The 2008 Guide to Gaming PC Specs

Jarnis · 01-17-2008, 10:56 AM

Happy with your PC's gaming performance or are you worried about how it will cope this year? Are you looking to upgrade or buy a whole new PC? Will your beloved quad core CPU finally see some full-on usage? Fret no more as we delve into the complicated world of hardware to see what's really going to be needed for games in 2008.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/16...ming_pc_specs/

Marvin_The_Martian · 01-17-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarnis

Happy with your PC's gaming performance or are you worried about how it will cope this year? Are you looking to upgrade or buy a whole new PC? Will your beloved quad core CPU finally see some full-on usage? Fret no more as we delve into the complicated world of hardware to see what's really going to be needed for games in 2008.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/16...ming_pc_specs/

Just some notes, why you're saying 8800gts 512 has the high end gaming option? High end is just that, high end not counting purchase price or anything and as off such you can't go around the gtx/ultra still?

Also budget is two gig pc6400 memory, and high end to? Put atleast four in the high end and note to readers that you'd need an x64 os to utilize it all? And make it abit faster for the high end system, it's bull to call pc6400 high end atm..

Really that article is so wrong in so many places

Jarnis · 01-17-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin_The_Martian

Just some notes, why you're saying 8800gts 512 has the high end gaming option? High end is just that, high end not counting purchase price or anything and as off such you can't go around the gtx/ultra still?

Also budget is two gig pc6400 memory, and high end to? Put atleast four in the high end and note to readers that you'd need an x64 os to utilize it all? And make it abit faster for the high end system, it's bull to call pc6400 high end atm..

Really that article is so wrong in so many places

The article is about high end while keeping the price such that it's worth it to buy (in my opinion). It's not worth paying the extra $much 8800GTS->GTX/Ultra, the benefits do not match the price increase.

Many spend extra money for even more speed and futureproofing of their systems, but my take is that there is no reason to buy stuff that isn't going to matter in the foreseeable future.

As the article states, 4GB is a waste, unless you run 64-bit OS, and even then a single game cannot use more than 2GB as long as it's a 32-bit application. The article states that the smart buy is 2GB now, while making sure that extra 2GB is just a drop-in of the extra modules. Remember, this is purely about a PC for gaming.

Only thing I might agree on is that the term "high end" is used in this article to mean "almost high end, ignoring the most expensive high end uberparts that are priced so high they are not worth it". Sadly the exact statement is a tad too long to use in normal sentences.

Marvin_The_Martian · 01-17-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarnis

Only thing I might agree on is that the term "high end" is used in this article to mean "almost high end, ignoring the most expensive high end uberparts that are priced so high they are not worth it". Sadly the exact statement is a tad too long to use in normal sentences.

Think that nailed it pretty good he :)

I still find it shamefull though, you're in a position where you should make sure you're very clear in your intention. Afaik High End has always had the price tag to go with it, look at intel's Extreme cpu's and Amd's older FX chips which always had their price premium going along with them, and I remember when on these forums an Extreme cpu just for gaming wasn't that uncommon ( though those did also overclock something you haven't taken into account with the article on purpose ). I think that's a good thing to, or else you would have had to leave out any recommodations for Amd atm, as they do get smashed when oc is taken into account. Anyway, I'm guessing it's a problem off having just two categories, budget and high end, when indeed high end isn't high end but more upper mainstream atm? I would reserve high end to the real high end, but even then I would take more things into account then you did in the article. I would choose a q6600 over the q6700 because the multi won't do you that much good when you're ocing anyway unless you got subambient cooling going on ect, all in all my lists would probably not look anything like the one's in the article.

But for the people who run their systems the way they buy them in the store your article is a good read.

I'm not trying to have you change it or anything, I just wanted to share my comments and views on it.

Nick[FM] · 01-17-2008, 01:19 PM

I think there's a pretty clear difference between A) High-End and B) Enthusiast systems. As I see it, high-end is a system which is built with the latest components on the market, but not necessarily of the most expensive ones. A enthusiast system is the latest and greatest, no matter what the pricetag says.

Example high-end: Core 2 Duo E6600 (or Quad Q6600) + GeForce 8800GT/GTS 512 (or Radeon 3870) + 2GB of fast system memory

Example enthusiast: Core 2 Quad Extreme QX6800 (or higher) + GeForce 8800GTX/Ultra SLI (or Radeon 3870 CF) + 4 GB of ultra-fast system memory

The difference between the two setups is pretty huge, at least in terms of pure $. Without checking any prices, my guess would be that the high-end would end would cost somewhere around 800-1000$ and the enthusiast around 2400-2600$ (in case of SLI).

Just my 2c.

Cheers,

Nick

NeoAnti57 · 01-17-2008, 03:31 PM

Good read, but one question. Do you really think that vista is THAT lacking in ability to run games? I mean I havent used xp for a year, so Ive ridden the vista wave for this whole horrible year and I was beggining to think that vista was finaly "ironed out," enough to justify the money that I spent for it... But your saying that people who are going out to build a computer today should use an 8 year old operating system???

