£240 To Spend, But What To Buy???

mysticsniper

mysticsniper

mysticsniper

Soldato
Joined
1 May 2003
Posts
11,215
I have got a little spare cash and I thought I would upgrade my system, just I am undecided on what to buy, maybe a new GPU, or a new Monitor, or sumik I have not even considered.

What do you think??

My current System

Intel Q6600 G0
Tuniq Tower 120 CPU Cooler
Gigabyte GA-EP45-DQ6 Intel P45 Motherboard
4GB OCZ PC2-6400
BFG GeForce 8800 GT OC2 512MB
2x Western Digital 320GB (WD3200AAKS)
2x Poineer 215DBK DVDRW
Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular PSU
Samsungm 19" 930BF Monitor
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 4Pro w/Console
Logitech G7 Mouse
Logitech G15 Keyboard
Logitech Z-5500 Speakers

Tia :)
 
soundcard/monitor

everything else i'd consider to be 'top of the range' in the sensible price range
 
My logic would be to get the 4870 first because you won't be able to run games well with all the bells and whistles on a 24" screen with a 8800GT.

Or maybe the 8800GT is more powerful than I think...
 
Sell monitor = £50?
Sell 8800GT = £70?
+£240 own cash = £360

£200 ish for a 24" monitor
£170(ish) for a 4870 (if you can spare the extra £10).

I would say if your not prepared to sell you monitor or 8800gt then just get a decent 24" monitor. It will outlast your graphics cards no doubt, and a decent monitor is one of the best investments :) You look at it all the time afterall.

Do you really need the audigy stuff? Can you sell that?

Alternatively, sit on the cash and save it up for when Nehalem comes out, and upgrade motherboard /chip /gpu /memory /screen all in one go with any extra money you have.

Matthew
 
sushi_fiesta_57 said:
My logic would be to get the 4870 first because you won't be able to run games well with all the bells and whistles on a 24" screen with a 8800GT.

Or maybe the 8800GT is more powerful than I think...
Click to expand...

from my experience RESOLUTION makes like almost no diff in frames

i tried it on several games, i.e crysis high settings, lowest + highest resolution and FPS were exactly the same.

in my friends pc, going from 800*600 to 1280*1024 made 1-2 fps difference

i have 2 X 24inch screens and i can play BF2:PR at MAX settings and 8X AA at 3840*1200 @ 60-90 FPS steady

why dont you guys go play a game and check FPS at diff resolutions and be amazed in 1-2FPS improvements when your running at 1024*768 compared with 1680*150
 
Last edited:
platinum87 said:
from my experience RESOLUTION makes like almost no diff in frames
Click to expand...
brickzd4.jpg


platinum87 said:
i tried it on several games, i.e crysis high settings, lowest + highest resolution and FPS were exactly the same.

in my friends pc, going from 800*600 to 1280*1024 made 1-2 fps difference

i have 2 X 24inch screens and i can play BF2:PR at MAX settings and 8X AA at 3840*1200 @ 60-90 FPS steady

why dont you guys go play a game and check FPS at diff resolutions and be amazed in 1-2FPS improvements when your running at 1024*768 compared with 1680*150
Click to expand...

You can't make that argument and use a 3 year old game on a modern graphics card as your example.
 
If your using an old game then it will be CPU limited which explains it mate.

Seriously.. read the benchmarks and you will see a MASSIVE difference in fps. That is benchmarks in games by members on here as well, so I honestly think that your one opinion of 1-2 fps makes little impact here. It's not an insult, but something you really need to take a look at as you really are going away from what 99.99% of people experience.

He wants to buy something, and we have hopefully maximised his options with value :)

Matthew
 
platinum87 said:
ok not NO difference, but very little, and much less than ppl give credit..

FEAR aswell same thing..
Click to expand...

Ok first off the point I was trying to make with the thumbnail is that typing in capitals doesn't help your argument at all. At best it makes it look like you're shouting and at worst it makes you look like a plank.

Secondly, FEAR is another three year old game. You need to use something relatively up to date to demonstrate what you're getting at. You might as well use Quake 1 as an example if you're going to keep quoting old games.

Also if you try running modern games and still insist you're only seeing a 1-2 fps difference then I'd hazard you have vsync on and aren't running proper tests.

Sorry if I sound harsh but I think 99% of the community will agree and have themselves observed that resolution makes significantly more of a difference on performance than you're suggesting.
 
Last edited:
platinum87 said:
from my experience RESOLUTION makes like almost no diff in frames

i tried it on several games
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL (ok mabe not a good idea at work). But i recommend you try GRID or something else from 2008 and then see what happens.;)

To the OP, I would go for a 24" monitor as you can still play at 1680x1050 if the GT can't handle 1920x1200, you may miss it later as scougar mentioned.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom