Curse

irishlord · Jun 17, 2005, 05:59 PM // 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adraeus

Pfft, Alienware... I know many game developers who absolutely hate Alienware. If you want a powerful machine, go with a BOXX.

boxx only has AMD and those suck when placed next to intel

Slade xTekno · Jun 17, 2005, 06:07 PM // 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishlord

boxx only has AMD and those suck when placed next to intel

I disagree. I have had nothing but trouble with Intel and nothing but bliss from my Athlon64.

Building a computer is not as difficult as everyone says it is. Most good motherboards come with a instruction manual on how to put it together.
To be honest, it's one step up from Legos.

Kuku Monk · Jun 17, 2005, 06:09 PM // 18:09

I'll never buy another Intel again...ever

irishlord · Jun 17, 2005, 06:20 PM // 18:20

i like dell and alienware a lot they are good pc's alienware is expensive i admit but u can get some ok deals on them and also u can configure them to meet your needs i have 2 dells and they both run very nicely

irishlord · Jun 17, 2005, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuku Monk

I'll never buy another Intel again...ever

why? i think Intel is the best for any kind of computer you want i have never had trouble with them the AMD heat up too much

Adraeus · Jun 17, 2005, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishlord

why? i think Intel is the best for any kind of computer you want i have never had trouble with them the AMD heat up too much

AMD is less expensive and produces more powerful chips. For example, an AMD 3200+ is the equivalent or better of an Intel 3.2 Ghz. While AMD processors do run hot, you can buy cooling! AMD is not only the overclocker's choice but also a great choice for graphics workstations, like BOXX systems. Intel processors are the standard for business workstations because they're easier to install and easier to replace. IT technicians love anything that makes their work easier, and if they can simply say, "Send the CPU back and get it replaced", instead of, "Buy the appropriate cooling, apply cooling gel, screw with the BIOS...", they're in heaven. In other words, if IT technicians can do anything besides their job, they're happy.

Whether AMD or Intel is the better choice depends on your needs. There's no comparison because each serve different purposes. If you want power, go with AMD. If you want stability, go with Intel. If you want power and stability, go with AMD with cooling. If you want stability and power, well, you're out of luck with Intel because AMD processors destroy Intel processors in terms of speed versus cost.

trackxyj · Jun 17, 2005, 06:48 PM // 18:48

This is not EQ2, why would you guys need such a good computer?

GW runs smoothly on my xp2400+, 9800 pro and 1g pc3200 at maximum setting...

Luggage · Jun 17, 2005, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishlord

why? i think Intel is the best for any kind of computer you want i have never had trouble with them the AMD heat up too much

For the last year or two Intel have made way way hotter (as in heat, not "spiffy") chips than AMD.

Adraeus · Jun 17, 2005, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackxyj

This is not EQ2, why would you guys need such a good computer?

GW runs smoothly on my xp2400+, 9800 pro and 1g pc3200 at maximum setting...

1. Some of us do other activities aside from playing Guild Wars! haha

2. Guild Wars runs smoothly at maximum quality settings with an AMD Athlon 1 Ghz, 1 GB SDRAM, and ATI Radeon 8500. I can attest to that! Changing the quality settings has little or no effect on gameplay for me. The only difference I notice is that with one setting the graphics look good and with another setting the graphics look bad. I disabled post-processing because post-processing adds a "spirit" to all entities.

Darkest Dawn · Jun 17, 2005, 07:19 PM // 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Temken

Here's a detailed list of reasons why Dells, or any big name computers suck in general - problems you'll never see with custom builds:

1. Power supply - The power supply on these PCs are most often too small to run the PC itself, much less any upgrades you plan to add, causing the PC to crash shortly after startup.

2. Motherboard - the motherboard will be a cheap antique model that is simply incapable of running mid - high range cards, whether it be video, sound, modems, or even a simple memory upgrade. The slots are there but you cannot use them.