Is Xp THAT FAST in games compared to vista? If it is Ill slap xp back on this computer lol.

Jarnis · 01-17-2008, 04:45 PM

The performance difference is a minor issue when running DX9 stuff. Noticeable, but not a deal breaker.

The major problems are elsewhere - it's more expensive, and gives numerous painful compatibility issues that game developers are slow to fix... Since last march, I've tried three times to move to Vista as my "primary" OS, and I've always returned to the XP within 2 days because of a compatibility problem with some piece of software.

Sure, some of the issues were probably fixable, and some of them are probably fixed today, but if my options are:

- Google for some convoluted workaround to get program X to work right in Vista, wasting time.
OR
- Boot back to XP, everything just works.

Which do you think I choose?

The only reason I have Vista installed as dual boot today is because I have to play games in DX10 mode from time to time for game reviews. I have not yet seen anything related to DX10 that was *so* much better than what DX9 could do that I could stomach the framerate dip DX10 vs DX9. Beyond DX10, I see no feature in Vista that appeals to me.

Right now, I can't recommend Vista as the only OS on the system, and recommending everyone to buy two operating systems would be a tad expensive. Microsoft wouldn't mind, but...

Also Vista 32-bit is bit of a dead-end - it has the same limitations as 32-bit XP. 64-bit Vista on the other hand has a number of additional compatibility issues - as an example, I still don't think there is a working antivirus/firewall application for the 64-bit Vista (and no, I do not consider MS OneCare and Vista built-in firewalls as something that I would ever use), and as I explained, a lot of old software breaks on the 64-bit OS (Vista *or* XP).

I hope SP1 helps with the compatibility and reliability. I'll take another honest attempt at moving to Vista myself when the final SP1 comes out.

01-17-2008, 10:27 PM

"The performance difference is a minor issue when running DX9 stuff. Noticeable, but not a deal breaker." Not True... load up CSS or any game based off the source engine. you'll loose as much as 20fps right off the bat. Its like a fluffy windows 98. Same goes for crysis and well about every game out... vista is terrible at gaming. Sure It will play games but if your in any way serous about gaming "Upgrade to XP" asap.

I don't want to come off as totally bashing this article but I agree that any high end system should have 4gb of ram.
Even the cheap system could be running a 4gb kit of gskill for 84 bucks... Maby you should have put 3 systems up low, med, high...

Honestly I could go on for hours picking apart the woeful inaccuracies and terrible recommendations stated in this review... And I actually just deleted 4 paragraphs pointing some of them out. But I didn't come here to bash. Well at least not that much...

I'll say this though the one and only thing I agree with in this article is that the G92 based 8800GTS is a better buy than the gtx/ultra.

After 16 years in this industry it still mind boggles me that people can post this garbage and not get more slack for it. I honestly feel bad for the poor bastard that reads this article then spends hard earned cash on that first budget system.

Marvin_The_Martian · 01-17-2008, 10:29 PM

-nevermind-

Jarnis · 01-17-2008, 11:35 PM

I'll leave the Vista argument alone - I agree that Vista is unneeded. It's not utterly useless, but at the moment XP is my recommendation.

Quote:

I don't want to come off as totally bashing this article but I agree that any high end system should have 4gb of ram.
Even the cheap system could be running a 4gb kit of gskill for 84 bucks... Maby you should have put 3 systems up low, med, high...

And what exactly you plan on doing with that? 32-bit windows cannot use 4GB. It can, at best, use a bit over 3GB, and a single application is limited to 2GB. If you want to spend extra for the small benefit of some extra OS process/file cache RAM, by all means - I just state that it's not necessary. The 32-bit OS limitations are what they are.

Quote:

After 16 years in this industry it still mind boggles me that people can post this garbage and not get more slack for it. I honestly feel bad for the poor bastard that reads this article then spends hard earned cash on that first budget system.

Why? It plays games of today very well (with the possible exception of Crysis). It will keep playing them for quite a while - remember, I assume it's paired with a similar budget display - probably 1280x1024. You don't need any more for gaming at that resolution.

Have you tried playing with such a rig? I have. Have several systems at my disposal for testing games for reviews - the recommendations are very much based on real hands-on experience.

Look - I understand the enthusiast gamers who can throw 2k$+ on a rig - I'm one too and right now I'm drawing plans to upgrade my home system, and I know I'm going to spend more than 500$ on the CPU and the video card is 8800GTS 512MB or something more expensive.

But when the goal is to determine and explain what you need as a minimum for gaming, that "low end" minimum system is more than adequate. I initially considered 8600GTS grade cards for it, but in the end HD3850 is so much faster at almost the same price. So I ended up recommending that. On the CPU side, there are plenty of arguments that support adding a faster CPU - it won't cost much - but we were looking the minimum. Over 800$ is a *lot* of coin to some people, especially when you consider that you need a display, keyboard, mouse and speakers to go with that.

(I actually considered adding a paragraph to the article stating that if the suggested minimum system was too expensive, the only cheaper alternative to play games properly was called "Xbox 360 Pro", but it was bit outside the scope of the article - which covers Gaming PCs...)