inahandbasket: animated gif of spider jerusalem being an angry avatar of justice (sleepy red)
inahandbasket ([personal profile] inahandbasket) wrote2003-10-05 06:59 pm

(no subject)

So, like many gamer geeks around the world, i'm about to embark on building a new computer for the upcoming DirectX9 games. Namely, HalfLife2 and Doom3.
But I need some help on a major decision.
Sound card, hard drive, vid card, and monitor are already procured or decided on.
the question is the processor/motherboard, and more specifically:
64bit processing

The new Athlon64 and the AthlonFX that were released are sick, sick processors, and I fully expect them to rule in about... 6-8 months when the rest of the hardware and software catch up. Motherboard chipsets always suck for the first few iterations when something majorly new comes along.

But I'm going to need a new puter before those 6-8 months go by.

My question is this:
Buy an expensive 64bit processor(and assorted kit) now and upgrade the motherboard in a year?
OR
Buy a nice 32bit processor at the current sweet pricepoint (Intel 2.8 with HT) and use the saved cash in a year to get a faster 64bit processor and 2nd/3rd gen motherboard?

Let me know what you think, and why. :o)

(currently running Athlon 1ghz, 1GB PC133 RAM. sloooow.)
jjjiii: It's pug! (Default)

[personal profile] jjjiii 2003-10-05 06:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Seriously? I'd say re-evaluate your "need" for a new gaming rig. I've been on a pre-Thunderbird, Slot-A Athlon 750 since 1999. Granted, I don't game too much at all, but my machine played Return to Castle Wolfenstein just fine.

I doubt it'd get superb framerates with Battlefield 1942, Unreal Tournament 2003, or anything later than that, but I might well be surprised.

My parents' machine, a KT333 AthlonXP 1800+ with 512MB and a GeForce2 400MX, which I built for them, plays a very respectable Medal of Honor. I'm sure if it had a DirectX 9 video card in it, it'd play Half-Life2 wonderfully well.

My advice? If what you have now is even reasonably current, wait 2-3 years and then build a 64-bit box. If you've got parts ready to go now, just incorporate them in your current system if that's feasible.
jjjiii: It's pug! (Default)

[personal profile] jjjiii 2003-10-05 06:44 pm (UTC)(link)
What's your budget like? If you have extra $$$ go SATA, if not stick with PATA. PATA drives are really pretty cheap, and you could do a RAID0 if you really want to make a fast system. You could do SATA RAID too, of course, but that'd be a bit more than I'd want to throw at a box purely in the interest of high gaming framerates.

[identity profile] axessdenyd.livejournal.com 2003-10-05 09:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I never liked RAID0 anyway.

If you want that much speed, you're probably doing something important with large amounts of data.

If you have that much data you want to work with, it's probably important.

If you use RAID0, you spread it across two drives and have nothing complete, thusly you are twice as likely to lose everything.

Personally I wouldn't bother with anything less than RAID5, but maybe that's just me. Also, it would have to be hot swappable. Guess I got spoiled watching my dad work on the big iron. :-)

[identity profile] axessdenyd.livejournal.com 2003-10-05 09:16 pm (UTC)(link)
...I mean, if you're gonna have a redundant array of something, it might as well be just a little REDUNDANT, eh?