for 500 notes, the answer is there is no answer as its turned into a free-for-all for peoples personal opinion...





Btw... I like Dell LCD monitors too :rasp:

 

[Munson]

Perhaps, but i've played it to death and am very fussy when it comes to visuals, i always want the best. I cannot prove the results, however my spec and setup are exactly as described previously. My point wasnt to show how good/not good my machine was, it was to offer my experience of a mid range rig that could do it all now, for a good price without hitting on performance and visual quality whilst in games.

I will however be upgrading next year and look forward to a huge jump in performance and visual splender as you have, but having played every new PC game and toyed with 360's, im very happy with my setup both in terms of performance and quality

For real. I did not want to challenge you which was why I didnt mention it originally. Fair play your rig is pretty good, but the comments about F.E.A.R. seem unrealistic. I addressed them with some diplomacy though. IMO that machine cannot, and will not, maintain smooth frame rates (40-50) at high settings throughout F.E.A.R. Granted though, 1024x768 may help.

It's all good

As a scientific test, how about you run the time demo and post the results? Minimum, average and maximum frame rates. Plus the res you ran the test at and the game settings including AA & AF. I'm not trying to challenge you mate, seriously interesetd how your rig behaves in this game

Mine are;

1680x1050. Maximum game settings minus soft shadows. No Vsnc. 4xAA. 8xAF. No soft shadows;

41
88
216

 

[Munson]

for someone so obsessed with decent framerates and graphics quality, isn't it a bit of a joke that you bought a dell screen? or maybe i'm missing something here

Yeah you are missing something, the ability to research for yourself, rather than post knee jerk reactions based on your lack of knowledge

 

[Rasclart]

But thats pointless Roy as unless they can run 1680X1050 then you cant compare. You need to run it at a lower res

I have just finished building my gaming rig and am happy with the results. Plays FEAR at the same settings as Roy without hardly any slowdown!

 

[Munson]

fair point. I will run it at 1024x768 in a bit

 

[Acejon]

As a scientific test, how about you run the time demo and post the results? Minimum, average and maximum frame rates. Plus the res you ran the test at and the game settings including AA & AF. I'm not trying to challenge you mate, seriously interesetd how your rig behaves in this game

Yeh will do mate, got FRAPS too so will post a screen shot later aswell

 

[zack40]

fraps and the ingame time demo will give you different readings or it did me.i don't think the time demo is accurate...that's what i read somewhere

 

[David]

Yeah you are missing something, the ability to research for yourself, rather than post knee jerk reactions based on your lack of knowledge

ok mate, you stay happy with your dell , i'll stick with my crt. hahaha

 

[Munson]

Just tried the time demo at 1024x768 but with the same setting otherwise

Min. 45
Avg. 112
Max. 277

 

[Munson]

ok mate, you stay happy with your dell , i'll stick with my crt. hahaha

Hope you like it

 

[wozzaa]

Dell LCD's are actually very good. Some of the best money can buy. Just because something is branded as dell means nothing dells MP3 player is actually a Creative product. Uses creatives firmware and can be upgraded via creatives site. Its just got a dell badge on it.

Same with the LCD screens not specifically dell screens. the cheapo lcd's dell gives away with its machines are crap but there high end ones are amazing.

But i still prefer CRT at the moment until i can get a decent panel that i dont see ghosting on does the resolutions i require and doesnt cost nearly £600 im staying with CRT although i like lcd's for certain things contrast seems to be much nicer and images are generally sharper.

 

[Darren S]

Going slightly back to the topic with FEAR performance and personal levels of what is deemed 'acceptable' - I often find benchmarking figures to be quite misleading. Take BF2 for arguments sake. I currently run it at 1280x1024 with everything set to maximum and it plays fine. Try it again with everything set to maximum, but this time set the anti-aliasing set to 4x (the maximum BF2 will natively support).

The level of clarity and perceived smoothness is massively increased - it justs looks and plays better with AA switched on. Yet any benchmarking utility worth its salt will tell you that from the performance score point of view, it has taken a significant hit.

Basically, what your PC tells you what's 'better' compared to what looks better are often two, very different things.

D.

 

[Acejon]

Going slightly back to the topic with FEAR performance and personal levels of what is deemed 'acceptable' - I often find benchmarking figures to be quite misleading. Take BF2 for arguments sake. I currently run it at 1280x1024 with everything set to maximum and it plays fine. Try it again with everything set to maximum, but this time set the anti-aliasing set to 4x (the maximum BF2 will natively support).

The level of clarity and perceived smoothness is massively increased - it justs looks and plays better with AA switched on. Yet any benchmarking utility worth its salt will tell you that from the performance score point of view, it has taken a significant hit.

Basically, what your PC tells you what's 'better' compared to what looks better are often two, very different things.

D.

Totally agree, I've had some wierd performance figures with certain games, COD2 for instance works, looks and generally is better on my machine when playing at 1280x1024, its jerky and not at all smooth when playing at lower resolutions, meaning i have to turn a fair bit of eye candy off first. Where with most other games, performance is much better at 1024x768 which is what i'd expect anyway...

Roy, did the time demo test and used FRAPS and as was mentioned above the figures differed slighly;

1024x768
19
44
96

I spose i slightly exagerated the figures, but find performance during FEAR combat online is better still, using FRAPS I got an average (and by average i mean clocking it every so often and noting the frame rate...) of between 35-45, at no point (even during a team deathmatch with 16 people) did it drop bellow 25fps.

What this proves i dont really know, but like i mentioned before, im happy with the results. With it being a Dell i cannot OC on a large scale, but have the GPU OC'd from stock 500/900 to 552/1200 and get no crashes, hangups or artifacts.