Uh oh.. HL2 on the horizon, time for a new PC :\

[nath]

And I don't have much cash that I'm willing to spend..

As it stands, for a new PC I'd need:

Mobo
CPU
Memory
HDD (WD 8mb Caviar oo baby)
Graphics (I'm thinking 9700 perhaps?)

Everything else I'll yank out of my old pc.

I'd want something vaguely futureproof, something that'll keep me happy for a while. I totalled up a P4 2.8c, some random mobo, radeon 9700pro, 512mbs of ram and a WD 120gb drive. Came to just shy of 700 (on Overclockers).

Seems like an awful lot.. Am I looking in the wrong place? Please tell me it won't be that expensive when I come to buy it :/ (a few days before Half Life 2 is released)

 

[TheJkWhoSaysNi]

I've been looking at getting a new PC too, I totaled up this system:

XP2800+
Abit NF7 (nForce 2) Mobo
1gb PC2700 DDR
120gb IBM HDD
Radeon 9700 Pro
19" Proview monitor (Probably chaning this, if i can afford a better brand)

This came to just over £750 with everything else (Keyboard/mouse/speakers etc).

i was getting the stuff from www.autdirect.co.uk (Used them before, Seem pretty good although they dont have a huge selection of stuff, what they do have is quite cheap) and dabs.com

 

[Jonty]

Hi nath

Just a flying visit Intel kit is a cool, and if I had the choice that's what I'd go for. Sadly it is a lot more expensive than AMD's products. The choice, of course, is up to you, but if you want to save a few pounds you may want to consider switching.

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

I did on my current pc. Went for an Athlon 1gig. I had problems setting it up initially but after that it's been ok, the processor is ok in general. Problem is, everytime it boots up and says "processor: AMD Athlon blahblah" I feel like an utter utter skiv. I want that slinky P4 feeling

I'm not so bothered about paying a bit more for it, but going to an AMD would only save me about 50 quid, £650 still seems a lot :|

Is that just tough tits, or am I looking in the wrong places?

 

[(Shovel)]

I'll post in the morning, I totalled up two competing hihg spec systems (AMD and Intel) a few weeks ago which might help. I'll just need to get the file from upstairs (bah, Dad won't saw through floorboards til the weekend to get the network down..).

 

[-Ultimate]

Think is it really worth paying around £230 for a p4 2.8 when you can get a 2.6 for around 170 and even a 2.4 for 140. Just think its costing around £50 for 0.2 of a ghz in the case of the 2.6 and 2.8! Also there easy to o/c, i myself have a 2.4 thats o/c'd to 2.7 without any extra cooling or anything like that.

 

[nath]

I was thinking that, but a mate at work said he had seen benchmarks that suggested a strangely large difference between the 2.6 and the 2.8.

I'll be getting this around september time, so prices will have dropped a bit by then, hopefully.

 

[(Shovel)]

OK, the prices on here are horridly out of date, they don't take into account some of the recent price cuts, but maybe it will be of some help. I hope so

http://benward.studentssocial.co.uk/download/comps.htm

 

[nath]

Interesting. So really not a big price difference after all.

You could say that the barton 2800 runs faster than the 2.8 p4, but I hear some good things about hyperthreading.

That and the fact that the AMD runs much much hotter. If you overclocked a P4 so that it was running as hot as an AMD, I'm pretty damn sure it'd be a lot faster. Surely that's something that should be taken in to consideration when comparing the two chips?

 

[Jonty]

Hi nath

As you rightly say, serious overclockers buy Intel time and time again. However, since most people don't overclock their chips, many reviews don't really give the P4's overclocking prowess all that much weight.

With regards hyperthreading, yes, it can yield significant performance increases, up to around 20% in some instances. It should be noted that it can cause some problems, but on the whole hyperthreading is an impressive technology, and it's good to see Intel introducing it lower down in their range.

Just one thing, though, if you're waiting until September you may want to consider what the market will be like then. AMD's Athlon64 chips will be ready by then, and Intel's 64bit CPUs won't be far behind. Even if you don't want to choose this brand new technology, you may be able to pick up a relative bargain as today's 32bit CPUs begin to drop in price.

Kind Regards

 

[(Shovel)]

I'm not if that P42800 has Hyperthreading or not, but given the price drops in everything else, I'm sure it works out ok. And yes, for about £100 difference, it's not bad at all.

Obviously with the P4 you do get 800Mhz equiv. Bus, whereas the AMD is only 333 - though there's the 3200 for a lot of money(TM) at 400.

 

[nath]

Jonty, yeah I guess they'd just review it out of the box. I do kind of feel that given that heat is such a major factor in cpu usage, they should dedicate something to that. To truely compare the cpus, like for like, they should be at precisely the same heat.. doncha think?