3. Graphic compatibility - The PC specs might say that the PC has "The latest graphic chipset" or whatever, and may even list it by mem size, whether it be 64, 128, or 256, but unless you are very specific about parts, then what you'll end up with is a integrated graphic card that came with the motherboard and cannot play any game under 5 years old.

4. PC case - The case that is often used for namebrand PCs is roughly the size of a cereal box, with the CD/DVD and floppy drives flipped vertically so that they'll fit. It will also be a heavy, heeeavy steel case, not one of the light aluminum/plexyglass cases that seem to be so popular now. The width of the case does not allow for upgrading or adding parts. Extra ram might fit, but a standard 56k modem or any random graphic or sound card will not. If you wish to use the PC with that case, then you have to shell out hundreds of dollars for abbreviated parts that cost 2-3x as much as the same part in its original size. The power supply is shaped to fit that case, and that case alone. If you wish to replace one or the other, then you're better off replacing both case and power supply.

5. The HD - Again, cheap parts are being used no matter what size the HD is. To be more specific, the RPMs of the HD will be so low that if you try to run memory intensive programs, they will not only load slow but they will also cause the PC to overheat from not being able to load fast enough.

6? I never used one of these POS PCs long enough to catch all of the adware that was included and I obviously didn't ask for. Since the HD was one of the many things getting replaced, I just installed the software myself later. Luckily for me, I only made the mistake of purchasing a name brand PC once.

Well put, and most oftenly true.

The power supply is often way too low on the +12 rail. The Mobo is dumbed down so you can't OC it as well. Many times it is way too hot inside due to undercooling. And finally, the software in integrated and you only get restore CD's so if you want to do a clean install on a fresh HDD you're outta luck unless you want all the junk put back on.

That said, if one is not at least somewhat tech saavy, then a prebuilt system is going to be the way to go. However, I would hope that this catagory would at least learn a few basic things regarding a PC so they don't get taken for a ride!

clairvoyance · Jun 17, 2005, 07:21 PM // 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adraeus

AMD is less expensive and produces more powerful chips. For example, an AMD 3200+ is the equivalent or better of an Intel 3.2 Ghz. While AMD processors do run hot, you can buy cooling! AMD is not only the overclocker's choice but also a great choice for graphics workstations, like BOXX systems. Intel processors are the standard for business workstations because they're easier to install and easier to replace. IT technicians love anything that makes their work easier, and if they can simply say, "Send the CPU back and get it replaced", instead of, "Buy the appropriate cooling, apply cooling gel, screw with the BIOS...", they're in heaven. In other words, if IT technicians can do anything besides their job, they're happy.

Whether AMD or Intel is the better choice depends on your needs. There's no comparison because each serve different purposes. If you want power, go with AMD. If you want stability, go with Intel. If you want power and stability, go with AMD with cooling. If you want stability and power, well, you're out of luck with Intel because AMD processors destroy Intel processors in terms of speed versus cost.

What...the...hell? An AMD 3200+ is NOT equal to a Intel 3.2 Ghz. In fact, their clock speeds are almost a whole gigahertz off, and the 3.2 Ghz now is standard with hyperthreading and a 2 mb cache. An AMD 64 in my opinion would be better than an Intel though.

Cooling gel? WTF? There's no such thing as cooling gel >.< (You probably mean thermal paste =D)

AMD, non 64, cost less than Intel, though they have a generally lower processor speed. The 64 ones are much better, and the WIndows 64 edition helps too =)

Finally, power = AMD and stability = Intel is way off. While Intel is relatively a bit more stable than AMD, where the hell did you get AMD is more powerful than Intel? Are you telling me an Athlon XP is better than an Intel 3.4 HyperThreading, 2 MB cache?

Kuku Monk · Jun 17, 2005, 07:23 PM // 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishlord

why? i think Intel is the best for any kind of computer you want i have never had trouble with them the AMD heat up too much

Price, speed, and AMD gave me a free t-shirt

Shin Lail · Jun 17, 2005, 07:24 PM // 19:24

I build all my desktops so much cheaper and you get better parts. But for my laptop I got an Alienware Area 51. At the time it was the same price as the dell laptop and had better parts. Not only that it uses destop processor and is easy to upgrade. I did not buy the best alienware because I will just upgrade it myself. Great for gaming when I was in college.

