Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Best Gaming PC Money Can Buy

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the don't-we-post-this-every-few-months dept.

Hardware 360

SlappingOysters writes "Gameplayer has gone live with their best PC hardware configurations for Q1 2009. They've broken it into three tiers depending on the investor's budget. And while the prices are regional, it is comparative across the globe. The site has also detailed the 10 Hottest PC Games of 2009 to unveil the software on the horizon which may seduce gamers into an upgrade."

cancel ×

360 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What a crock... (5, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356843)

Budget machine has a quad core? And is almost a grand?

Tom's Hardware does these, and the budget is usually closer to the $600 mark, with the mid range around $1200.

And the fact that they put two optical BD burners on the extreme one (one on each page) makes me think that this article was slapped together instead of fully investigated. Where's the benchmarks? The proof that you built a good machine?

Looks like a buncha kids opened up newegg and built themselves machines in their head...

Re:What a crock... (5, Funny)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356955)

And the fact that they put two optical BD burners on the extreme one (one on each page) makes me think that this article was slapped together instead of fully investigated. Where's the benchmarks? The proof that you built a good machine?

Looks like a buncha kids opened up newegg and built themselves machines in their head...

Why the hell would you want to benchmark one of those beauties? It's like a wife. Your supposed to spend money on it, care for it and look but not touch.

Re:What a crock... (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356959)

I touch your wife plenty.

Re:What a crock... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357093)

How? Are you a dildo?

Re:What a crock... (2, Funny)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357145)

Nope, the mailman.

Re:What a crock... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357251)

You too?

-- Jamal

Re:What a crock... (1, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357343)

    But she said I was the only one for her.. {sigh} I'll have to start playing "pool boy" for a less "active" lonely house wife. :)

Re:What a crock... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357597)

Chingo la mujer, tambien! Ella sopla mi pene como un puta. Si, Si, Si!

Raul

Re:What a crock... (0, Offtopic)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357077)

Why the hell would you want to benchmark one of those beauties?

Benchmarking is almost always the de facto standard for telling which is better, how it compares, etc.

Re:What a crock... (4, Funny)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357435)

You need to reinstall your sarcasm detection package.

Re:What a crock... (3, Funny)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357545)

You need to reinstall your sarcasm detection package.

There's a serious lack of sarcasm tags, and it's required when it's not immediately obvious.

Re:What a crock... (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357039)

The site wont load for me (slashdotted already) but it sounds like toms does a much better job.

I assume by BD you mean BR. If its a "gaming" machine, why do you need blue ray? I have a cheap usb drive i hook up to mine when ever its needed, but steam and alcohol 52 pretty much eliminate the need for that anymore. Optical drives are hardly essential for gaming. Even for extreme models

Re:What a crock... (5, Informative)

El Capitaine (973850) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357379)

I agree, Blu-Ray is not really necessary for a gaming machine (are any PC games Blu-Ray yet?) And to have two BD burners...(going from first post - article is slashdotted)...this seems less like a gaming rig and more like a video production machine.

Also, Blu-Ray is abbreviated to BD, for Blu-Ray Disc. All of the abbreviations for the format use BD, not BR, such as BD-J, BD+, BD-ROM, BD-R.

"Blu-ray, also known as Blu-ray Disc (BD), is the name of a next-generation optical disc format jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA)"
Taken from http://www.blu-ray.com/info/ [blu-ray.com]

Re:What a crock... (5, Insightful)

ZirbMonkey (999495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357161)

Tom's is way better. If I want to upgrade my PC or video card, they actually do proper benchmarks and realistic budgets. I may never have triple SLI, but only because I don't feel like dropping another $500 on video cards for relatively minimal fps gains.

I dropped a grand on a new i7 system last week. Primarily because I was tied of my old Opteron 170 rig, but a good deal because I'd been influenced by the Tom's hardware midprice build. A grand is not "budget."

Re:What a crock... (2, Informative)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357517)

A grand is not "budget."

Of course, 1000 AUD is about $700 USD.

Re:What a crock... (4, Funny)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357213)

When they talk about hot computers, they are referring to your gpu/cpu temperature of course.

Not USD (1)

PantherX (23953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357269)

You did see that it's an Australian site, right? The prices aren't in USD.

Re:What a crock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357309)

I agree. Their "budget" system has a more expensive motherboard than the midrange. In their budget system they could easily go for a slightly cheaper motherboard and then boost the video card up to a high-end model. Besides, I agree with you, their budget system ain't a budget system. Their CPU recommendations are all over the place (hint: no gamer is going AMD these days; Intel beats AMD in performance per dollar at any price range; AMD went out 4 years ago).

