chrishayton Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 http://www.computersupermarket.com/Product...ils.php/243/671 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixed Pants™ Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) I guess that's mid high end in terms of todays computers, i'd probably buy it if it was in my price range and i was looking for a new one.Processor speed is a bit lacking though, unless duo means two 2.4ghz processors(?) (I'm no expert, but i know some shit)I'll have a sure answer from some leets in just a min, bare with me. Edited July 22, 2007 by Fat Pants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) Graphics card is a bit poo for new games, apart from that it would be quick as f**k.Build your own computer it will be cheaper and faster. Edited July 22, 2007 by Metal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Processor speed is a bit lacking though, unless duo means two 2.4ghz processors(?) (I'm no expert, but i know some shit)Yeah well it apparently doesn't add up so the processor speed is still 2.4ghz even though it has two cores. The boost in performance is huge though, changed from an A64 3500+ (2,2ghz) to an X2 6000+ (3,0ghz) recently and noted a 4x boost in video rendering performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishayton Posted July 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Graphics card is a bit poo for new games, apart from that it would be quick as f**k.erm 512mb for games is pretty damn good. see as though things like battlefield 2142 has recommendation of 128mb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 My 256mb card will eat that one for breakfast. Memory size on the graphics card dont matter THAT much, its how fast it can render the frames,and that card is slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishayton Posted July 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 My 256mb card will eat that one for breakfast. Memory size on the graphics card dont matter THAT much, its how fast it can render the frames,and that card is slow.Is this one any better: 256MB nVidia™ GeForce 8600GTS graphics card Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece B Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Yeah well it apparently doesn't add up so the processor speed is still 2.4ghz even though it has two cores. The boost in performance is huge though, changed from an A64 3500+ (2,2ghz) to an X2 6000+ (3,0ghz) recently and noted a 4x boost in video rendering performance.plus intel core 2 duo processors are about 2-3 times faster than what amd can offer. even a core 2 duo e6300 1.8 ghz would eat a 2.4 ghz amd processor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Is this one any better: 256MB nVidia™ GeForce 8600GTS graphics cardMuch better, 3-4x the speed easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece B Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Is this one any better: 256MB nVidia™ GeForce 8600GTS graphics cardsorry didnt see this post, to be honest theres no point in the 8600 gts, dont get me wrong is a good little card.but you have a 20" screen so if your into games, and want to run them at the screens native resolution your going to need some thing more powerful, so i would go for an old dx9 card.some thing like a 7950gt or 7900 gtx or gto (same card just different memory speeds) plus the top end 8 series cards cant even handle dx10 at the moment so it would be pointless buying a 8600 gts, and there is int any games out that support dx10.Reece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) plus intel core 2 duo processors are about 2-3 times faster than what amd can offer. even a core 2 duo e6300 1.8 ghz would eat a 2.4 ghz amd processor.Completely wrong. First of all it's impossible to compare the performance of different processors. Some will perform better in one app, and worse in another. For instance the X2 6000+ in some apps is faster than the E6600, E6700 and even the X6800. In very few, it's slower than an E6600. But still, it's about 2-3 times cheaper than the Intel equivalent.Fastest AMD's 2-3x slower than C2D's? Note that the QX is a Core 2 Quad, not a Core 2 Duo. Edited July 23, 2007 by Inur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 It's not a bad deal from what I can gather, but it's not amazing either. These days you can't really get great deals on computers - since everyone is competing and profit margins are tiny. Even PCWorld don't really rip you off any more (though they do still install all sorts of unnecessary crap on it). Btw, that screen will be toss. Spend less on the computer and more on the screen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishayton Posted July 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 yeh i realised that screen will suck when i saw they sell it seperatly for 120quid. im just gonna get the Dell i was looking at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece B Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) Completely wrong. First of all it's