In that respect, intel chips are much better. Strikes me that AMD processors are just old and overclocked to buggery, so they seem fast. I'd love to see a benchmark where they either overclock a P4 to the same temp as an AMD or underclock an AMD to the temp of a p4, see who comes out on top then.

 

[Jonty]

Well, whilst it's not all about temperatures, it's true that the P4 can be overclocked to kingdom come with the right kit ([H]ard|OCP are hovering around 4.4Ghz with a 3.06Ghz Pentium4 C). The beauty of AMD's range is that at the lower end, their chips are fantastic value for money (2500+ Barton for £71). Sadly as you progress up their range, AMD's pricing curve becomes a pricing cliff, and it becomes really hard, as (Shovel) points out, to justify spending A Lot of Money™ on a chip that, for but a little more, is generally surpassed by, in this case, an Intel alternative.

I'll try and dig out some reviews which take into account overclocking potential. Sadly everyone has their favourites, so finding generally objective reviews and comments can be a little hard, but I'll try and dig something up

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

My point wasn't so much the overclocking potential, but the fact that the chip itself is obviously better designed, and more robust. It can handle going at the speed it has been set to, more so than the AMD's can, as they run so much more hot.

Surely if you buy an intel chip that is the same price as an AMD, and run the two at the same temperature, the intel will win? So couldn't you just decide what you want to spend, buy an intel chip for that much and overclock it to run at the heat of an amd equal priced chip, it'll run better won't it?

Sure, not everyone is comfortable overclocking, and no one is gunna underclock an AMD.. but it strikes me that AMD chips just pre overclock them for you, intel do not.

 

[Jonty]

Well, I can't really agree. Whilst AMDs chips may be beginning to reach their architectural limits, just because they run hotter doesn't make them a bad chip. Sure, you may not be able to overclock them without specialist equipment, but they can be overclocked. And just because they have a higher average temperature in comparison to a P4 isn't a bad thing. AMD's chips are known to run very stably indeed, it just happens that they have a higher operating temperature. Anyway, it matters not Both AMD's and Intel's kit have points of merit, and whilst like for like comparisons may be hard, you wouldn't be disappointed with either.

Kind Regards

 

[adams901]

With a Bios update my Motherboard will support the amd 3000+ 333FSB, which is currently priced at £198.

I'm hoping that it will drop in price between now and the HL2 release date.

 

[Jonty]

Originally posted by adams901
With a Bios update my Motherboard will support the amd 3000+ 333FSB, which is currently priced at £198. I'm hoping that it will drop in rpice between now and the HL2 release date.

I would imagine that chip will drop in price betwen now and Half-Life 2, should you still want to upgrade then. By exactly how much it will drop is hard to say, but it should be fairly significant as newer and faster technology comes up.

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

Aye but what I was saying, Jonty, was that shouldn't heat be a fairly major factor when comparing chips?

I know amd just runs hotter, and it's not a problem, but given that when you push a chip to get more out of it, it gets hotter.. shouldn't the fact that an intel gets a certain amount of speed out of it at a much lower temperature go strongly in their favour?

I.e, what if intel started releasing the same chips but engineered them so they ran that much hotter, resulting in that much faster chips. Wouldn't that even the playing field, and thus intel chips be considered much faster?

I'm not going on about how lame AMD chips are for running that hot, but I can't help but think that they are gunna be faster *because* they're running that hot, and if intel decided to run their chips that hot too, they'd run even faster..


edit: by the by, I don't suppose it'll be possible to get a motherboard that supports 64bit processors aswell as 32bit, so when I buy I know I'll be able to upgrade when the prices become reasonable..

 

[Jonty]

Okay, fair enough, I see where you're coming from BTW - What kind of RAM did you use in the above spec.? Fancy Corsair kit or just stand TwinMOS or Crucial?

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

I used corsair.

Didn't crucial be the best make evar™?

It was reasonable corsair stuff though, Corsair 512MB DDR XMS2700 Platinum CAS2 (MY-005-CS), so not the best.

 

[Jonty]

Crucial still makes great RAM, but compared to the likes of Corsair it's going to suffer. I was just wondering where you could reduce the cost slightly, but if you're happy with that RAM then stick with it

Having checked OcUK, their prices seem about right in general, although the Radeon 9700 cards are quite expensive, so perhaps you could save a bit by going elsewhere for that (or you may wish to choose a different card come September).

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

Já :/

Well if you remember, I was all set to get a 9500pro, just to keep me going with my amd 1gig. Of course, since half-life 2 got announced, I now need a beefy p.c. The 9800pro/5900gf seems a bit excessive, so I thought 9700pro would be the best. Shouldn't it be a bit cheaper by the time I'm ready to buy?