Buncha kids indeed.

Re:What a crock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357373)

Budget machine has a quad core?

Quad-core processors have dropped in price enough that they are cheap enough for budget systems. However, if you're going to be primarily playing games, you're better off getting a faster speed dual-core for the same price, as very few games, if any, will see an improvement with four cores over two.

Re:What a crock... (5, Funny)

Fross (83754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357705)

Yo dawg, I heard you like burning, so we put a burner in your burner so you can burn while you burn.

Pffft. (5, Funny)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356855)

These PC's are low-end when compared to my overclocked Commodore 64.

Re:Pffft. (4, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357249)

The flames that are coming out of the back isn't a case mode then.

Re:Pffft. (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357277)

Your overclocked Commodore 64 can't beat my overclocked CoCo3.

I hate these guides and top-10 raves. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26356859)

Enough. It's 2009. Let's find a new meme drones.

Who's with me?

Re:I hate these guides and top-10 raves. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26356909)

I am! May I suggest "The Top 10 Gayest Computers Money Can Buy," beginning with #1? http://www.apple.com/ [apple.com]

Re:I hate these guides and top-10 raves. (0, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357117)

good idea. digg.

we're ready for the promised open transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26356865)

in particular, we'd like to know the reasons, process, intended outcome, & cost, of the fake cloud spraying/weather manipulation program. thank you.

The thing about these machines is (1, Interesting)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356893)

...there's not actually any games that needs anywhere near the horsepower they pack. I'm rarely impressed by a machine that with full details at super HD resolutions can run any game....at 400fps. Your eyes can only pickup 80fps anyway; you wouldn't know if it was 100 or 10,000 fps unless the fps counter didn't say.

Oh, and in 1-2 years comparable hardware can be picked up at a tenth of the price.

Still, I'm all for the advancement of benchmarking science, so this is still a good thing.

Re:The thing about these machines is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26356923)

Show me the machine that's able to run Crysis: Warhead at 80fps at 1920x1080 with all bells & whistles on.

I'll give you a hint: It does not exist.

Re:The thing about these machines is (3, Interesting)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357033)

You mean the original Crysis, not Warhead, as the newer game was optimized to run on lesser hardware.

I know because I have both running on a Core 2 Quad Q9550 with 2 GB of 1333 MHz DDR3 and a Geforce 9800GT. Warhead runs smoother on higher settings.

Re:The thing about these machines is (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357049)

Your eyes can only pickup 80fps anyway; you wouldn't know if it was 100 or 10,000 fps unless the fps counter didn't say.

It doesn't matter what your eyes can see. It's about responsiveness. Faster rendering makes the game more responsive. See, we live in an analog world which has essentially infinite FPS. The closer a game gets to that then the better it feels because it will respond at the exact microsecond you do something. It does make a very real difference.

Now granted many people don't care otherwise there wouldn't be people like you that think "80 FPS is enough for anyone." Gunny how that number keeps creeping upwards. First it was 24 FPS (because that was all the eye could see), then 30, then 60, now you're saying 80. LOL

Re:The thing about these machines is (4, Insightful)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357359)

While I agree, the counterpoint is that you get a lot of diminishing returns for your PC investment. Depending upon what you get, maybe $800 well spent (not counting the monitor) will get you 80 fps.

Bump your PC spending to $1800, and the extra $1000 gives you better graphics, maybe 120 fps, maybe 200, whatever. But unless you have money to burn, that extra grand wasn't well spent. Just put it into the bank, and buy another $800 machine in 3 years.

Re:The thing about these machines is (5, Funny)

timster (32400) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357381)

See, we live in an analog world which has essentially infinite FPS.

The Planck time allows for only around 1.86x10^43 fps, which is nowhere even close to infinity.

Re:The thing about these machines is (4, Informative)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357281)

You can easily tell the difference between 100fps and 10000fps by looking at high contrast fast motion. Human eyes don't see in frames, but the point where increasing framerate won't cause any perceptible difference is probably in the thousands of fps.

Here's a good explanation of the issues of motion reproduction:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx [microsoft.com]

Whatever temporal sampling rate you choose, it's unlikely to be fast enough
There is no practical frame rate high enough to properly portray all the motion typically encountered. It is necessary to pick a sensible rate that is slow enough to allow the video signal to be stored, routed around, and of course broadcast.

GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (3, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356897)

On the Extreme 4 GB of Video RAM? Seriously?

Someone please Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're mapping 4GB of video RAM you'll not be able to run a 32 bit OS. Given that this is a gaming PC, wouldn't this be a deal breaker? I mean even the uber gamers occassionally like to run older games right?

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (1)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356973)

It's not as though one can not run older games on 64bit hardware/OS's.

Also, for software which supports 64bits it should be faster than it's 32bit equivalent, which is quite important for modern gaming.

Also, there is a 64bit version of XP.

Also, Vista really isn't that slow if you give it enough RAM - which clearly is not an issue in this case.

As of the time of writing, for a brand-new top-of-the-line gaming machine you'd want Vista 64 on there.

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (1)

XMyth (266414) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357577)

I'm curious why you think that "for software which supports 64bits it should be faster than it's 32bit equivalent" ?

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357063)

I think nethack can be compiled to run on a 64 bit system. If not, it's open source, so you can modify it yourself.

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357069)

4 gigs of video ram... hold on one minute while i load all of the org doom into my video memory. Someone will write some type of loader to pull the old 32bit games into memory on the system or the video card with that much room so they can play the old stuff.

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357421)

    You're giving me flashbacks of the "good old days", when memory was outrageously expensive, and there was a program to let you use some of that extra video memory for the system. Some kids, who could afford systems with (oh my gosh) 4Mb RAM, would use 2Mb for a ramdrive to run the game in, since it was so much faster than their 20Mb hard drive, and the rest would be used for the game itself.

    I know we can still do silly things like that in Linux, but I don't know what's available for Windows users. I've only had a few requests to make ramdrives, even in Linux. One was for a temporary database, so it could work faster than the drives would allow. :)

What games don't run in 64-bit Windows? (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357089)

Seriously, I'm honestly curious. I'm a huge PC gamer and I run Vista 64-bit. All 32-bit Windows apps, which accounts for most games made in the last 10 years or so, seem to run great natively. For older DOS games, well those don't run well in 32-bit Windows. You get no sound, video problems, etc. The NTVDM isn't really good fro games. So what you do is fire up DOSBox, which runs them great. However that runs just as well in 64-bit as it does in 32-bit.

Thus far, I don't see any gaming problems with a 64-bit OS. So if you know of some, I'd be interested in what they are.

Re:What games don't run in 64-bit Windows? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357255)

Phantasmagoria 2
Gazillionaire
Diablo 2
Burn:Cycle

And that is what I found in the first day of using Vista64

Re:What games don't run in 64-bit Windows? (1)

Pheonix28 (1362095) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357643)

Amazing because I'm running Diablo 2 right now on........ Vista 64 bit... GASP!

Re:What games don't run in 64-bit Windows? (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357721)

Seriously, I'm honestly curious. I'm a huge PC gamer and I run Vista 64-bit.

No offence, but maybe a Wii Fit would be a good investment, then? I'm just sayin...

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357111)

Not sure how the programming interface for graphics cards has changed, but the SVGA graphics cards used a 64K 'memory window' to make the contents of the video framebuffer available to the CPU. You could write a value into the page register which would indicate which bank of video memory the CPU should read and write to.

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (3, Funny)

Eudial (590661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357125)

On the Extreme 4 GB of Video RAM? Seriously?

Someone please Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're mapping 4GB of video RAM you'll not be able to run a 32 bit OS. Given that this is a gaming PC, wouldn't this be a deal breaker? I mean even the uber gamers occassionally like to run older games right?

The kernel should deal with that. If you request some memory address, paging assigns a virtual address for the physical memory so that you can access -any- 4 Gb of data in some order.

You can still only access 4 Gb at one specific time per process, but that should be enough for most purposes, no?

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357483)

Windows won't let you have more than 3 GB for your process. Yay MS!

Re:GPU: 2x2GB 4870 = No 32 bit XP? (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357565)

Yes and no. 32 bit windows has a mode called PAE, It will let you acces sa ful 4 gigs of RAM and then deal with video (and other hardware) memory separately. The catch is, hardware compatibility with pae mode windows is fairly low, since a lot of hardware manufacturers don't test their drivers in pae mode.