impossible to compare the performance of different processors. Some will perform better in one app, and worse in another. For instance the X2 6000+ in some apps is faster than the E6600, E6700 and even the X6800. In very few, it's slower than an E6600. But still, it's about 2-3 times cheaper than the Intel equivalent.Fastest AMD's 2-3x slower than C2D's? Note that the QX is a Core 2 Quad, not a Core 2 Duo.bear in mind that the amd 6000 or what its called is amd flag ship cpu(part from fx series but they cost way to much to justify the performance), and the e6600 is int, and to be honest theres not a lot in it.yes amd is cheap so go for that option, but any one with any pc knowledge would go intel, due to overclocking abilities and would outperform amd top processor. amd have missed the boat this time any one that disagrees is a amd fanboy. Edited July 23, 2007 by Reecerazor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 sorry didnt see this post, to be honest theres no point in the 8600 gts, dont get me wrong is a good little card.but you have a 20" screen so if your into games, and want to run them at the screens native resolution your going to need some thing more powerful, so i would go for an old dx9 card.some thing like a 7950gt or 7900 gtx or gto (same card just different memory speeds) plus the top end 8 series cards cant even handle dx10 at the moment so it would be pointless buying a 8600 gts, and there is int any games out that support dx10.ReeceThat 20.1" widescreen monitor will run at 1680x1050. Which is a lower resolution than a 17" square monitor. An 8600 would play most games at that resolution absolutely fine. For example. An 8600gts and an e6600 processor happily run CS:S at around 35-40fps with everything on max and 16xAA/AF enabled at the correct resolution for that monitor. It will play stalker at a whopping 60-80fps at native res too.There ARE games out that support DX10 actually, Halo2, CoH, Shadowrun, Lost Planet hell even microsofts flight simulator X makes use of DX10. Now that the drivers are maturing for the cards they are improving in speed with DX10 and should continue to do so for a fair while. And yes, the top end 8 series and ati 2900 series cards can handle DX10 alright, just with further driver changes they'll be able to handle it even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece B Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 im sorry but a 20" screen has a lot bigger resolution than a 17" monitor. a typical 17" tft screens res is 1280x720. how is that bigger than 1680x1050? yes some games have released patches, but they are just bolt ons. at high resolutions the 8 series cards cant handle dx10 so what the point of buying a dx10 card if you cant play at the screen native resolutions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 im sorry but a 20" screen has a lot bigger resolution than a 17" monitor. a typical 17" tft screens res is 1280x720. how is that bigger than 1680x1050? yes some games have released patches, but they are just bolt ons. at high resolutions the 8 series cards cant handle dx10 so what the point of buying a dx10 card if you cant play at the screen native resolutions?1280x1024 actually But yeah, i was thinking of the one under it.. my bad. Its only slightly bigger in resolution though, especially as its the last number that counts for more. So the hit in perdormance isn't much at all unless your using 16xAA.Halo 2 is fully DX10, and had to be patched to be dx9 Lost planet is DX10, and an 8800gtx gets between 60-90fps in that at higher resolutions, hardly struggling wouldn't you say. Flight simulator X is DX10 too. Theres also Hellgate london, crysis, ET:QW, Bioshock and the new unreal game coming out relatively soon that will all be DX10 as is shadowrun... like i already said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) amd have missed the boat this time any one that disagrees is a amd fanboy.It's the best CPU for it's price, outperforming much more expensive Intel CPU's. Can't disagree with that. The E6600 is 50% more expensive this end, and for that extra price you don't get a 50% boost in performance. That's all i'm talking about.Edit: Ok i take that back, just checked the prices of the quad core 6600, they're 160 pounds over here. Damn i could have bought that if i knew :angry: Edited July 23, 2007 by Inur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece B Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) very true just seen your edit! lol! Intel dropped the price a few days ago. Edited July 23, 2007 by Reecerazor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Token Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 7300gt is the budget version of the 7 series Nvidia cards. It may have 512mb of ram but its clock speeds are pretty abysmal I'm pretty surprised they class it as a gaming computer. The price is really good though for a multimedia point of view. Just downloading, encoding and storing films/music it's more than perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.