Is this a good computer? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

The Clk Man · #16 06-05-2010, 07:13 PM

BUY A MAC!!!!! NOW.

pawoSD · #17 06-05-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

I can't help being an Intel fan. Core i7 = powerful. You can get one for $200.

$200 gets you a SIX core AMD Phenom II.

Phenom II = powerful-er

Ara T. · #18 06-05-2010, 09:58 PM

Make sure that whatever video card you get, it has at least 1GB of memory if you are going to be using a 26" monitor. For gaming you are gonna need some power to run games at resolutions a 26" would be running. In fact I'd probably be looking at more than 1GB.

Core i7's are the most powerful processors right now. In fact Intel has been at the top for about 4 or 5 years now. Basically all AMD has right now is good prices. That said, I always go AMD because im a cheap bastard.

pawoSD where you do get this AMD BS you constantly spout? No benchmarks or charts or reviews say it is more powerful than a core i7. Not that the AMD Phenom is a bad processor (i use one and it's great for the money, i paid 90 bucks for it), but lying about it to someone who is buying a computer smacks of some extreme fanboyism.

If hattie is doing some heavy video encoding or 3d rendering (he's not) i would recommend a 6 core processor but otherwise.. no point.

pawoSD · #19 06-05-2010, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ara T.

Make sure that whatever video card you get, it has at least 1GB of memory if you are going to be using a 26" monitor. For gaming you are gonna need some power to run games at resolutions a 26" would be running. In fact I'd probably be looking at more than 1GB.

Core i7's are the most powerful processors right now. In fact Intel has been at the top for about 4 or 5 years now. Basically all AMD has right now is good prices. That said, I always go AMD because im a cheap bastard.

pawoSD where you do get this AMD BS you constantly spout? No benchmarks or charts or reviews say it is more powerful than a core i7. Not that the AMD Phenom is a bad processor (i use one and it's great for the money, i paid 90 bucks for it), but lying about it to someone who is buying a computer smacks of some extreme fanboyism.

If hattie is doing some heavy video encoding or 3d rendering (he's not) i would recommend a 6 core processor but otherwise.. no point.

I'm not a fanboy, but I don't support companies like Intel who try to snuff out the competition wal-mart style. I've been using AMD's for 12 years and they DO offer the best performance per dollar as a complete package when you include the motherboard costs as well.

Hatterasguy · #20 06-05-2010, 10:34 PM

The computer I'm looking at has the ATI Radeon HD 5870 DX11 graphics card in it, supposidly its the best.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1080/1/

They say it can support 3 displays each at 2560x1600 resolution. That should be good enough to watch anime on a 26in screen, no? I want to the blood splater to seem real.

pawoSD · #21 06-05-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The computer I'm looking at has the ATI Radeon HD 5870 DX11 graphics card in it, supposidly its the best.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1080/1/

They say it can support 3 displays each at 2560x1600 resolution. That should be good enough to watch anime on a 26in screen, no? I want to the blood splater to seem real.

That is MEGA overkill to watch on a 26" screen. 26" is weak. I have a 32" for watching stuff in general, and a projector on a 100" screen for the real experience.

And everything plays smooth from my media PC, an Athlon X2 4400+ Dual core (2.3Ghz) + onboard ATI Radeon HD 3200 Graphics (slightly overclocked). It plays even HD stuff with ease.

Hatterasguy · #22 06-05-2010, 10:56 PM

I LOVE overkill.

Problem is that its on a desk, and if I go to big my eyes will bug out I couldn't type on it. If it was dedicated for TV I would go larger. Also I have never had a really nice computer, they were always lacking in the graphics department when they were new. For once it would be nice to have some power.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236047

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049

I'll probably go with one of these moniters. I'm thinking the 24, because I have a 17 now so anything is going to seem huge in comparison!

Also with the 24 I can stick to my $1,500 cap with S&H, the 25 would push me over by a few bucks.

Ara T. · #23 06-06-2010, 02:17 AM

Yeah overkill for movies, but good for games. I dunno what games you are into though, but since the Xbox and PS3 are here for another 4 or 5 years, games haven't progressed much graphically since most PC games are ports of the console games... so spending over 250ish on a graphics card is not necessary. In fact you could get by on a $150 card nicely.

Check this out, http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics-card-radeon,review-31911.html You can sort through the best graphics cards by price range.

There are a lot of great resources on that site. Check out the CPU reviews and charts and such too.

Zeus · #24 06-06-2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The computer I'm looking at has the ATI Radeon HD 5870 DX11 graphics card in it, supposidly its the best.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1080/1/

They say it can support 3 displays each at 2560x1600 resolution. That should be good enough to watch anime on a 26in screen, no? I want to the blood splater to seem real.

Hattie, that is the card I am currently using. It's a high-end gaming card. You don't need anything that powerful for just watching DVDs, etc. A much lower card will suffice. Keep in mind the 5870 requires two PCI-e 6-pin connectors for power alone, and you'll need a specific and compliant power supply to handle it (AMD supplies a list of certified power supplies, usually 750W or more). The Eyefinity setup you mention is for running three monitors at once, for immersive gaming/viewing.