6GB of ram? (5, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356911)

last time i checked, the i7 boards had 6 ram slots, for an easy 12GB. Also im pretty sure its possible to find boards with atleast 3 PCI-E slots, so they are missing an extra graphics card there. 6 SATA slots is also do-able, so with one to the BD burner, that leaves 5 for a raid 5 SSD config to give 1TB of SSD. And only one screen? 3 cards means 6 screens, i feel they missed some obvious extras

Re:6GB of ram? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357201)

+1 insightfull

Re:6GB of ram? (3, Informative)

adachan (543372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357457)

3 Cards in SLI does not mean 6 screens. It does mean 1 screen that runs games really fast (or so Nvidia wants us to think). For a gamer, I think faster FPS is better than more screens (which very very few games support).

Re:6GB of ram? (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357553)

what about for running each of your WOW accounts simultaneously?

investor... hah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26356917)

"investor's" budget... brilliant.

FFS (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356947)

Seriously, can we please, please stop describing people who purchase dubiously durable consumer goods that will be obsolete within a few years as "investors"? And, obviously, stop describing those goods as "investments".

There is nothing wrong, per se, with buying such things; but the notion that you are "investing" in them is patent nonsense.

Re:FFS (5, Funny)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357001)

In 1 years time, it will be worth 40% of what they paid for it. That's an investement, isn't it? Heck, it's not even a bad investement these days.

Re:FFS (2, Insightful)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357027)

It is an investment, just not one with a monetary payout.

Re:FFS (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357031)

Normally I would agree with you, but looking at the stock markets over the last 12 months you might have been better off buying hardware....

(Does anyone want to buy some SCO shares?)

Re:FFS (4, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357045)

There is nothing wrong, per se, with buying such things; but the notion that you are "investing" in them is patent nonsense.

This. You put central air/heat into your house, you're investing it. You put money into a company, you're investing it. You fork out about $3000 to build a computer that is completely overkill, you're NOT investing it. An investment is when you'll see some sort of profit from it, so unless if you're a professional gamer and it will make your frag count increase by 23.2%, it's not an investment.

Re:FFS (1)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357221)

Happiness isn't profit? Since when does it have to be a monetary return?

Re:FFS (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357529)

Happiness isn't profit? Since when does it have to be a monetary return?

Happiness also doesn't require money down. It's a terrible thing that it seems to be required though, however that's a whole other discussion.

Re:FFS (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357317)

An investment is when you'll see some sort of profit from it, so unless if you're a professional gamer and it will make your frag count increase by 23.2%, it's not an investment.

So I take it you put a fairly low value on personal enjoyment and satisfaction? BACK TO THE SALT MINES WITH YOU, SLAVE!

Re:FFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357581)

There is nothing wrong, per se, with buying such things; but the notion that you are "investing" in them is patent nonsense.

This.

You put central air/heat into your house, you're investing it. You put money into a company, you're investing it. You fork out about $3000 to build a computer that is completely overkill, you're NOT investing it. An investment is when you'll see some sort of profit from it, so unless if you're a professional gamer and it will make your frag count increase by 23.2%, it's not an investment.

So you'll see profit from putting central air/heat in your home? Any more than buying a computer?

Re:FFS (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357701)

So you'll see profit from putting central air/heat in your home? Any more than buying a computer?

Indeed. It increases the value of the home itself.

Re:FFS (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357151)

Perhaps their belief that it's "investing" is an indication of why we're currently in the middle of an economic crisis.

Too rich for my blood (0, Troll)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356993)

The PC rig requirement to get halfway decent graphics have gotten too ridiculous for me to try and follow. Why would I pay a thousand or more for a gaming machine that will still require an install and a tweaking almost as long? I can get the same game that works out of the box on my 400$ Xbox 360 Elite without one second spent on setup. PC gaming is pretty dead to me - it died of a monetary hemorrage.

Re:Too rich for my blood (4, Informative)

Winckle (870180) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357211)

It's articles that really do pc gaming a disservice. All you need to get pc gaming at reasonable resolutions is a decent mid range card like a 9600 or 9800. I have an 8800 GTS 512 and even on the absolute newest games I still achieve great framerates on good looking settings.

Re:Too rich for my blood (1)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357289)

I wanna see you play WoW or WAR on your Xbox.

Re:Too rich for my blood (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357375)

100% true. When it costs more to buy a current video card than to buy a whole game console, you know you're in trouble. The only games left on the PC are going to be simulation games, and sooner or later someone is going to allow arbitrary HID input devices on a game console and solve that problem too. (If you need multiple monitors, you can theoretically have multiple game consoles, which cost about the same as a high-end graphics card, anyway - so the simulation crowd should not be at all be put off by having a cluster of game consoles instead of a single PC.)

PC gaming is only still limping along because people are MAKING it limp along. Most people's computing needs would be served by having their game console provide rudimentary PC functions. And these days the game console is more than capable of serving as a multi-purpose PC, if only it was allowed.

Cost Perception (2, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357487)

The problem with just about every computer review is that the reviewers think that running a game at anything less than 1920Ã--1080 (1080p) is absolutely unacceptable.

I game on my HD TV in the basement which can only do 720p, a single 4850 will get you about 30 fps in Warhead maxed out.

Re:Too rich for my blood (2, Informative)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357575)

Graphics cards are cheap. You can get one that plays every single available game nicely for 130 dollars (the 8800GT/9800GT for example).

Stop getting your ideas from stupid guides like this and check out a thread full of advice from people who aren't insane. [somethingawful.com]

next up on article series ... (5, Funny)

heitikender (655816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356997)

... best web-server hardware configurations money can buy, also 10 hottest server apps for 2009.

What a classy joke (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357445)

I didn't figure out what you meant at first and was intrigued that the same site would have an article on servers, so I tried to visit the link.... and then I understood.

This is the first Slashdot joke which I've seen which is almost impossible to "whoosh" at.

I would buy a Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357023)

The Macintosh line is definitely the best gaming machine that money can buy because they are so expensive, they MUST be good.

Re:I would buy a Mac (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357341)

Tell that to the GMA950 in my Core 2 Duo Mac mini. :p

Yes the GMA950 sucks at 3D, but otherwise the computer is more than enough for what I need to do.

Re:I would buy a Mac (2, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357365)

I'm a little surprised they haven't added macs to reviews like that. This one was apparently not too intelligent, they look like they went shopping to see how much money they could spend on a system, not really looking to make sure they got the best hardware configuration possible. Macs do tend to be more expensive on the average, and there's a lot more shiny expensive options available at their store, so this would have probably helped them with the direction they were headed.

Lets play...

- 8 core (dual quad) xenon at 3.2 ghz
- 32gb PC6400 (800mhz) RAM
- hardware raid card (we don't want software raid to slow the monster down!)
- 4 x 1tb SATA drives to feed to that raid card
- NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 with 1.5GB VRAM
- dual 16x superdrives (or you can aftermarket a pair of BR drives from mcetech.com)
- pair of 30" cinema displays of course
- wireless keyboard and mouse (tho you'll need to find some $250 controller too I'm sure)
(I think we'll skip the modem option)
(also even for this I think we can skip the fiber channel card and xsan, I can't justify it here)
- may as well install server on it, you're going to be pushing game updates to your lan buddies right?
- at this point the 2 yrs of added warranty is a great value since it doesn't price based on config

$22,195. But that doesn't cover the controller.

There are a wide variety of ways to cut corners. Sony displays instead of apple's, buy your own memory and hard drives since apple's markup on them is insane, forego server, you can drop it down to about $7500, but you'll have to get the displays and ram separately. But this was just to see how much you could drop on a system.

How does this look? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357035)

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16064 [techreport.com]

How does that setup look for a current setup? Also, if there were further performance improvements to this setup, what would you change?

Re:How does this look? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357515)

Get the 4870x2 instead, and double check that your PSU can support two of those if you wanted to

Re:How does this look? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357591)

So other than a pair of x2's crossfired instead of just 4870's crossfired, you don't think there's much else? Or are you saying get a 4870x2 instead of 4870's in crossfire? If so, why even?

What about a jump to 12G of ram instead of 6G? Matched triple-channel again.

The 10 ... (1)

Akita24 (1080779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357071)

... penis replacement candidates already know. The rest of us don't care.

Why best gaming machine? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357075)

Why not the best for the bucks?
I usually never spend more than 800($CAN) for an upgrade... and I'm good for gaming for a few years with that... Why 4 cores? Currently games only use 1... so it's better to have 1 good core than 4 half-good...

A good old P4 Prescott with watercooling (a littlebit overclocked) is still better than a quadcores!

Re:Why best gaming machine? (3, Insightful)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357331)

The Unreal 3 engine and others happy put two cores to use. On top of that you still have OS processes and services running while you are gaming (unless you are playing some hot old DOS games off a boot floppy!). While I agree that for a "budget" style PC quad core is way over kill, dual core is far from being a silly investment. Once you consider the cost of a AMD Athlon X2 or something it is a no brainer.

Re:Why best gaming machine? (1)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357361)

Dual core has major advantages for modern gaming rigs. Especially those with multiple monitors.

Try running a second desktop with a web browser on your P4 and watch how it kills your FPS.

