LibriumArcana.Games

Okey, I'm going to post my ideal gaming rig specs, anyone is welcome to jump in and add his own preferred config.
KAN, a 486 is not a gaming PC ;)


Motherboard: DFI NF4 SLI
CPU: AMD 3500+ Venice
RAM: 1024MB Corsair Value 2.5
Graphics card: 6800GT\*2 if you have the cash.
Optical Drives: Plextor 108 DVD-RW.
Hard Drives: Raptor 74GB and a Seagate Barracuda 7200.8.
Sound Card: Audigy 2.
PSU: Antec TruePower 2.0 highest rating at time of purchase.

Ace Pace wrote: KAN, a 486 is not a gaming PC ;)

Depends on the games you're playing, m'boy! 8-)




By the way, since this is supposed to be an *ideal* gaming rig...

Ace Pace wrote:RAM: 1024MB Corsair Value 2.5

Why CAS 2.5? Why not CAS 2?

And why not using the as much RAM as possible? Like, say, 2048MB? As an NT-based OS, I guess XP should be able to support up to 4096MB, but I read somewhere that it can only handle up to 2048MB. Gotta' check this out.

Ace Pace wrote:Graphics card: 6800GT\*2 if you have the cash.

Why not using 6800 Ultra or Ultra Extreme?

And of course, SLI is a must! :P

Because while is a gaming rig, I'm holding myself to a reasonable budget, the preformance differance between 2.5 and 2 are not worth the added money unless your OCing. 2GB is a good choice if your going to play MMO's, but reguler stuff won't use it, even with Silent Hunter 3 running I barely hit 800MB.

And see Wing's thread in SDN, Ultra's ARE OVERKILL, FUCKING OVERKILL THAT A SIMPLE OC WILL GET YOU PAST THEM WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING TO YOUR COSTS.
Extreams do not exist.

Ace Pace wrote:Because while is a gaming rig, I'm holding myself to a reasonable budget, the preformance differance between 2.5 and 2 are not worth the added money unless your OCing.

I see. So "ideal" means a balance between budget and performance, doesn't it? ;)

Nevertheless, I read somewhere while intel is more sensitive to RAM clockspeed, AMD is more dependent to CAS latency. Is that true?

Ace Pace wrote: 2GB is a good choice if your going to play MMO's, but reguler stuff won't use it, even with Silent Hunter 3 running I barely hit 800MB.

I know, but I always go for more room to breath as far as the OS allows, as long as it doesn't cause compatibility problems. For instance, Longbow 2 would refuse to load if you have more than 300MB of RAM or such.

But I guess games these days won't have problem with oversized RAM, am I correct?

Ace Pace wrote:And see Wing's thread in SDN, Ultra's ARE OVERKILL, FUCKING OVERKILL THAT A SIMPLE OC WILL GET YOU PAST THEM WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING TO YOUR COSTS.

But how about an OCed Ultra? ;)

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:Because while is a gaming rig, I'm holding myself to a reasonable budget, the preformance differance between 2.5 and 2 are not worth the added money unless your OCing.

I see. So "ideal" means a balance between budget and performance, doesn't it? ;)

Nevertheless, I read somewhere while intel is more sensitive to RAM clockspeed, AMD is more dependent to CAS latency. Is that true?

Ideal means going more for preformance, but not forgetting yourself.
I can easily reach 15K on a 'gaming' rig, buts its not practical.

As for that part, its true, but the preformance differance is a few frames, a few seconds, not relevent.

Ace Pace wrote: 2GB is a good choice if your going to play MMO's, but reguler stuff won't use it, even with Silent Hunter 3 running I barely hit 800MB.

I know, but I always go for more room to breath as far as the OS allows, as long as it doesn't cause compatibility problems. For instance, Longbow 2 would refuse to load if you have more than 300MB of RAM or such.


But I guess games these days won't have problem with oversized RAM, am I correct?

What ARE those old games you keep talking about? :P
And since we're gonna be running XP 64-bit, we have limitless room, but current AMD chips don't play nice with 4 slots running DDR400, and I don't care what AMD is saying there, Venice is still slower with 4 DIMM's then with 2.

And games today will see that RAM, and fill it. In Seconds.

Ace Pace wrote:And see Wing's thread in SDN, Ultra's ARE OVERKILL, FUCKING OVERKILL THAT A SIMPLE OC WILL GET YOU PAST THEM WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING TO YOUR COSTS.

But how about an OCed Ultra? ;)

Its the same thing, only an Ultra(for 'stability') reasons has a massive duel slot cooler, which makes SLI installs hard.

The only reason you see alot of Ultra OC's is that Ultra are binned more selectivly for high speeds, since less GT's can safely reach Ultra speeds.
But go to your store, shell out 400+ bucks on a BFG 68GT and your allready faster then a stock Ultra.

Ace Pace wrote:Ideal means going more for preformance, but not forgetting yourself.
I can easily reach 15K on a 'gaming' rig, buts its not practical.

As for that part, its true, but the preformance differance is a few frames, a few seconds, not relevent.

I see. So the thread is about achieving the maximum performance possible within reasonable spending.

Ace Pace wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: Longbow 2

What ARE those old games you keep talking about? :P

:D

:)

:|

:x





Aaarrgh! Blasphemy! Kill the infidel!! *throws rocks at Ace*

:P

Ace Pace wrote:And since we're gonna be running XP 64-bit, we have limitless room, but current AMD chips don't play nice with 4 slots running DDR400, and I don't care what AMD is saying there, Venice is still slower with 4 DIMM's then with 2.

I see, so the art is maxing out the amount you can get from two slots.

Ace Pace wrote:And games today will see that RAM, and fill it. In Seconds.

Yup, not to mention O/S is getting more RAM-hungry. I still remember running Windows 3.11 real smooth with 8 megs of RAM.

Ah.... those days *tears falling*

Ace Pace wrote: Its the same thing, only an Ultra(for 'stability') reasons has a massive duel slot cooler, which makes SLI installs hard.

The only reason you see alot of Ultra OC's is that Ultra are binned more selectivly for high speeds, since less GT's can safely reach Ultra speeds.

Yup, like comparing 120 Mhz Pentium and 100 Mhz Pentium OCed to 120 Mhz, only this time the 120 Mhz is way more expensive than the OCed 100 Mhz, so the price ain't worth the difference.

Am I correct?

Ace Pace wrote: But go to your store, shell out 400+ bucks on a BFG 68GT and your allready faster then a stock Ultra.

Yup. BFG is da bomb.

Because I hate mega quote posts....

1)It IS possible to run a fully equipted RAM PC, its just your going to get better preformance from 512MBX2. Though if your doing graphical work, 1024X4 is looking good.

2)Yes, best example is the current AMD high end.
Their based on old cores(well the FX-57 will fix that, but its late), while the 3500+(2.2GHZ) is cream of the corp, and OCs in a great way, theres no reason to buy anything better.

3)Agreed.