Video cards are taxed most when rendering graphics, not watching video playback.

As far as CPUs go...you will likely never really tax it anyway, so AMD or Intel is fine. I've used AMD for over a decade as they generally produce the best power to dollar ratio as well. Hardcore types go for the Intel, but I've never needed that level from my PCs (even for gaming). I'm currently running a quad core 955 AMD chip and it's fine. For gaming, your video card will likely be the bottleneck point, not the CPU. For just watching videos, and general computing, you'll never really tax the CPU.

Good luck with your purchase!

MTI · #25 06-06-2010, 12:22 PM

Most new PC's are "overkill" for most users.

Zeus · #26 06-06-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I LOVE overkill.

Problem is that its on a desk, and if I go to big my eyes will bug out I couldn't type on it. If it was dedicated for TV I would go larger. Also I have never had a really nice computer, they were always lacking in the graphics department when they were new. For once it would be nice to have some power.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236047

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049

I'll probably go with one of these moniters. I'm thinking the 24, because I have a 17 now so anything is going to seem huge in comparison!

Also with the 24 I can stick to my $1,500 cap with S&H, the 25 would push me over by a few bucks.

Hattie, I've done extensive research on monitors. More than I cared to, to be honest.

I recently upsized to a 24" monitor. What I found is that when you have a large screen, like 24"+, viewing angles become quite important. Most panels you find nowadays are made with a panel technology called TN. I won't get into details, but it is one of the cheaper technologies and monitor makers like them as they are fast panels (low response times like 2ms or less for marketing). The problem with TN panels is that they have very limited viewing angles. If you view the monitor at any angle other than dead centre, you will notice significant color fade and contrast changes, especially on a larger screen.

The bigger the screen, the more noticeable this effect becomes.

Higher grade panels aimed at photo use, editing, etc. use either PVA/MVA or IPS panels. Both of these types have excellent viewing angles, meaning the monitor looks consistent even when viewed slightly off-angle. Colors and brightness/contrast are retained. IPS has the best color reproduction, though they tend to be slightly slower than VAs. With recent advances, however, this "delay" has become negligible. Newer IPS panels are 5ms or faster in most cases.

So...long story short, if you really want a great image, invest in an IPS monitor. To me, this is much more important than just screen size. It depends how picky you are really. Since I work (and play) on my PC, I use it a lot and since I am staring at a screen for several hours a day, I want it to look good. IPS panels aren't cheap but you will never go back once you've seen the difference. I am currently using a Dell U2410 (IPS) 24", 1920x1200 res. Another new monitor from HP just came out, the ZR24w. It is also a 24" IPS, and slightly cheaper than the Dell.

If you look at a new iMac with the Cinema displays...they also use IPS panels, and with the gloss fronts they look amazing.

If you have any more questions, just ask. I would stay away from an Asus monitor myself, just MHO.

Zeus · #27 06-06-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Most new PC's are "overkill" for most users.

Agreed.

Matt L · #28 06-06-2010, 12:43 PM

I've never considered the viewing-angle problem of a large monitor, Zeus.

My preferred setup is two 1280x1024 monitors, angled so that I'm looking straight at each one. Not being a gamer, I don't mind the disconnect in the center. Unfortunately for me, 4x3 monitors are getting hard to find.

pawoSD · #29 06-06-2010, 12:45 PM

I use a 20" Widescreen as my main monitor, plenty big IMHO....and a 15" off to the side to put virtual machines and remote desktop stuff on.

Zeus · #30 06-06-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

I've never considered the viewing-angle problem of a large monitor, Zeus.

My preferred setup is two 1280x1024 monitors, angled so that I'm looking straight at each one. Not being a gamer, I don't mind the disconnect in the center. Unfortunately for me, 4x3 monitors are getting hard to find.

Yeah, totally agree about monitor aspects. There aren't many 1920x1200's left either, which is a shame. Everything seems to be going 16:9, not too many 16:10 or 4:3 except in higher end models. 16:9 is fine for movies, but if you actually work on your PC (which they seem to think no one does anymore, it's all play

) then that extra vertical space is welcome indeed.

I didn't go looking for the viewing angle issue, it found me, lol. I *upgraded* from a 21" Viewsonic (which was a PVA panel) to a 24" Samsung from BestBuy. It was their most expensive 24" at the time, about $400. It looked good at first, nice colors, but then I started noticing the contrast and color fade. It was quite apparent. Thought something was wrong with the monitor. Then I researched and found out about the whole panel technology aspect and I read, and read, and read...

Turns out my 5yr+ old PVA Viewsonic was still a superior monitor to the newer, expensive TN Samsung.

Long story short, I bought the Dell and I am very happy with it. Though it is a wide gamut (whole other story there) monitor, it has two excellent RGB modes right out of the box, so if I need to do sRGB specific web work for example, that mode is ready to go (and pre-calibrated).