Re:Why best gaming machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357449)

Bioshock is multithreaded, as is Crysis, Fallout 3, HL2 Episode 2, UT3. Druther have 4 mid-speed cores than a single overclocked-to-buggery one.

Re:Why best gaming machine? (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357473)

A good old P4 Prescott with watercooling (a littlebit overclocked) is still better than a quadcores!

Bzzt! P4s are terrible, even a single core of the lowest end Intel quad core (Q6600) will crush most, if not all P4s.

Graphics chipmakers on the hook? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357087)

Are graphics chipmakers making investments in the newer game development to "ensure" that the games require and/or perform better with the newest chips, or is it purely a result of the chips' improved performance on games that is naturally enticing upgrades?

Gaming PC? (0, Flamebait)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357183)

The Best Gaming PC Money Can Buy called consoles.

Re:Gaming PC? (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357345)

That all depends on what type of game you want to play. Ever try a RTS on a console god they suck, someone will get it right someday.

Re:Gaming PC? (1)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357527)

Or an MMO.

Certain genre's will never be comfortable on a traditional gaming console.

Not worth it (2, Insightful)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357207)

Considering how few high-end PC games actually come out, getting a flashy PC just to play them isn't worth it.

Hardware issues aside, serious gameplayers need to be where the developers are, which at the moment means the Xbox 360. A Nintendo Wii or DS is optional, for those people who want to see some of the more innovative designs. (PC gaming diehards can now interject the usual comments about FPS controls and real-time strategy games and mods.)

And, yes, I'll point out that a 360 + Wii + DS + several years of Xbox Live is still cheaper than the PC mentioned in the article.

Re:Not worth it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357437)

But the machines in the articles seems to be put together by idiots. You can get a very very nice gaming PC for around £400 (certainly better specced than any console). And the extra you spend, is quickly saved by the games being much cheaper.

I'm not going to inject anything about which platform is better, but to say that developers are currently with Xbox 360 seems to exclude an awful lot of them. It seems more like a variation of the PC-gaming is dead meme, which is again and again proved at best ignorant.

Re:Not worth it (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357685)

Any game that is on a console looks substantially better on the PC runs at a higher frame rate, and higher resolution, and has a better view distance.

Xbox dev is identical to PC dev very little needs to be changed to do a quick port from one to the other.

The PC in the article is a waste of money.

the site hasn't been slashdotted (1)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357353)

it is an Australian site - it's been "Conroyed"

---
(I accidentally posted this in response to an incorrect article a minute ago - don't I feel stupid)

Don't do it! (1, Redundant)

jcarkeys (925469) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357357)

from the don't-we-post-this-every-few-months dept.

Then why do you keep posting them?

Re:Don't do it! (1)

aerthling (796790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357663)

For the lulls (in actual news).

What games (2, Interesting)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357425)

Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't seen a lot of "heavy" new PC games that would require an "ultimate gaming rig" these days.

That's not to say that some good games/additions/etc haven't come out or aren't on the boiler, but what's out-or-coming that would require or make use of a souped-up gaming rig VS just a decent machine (with a decent graphics card)?

Re:What games (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357675)

I agree entirely; I've got a moderately specced PC: Core2 E6400, 320Mb nVidia 8800GTS, 2Gb RAM, XP 32-bit and I've not played anything on it that I haven't been able to run at 1280x1024@72Hz on High detail (Even Crysis).

I know it's supposedly "all about the 2560x1600 at 200fps" these days, but a) I hate widescreen monitors and b) I'm happy with 1280x1024 (Maybe 1600x1200 if I can find a reasonably priced 4:3 LCD that does it).

I have a feeling... (2, Insightful)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357481)

That these machines would not run half as well as some system that would cost half as much but built by someone with a clue. Not just someone who went down line and picked out parts based on how much they cost.

For anyone really interested in performance rigs spend some time on a overclocking site. Those guys and gals really will show what it's all about. I know I'm damn amazed at some of the stuff they pull off and have learned a bunch just browsing.

Title (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357521)

"The Best Gaming Politically-Correct Money Can Buy"

So they have some kid of new money that removes all references to God and the All-Seeing Eye? Hmmm.

It must run pac man (1)

kadim (1417139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357585)

.... I could say more, but I don't think I need to.

Site is slashdotted (1)

nizcolas (597301) | more than 5 years ago | (#26357715)

But I was able to see a couple of pages before it went down. Did anyone notice the links to other stories at the bottom? I'm pretty interested in seeing which are the top 10 games to play while stoned.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?