Edit: I kinda don't mind spending that much money, as long as it keeps me happy for quite a while. I'm petrified that I'll get it, and a few months later games will start running pretty lame like.

 

[Jonty]

Hello again

Well, you're right that prices will always fall as time progresses, so the 9700 Pro should be fairly cheap by the time Half-Life 2 comes out. For what it's worth, I agree that the 9800 Pro, and the 5900 Ultra to an even greater extent, are probably out of most people's reach (but that's their target audience, so I guess we can't quibble).

With regards Half-Life 2, you won't need an absolutely amazing PC to get it looking nice. A P4 2Ghz / GeForce4-based system is the target Valve are aiming for, which will allow people to experience the game in a manner which does it justice. Sure, if you go beyond that you're going to be to turn everything 'on and up', but Valve still recommends that target specification.

That said, the greater the PC you get, the more futureproof it's likely to become. Doom 3's specs are as yet known, but at last year's E3 show the footage shown was running on a 9700 Pro with medium (yes, medium!) detail settings, and it still looked pretty amazing. Perhaps more than HL2, though, Doom 3 will really cater for those with the very best PCs. John Carmack himself has said that people should forget about trying to run Doom 3 at 1600x1200 with everything turned on and up.

Anyway, I digress In short, you won't need an almightily powerful PC to play the likes of Half-Life 2, Deus Ex 2 and Doom 3, but having one won't hurt. The hard choice for anyone buying a PC this Autumn or Winter is the emergence of several new technologies, namely 64bit CPUs and the PCI Express graphics bus. Both of these look set to become the standard in terms of computing in the future, but in doing so will leave 32bit CPUs and AGP graphics somewhat outmoded. Don't get me wrong, the changes will be gradual, the initial prices will be prohibitively high, and the older standards will still be around for a long time to come. But nevertheless, any kit bought around the time of Half-Life 2 will soon be surpassed by a genuine next generation of products. But isn't that always the case? I guess we all have to take the plunge sometime and just enjoy it whilst we can; and the above spec. should make you happy for a fairly long time yet

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

I hate buying pc's :/

To be honest, although Doom 3 has a more polished look, I have to say that imo Half Life 2 looks better (visually aswell as gameplay wise). Though Doom 3 obviously as an amazing gloss to it, hl2's physics engine really gives an immense sense of immersion (this is just from that 600mb e3 vid floating about) and I think when you're sitting at the helm it'll be quite amazing.

Really looking forward to it

 

[Jonty]

I completely agree with you, Half-Life 2 looks and, daft as it sounds, 'feels' amazing from the footage I've been lucky enough to see Don't get me wrong, I was, and still am, blown away by Doom 3, and it's physics system should easily rival Half-Life 2's, in theory at least, but if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to choose, right now I'd go for Half-Life 2 hehe.

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

I haven't heard much about Doom 3's physics to rival HL2's. Infact, at the moment, all I know about Doom 3's physics is "oo pretty shadows!". Well, they are pretty.. but HL2 looks like it'll have much more depth.

 

[mank!]

What sort of spec will HL2 need?

i.e. will my P4 2ghz @ 2.26ghz / 512mb ram / gf4 ti4200 run it?

 

[Jonty]

Well, shadows don't really come into it, but as far as I know, both id and Valve started out with the third-party Havoc physics system, so in theory both will have a highly realistic game world in that respect. I recall Tim Willets laughing at an event which occured at random whilst playing, whereby he was being followed down a corridor by a zombie. He hid around a corner and watched the zombie's shadow on the floor edge ever closer. He then flew around the corner, unloaded his shotgun into the zombie, causing it to fly backwards, through a plate glass window (which shattered realistically) and then tumble down a flight of stairs behind the window. All unscripted, like Half-Life 2, but a nice example of the physics bringing the world to life in both games. So whilst we may both prefer HL2, we shouldn't dismiss Doom 3 just yet, especially considering whose developing it

Kind Regards

 

[Jonty]

Originally posted by mank!
What sort of spec will HL2 need?i.e . will my P4 2ghz @ 2.26ghz / 512mb ram / gf4 ti4200 run it?

Hi mank!

Give or take, that's almost Valve's exact target specifications for the game Here's a little excerpt from Halflife2.net

Q: What kind of PC specifications will I need to run HL2?

A: You need at least a Pentium 700Mhz and a DX6-class video card. Ideally we recommend a Pentium 2Ghz and Geforce 4 for the best visuals.

Kind Regards

 

[mank!]

lol, nice. I won't need to upgrade and hamper my laptop buying skillz