[dungeonguard]

Hi All,

Right now I am in a dilemma where my everyday desktop computer is being used for games, Microsoft Office, e-mail, web browsing, etc. Now, that's just fine and dandy with me, but the problem is that everybody in the family would be trying to use it at the same time with fights.

Alright, anyways, since I am the tech guy in my household, I am going to purchase a new computer just for gaming, nothing special, just something that would be reasonably fast for The Sims 2, Age of Empires, etc. Also, it will be in my rec-room so it wouldn't have internet access, nor do I want it to. Just for games, nothing else.

So, is this good for it? I don't want to spend anything more than that.

Thanks,
Simon

[etaf]

graphics is very important in gaming and the spec says its partial shared - I would have thought you would need a dedicated graphics of 256MB or more - but I will let the gaming experts answer that question

have you thought of building yourself - $850 is a lot of money in the US for a machine

[dungeonguard]

See though, I would like to upgrade the graphics, probably get a different computer than that one, but that's just a rough idea.

And no, I would not build a computer.

[brite750]

do not buy a pc without a decrete video card for gaming period.
make sure any pc you buy at least has a pcie16x slot available and a good quailty psu 450 -500 watt minimum.
I would not buy a HP or a Dell or any other bic lighter type computer, build it yourself.

[Jones]

If you want a simple out-of-the-box solution, check out this computer:
http://www.dell.com/content/products...=19&l=en&s=dhs

It's got everything you'd need to play most modern games, without blowing a ton of cash. One word of advice though, do not get Vista. As far as games go, there have been multiple problems with VIsta not running games properly. I'd stick with XP for your gaming machine, at least for a while.

Keep in mind though, if you do build the computer yourself, you can get a way better machine for a much better price. It's something to consider, and if you're mechanically/technically inclined, it's really not that hard to do.

[brite750]

if you go with Dell you probably dont have a choice, they'll try to cram Vista down your throat, or some other opening, if you have a chioce stay with XP as was said, Vista actually slows most things down, it is an incredible resource hog

[dungeonguard]

Well, see, I've had many good experiences with both HP and Compaq and I'd like to stick with them. Can someone link me to a computer with an upgraded video card? Thanks!

[etaf]

HP and Compaq are the same company now

[dungeonguard]

I know that, I just love that company though!

[crjdriver]

If you are dead set against building your own system, I would consider going to a local shop and having them build you one. You are much better off with a custom build than a big box pre-built system. The reason is the big box system is not really upgradable. You can add a hd and maybe a video card or some ram. That is about it. When you want a faster computer you throw it away and buy a new one. With a custom build you buy a new motherboard, cpu, and ram. Install them and you have a new faster machine.

BTW I play games on vista and have had 0 problems. IMO vista is a much better os than xp ever was.

[dungeonguard]

Maybe I will consider that. Remember though, I am on a pretty tight budget and $900 is all I can spend right now. Thank!

[brite750]

Originally Posted by crjdriver

If you are dead set against building your own system, I would consider going to a local shop and having them build you one. You are much better off with a custom build than a big box pre-built system. The reason is the big box system is not really upgradable. You can add a hd and maybe a video card or some ram. That is about it. When you want a faster computer you throw it away and buy a new one. With a custom build you buy a new motherboard, cpu, and ram. Install them and you have a new faster machine.

BTW I play games on vista and have had 0 problems. IMO vista is a much better os than xp ever was.

some of the pc mag reviews have had a hard time saying nice things about Vista so far, the tests they have run showed general performance to be slower than XP on main stream setup, however you know how it is with a new OS, vendors have to catch up and optimize for it. Of course the other thing is you have a great system with 2gigs of ram, good gfx card, etc., that certainly doesnt hurt.

[crjdriver]

True vista is made for a high end system. Driver support was a little weak during the beta period however with the release of vista to the general public, driver support is improving.

I am going to check to see what kind of fps I get in UT2004 under vista. I used to get around 90-110 using win2k. I will post back in a few with the results.

[crjdriver]

Just checked and it was running between about 85fps and 140fps depending on how much action was on the screen. That is about what I got under win2k with all of the same hardware.

Settings were 1024X768 with all settings on highest or max.

[brite750]

if its about the same then I have to think with a decent system performance shouldnt suffer. These reveiws just came out recently in hard cover magazins, PC World I think, I'll have to see if I can dig it up in my pile here. Admiitedly I would rather see something from Toms HW and they did say that drivers and software may need to be tweaked some in the near future to make it a really fair test. I have to think that if 2000 was competitive with Vista that the OS plays only a marginal role in gaming performance anyway.