If your getting a desktop build it yourself!

Laptops on the other hand is up to you.

Morat · Jun 17, 2005, 07:28 PM // 19:28

lol @ AMD vs Intel FUD.

Intel have screwed up majorly with Prescott P4 and are likely to have to use the Pentium M line for the future. Prescott has high Clock but runs horribly hot and doesn't outperform lower clocked AMDs by any signicant margin. 64 bit is irrelevant for gaming until game devs start optimising their code for it. Great for linux tho.

Here's an article contrasting P4, P4M http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...entium-m.ars/1

Morat

Darkest Dawn · Jun 17, 2005, 07:35 PM // 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luggage

For the last year or two Intel have made way way hotter (as in heat, not "spiffy") chips than AMD.

Not only that, but in gaming, the AMD 64 bit cpu's have been in the lead. See the link below:

HERE

HERE

Intel is better in a lot of different areas, but gaming goes to AMD at this moment. I like both processors, and own one of each. For multitasking I go for Intel, but gaming to AMD.

**edit** AMD processors execute more instructions per cycle so they run slower and cooler, but get the job done like the much faster speeded Intel CPU's. So don't think speed=performance. This used to be true until AMD came out with the A64 processors.

irishlord · Jun 17, 2005, 07:47 PM // 19:47

its funny that this was just started with a screenshot on a dell pc's screen

Talesin Darkbriar · Jun 17, 2005, 08:21 PM // 20:21

Curses!
Well, I'm a bit peeved at rapidly losing the popularity contest...

A few shots across the bow, courtesy o' Capt. Tal!

Myth #1: Building your own PC saves time and money.
This was completely correct in 1995; My first dozen PCs were all handbuilt monstrosities running hardware and software unheard of at the time.
This is now (in 2005) patently false.
Inconceivable you say?
No; lets take apples and oranges:
As some have claimed, "They can go out and spend a grand total of $500 on system components and put together a "complete system", and then load up the software":

a.) A $500 system performs like a $500 system. In my first response I was referring to a "performance system" for high end graphics - not an EMachine that is barely capable of accessing email. It ain't the same animal folks.

b.) And you load it up with what pirated copy of O/S?
I wasn't aware Microsoft was giving out copies of Windows XP in cereal boxes these days. The O/S alone will run you $300 - unless you are going to put Windows 3.11 on it? maybe Linux will run GW? Uh. Don't think so. Yet.

c.) And if your hardware fails because your motherboard is made from cardboard and your mozarella cheese intergrated video chip shorts out...you will call Taiwan for support and service?
There is a reason why certain components are called "Industry Standard."
I invite the $500 crowd to discover why.

Myth #2: Developers HATE brand X...
Years ago when some of you were still single digit age,

Computer Manufacturers made all their components in house.
Apple did everything including the O/S.

Open up any computer box now - even a new Mac.
Gadzooks! What are all these name brands inside here?
Even the "EMachine gigaflops computer" uses components from all over.

A "quality" system uses industry spec components. Your Dell shares some of the same common components as my Alienware system.
Designers design for industry standard - not Daiyoung's backalley hard-drives.

Myth #3: Brand X is BETTER than Brand Y!
Only this week.
Computers (and their components) go obsolete faster than you can change your socks. That brand new Dell system you just bought today will be tomorrows over the hill system. Literally.
Industry standards dictate any current PC is typically obsolete within 18 months. (Check ZDNet if you wish to debate.) When you get ready to buy, read reviews; Tom's Hardware is a great one for you chip heads. Then look for systems that offer the components rated as superior this week.

I love to argue the merits of graphics cards - thats where the eye candy comes in. I'm a personal fan of all things ATI, even though I have used NVidia cards from time to time. (MY Nvidia's always overheated and melted down..)
It doesn't mean ATI is better (Although they may be today) It means I've had better luck and more stable performance with their products.

Which brings me to the most important point:

Unless you are a professional in the computer hardware field, you don't want the latest and greatest components anyway; there's a solid reason why that is referred to as the "Bleeding edge" and it's not a compliment.
You want stability.
Dells are fine systems, as are the other brands mentioned here. The trick is to find the brand and components that best suit what it is YOU want to do.

Don't deceive yourself and by a nice business system if all you will do is play games on it! Bite the bullet and pay the extra $100+ for a true gaming system - you'll never regret your decision.

Last shot for the "I only make my own PC's crowd":
Do you want to spend all your waking hours building your PCs - and constantly repairig them (yeah yeah tell me all about your 20 years of stability and no patches...jeez) or actually using the thing for its intended purpose?

There is absolutely nothing wrong if you are a shade-tree mechanic that enjoys puddling on your PC hardware 24/7; but I am addressing everyone else who actually wants to play Guild Wars - not repair and modify their PCs all day long.

Avast thar matey!
Cap'n Tal

BrandonIT · Jun 17, 2005, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Avast thar yourself, matey. Allow me to expound on some of your points, sir, as you are in danger of exaggerating yourself to falsehood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

Myth #1: Building your own PC saves time and money.
a.) A $500 system performs like a $500 system. In my first response I was referring to a "performance system" for high end graphics - not an EMachine that is barely capable of accessing email. It ain't the same animal folks.

My dear sir, allow me to quoteth from the Fry's Electronics ad of today.

Today's (6/17/05) Dallas/Ft. Worth Fry's Ad: (and if you want to quote out a Dell, AlienWare, whatever system using whatever special offers you want, go ahead. Let's compare. But I want a verifiable quote.)

AMD64 3200+ Processor & Motherboard - $169
(PCI Express, DDR400, SATA, 6 Channel sound)
1 GB PC3200 Memory - $79.99
160GB Seagate SATA Hard Drive (8MB Cache) - $69.99
Emprex 16x Dual-Layer DVD+/-RW burner - $49.99
RAIDMAX Scorpio Full Tower 500W Aluminum Case - $99.99
VisionTek ATI x700 16xPCIE 256MB Video Card - $129.99
Windows XP Home Edition OEM - $99.99

Total cost of system: 698.94 + 8% Sales Tax = 754.85

Please find me a Dell or Alienware for that price that comes close to the specs above. And I didn't even quote from PriceWatch or other online price-grabber. This is a retail newspaper flyer that is currently sitting on my desk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

b.) And you load it up with what pirated copy of O/S?
I wasn't aware Microsoft was giving out copies of Windows XP in cereal boxes these days. The O/S alone will run you $300 - unless you are going to put Windows 3.11 on it? maybe Linux will run GW? Uh. Don't think so. Yet.

$99.99 for Windows XP Home OEM. And it's bullet-proof legitimate if you're buying a motherboard for a new system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

Last shot for the "I only make my own PC's crowd":
Do you want to spend all your waking hours building your PCs - and constantly repairig them (yeah yeah tell me all about your 20 years of stability and no patches...jeez) or actually using the thing for its intended purpose?

I have two home-built systems and a home-built server that runs 24/7. I reboot the server once a week via Scheduled Tasks. That's the limit of my "repairing" them.

I use my computer every single day, and my wife uses hers almost 10-14 hours a day.

Except for two fried power supplies because I went with cheap $25 cases and my house is not grounded, I've not had a problem once I loaded the OS, drivers, and apps.

And I work with nothing BUT Dells at my company, and have for 5 years, so I can tell you about Dell "reliability". (Ask me about Dell's GX270's and shipping faulty motherboards with exploding 'caps' to over 1,000 systems.) The only good thing about Dell, is that when your hard drive or motherboard goes bad (and it will), they'll send someone out to fix it.

Yes, I agree that building your own PC is not the way to go for everyone. But please don't tell me that what I can put together for $500 is still comparable to Dell/AlienWare/whatever.

Thank you, drive through.

Shin Lail · Jun 17, 2005, 09:07 PM // 21:07

Well said Brandon.

I have 3 home built computers myself. For some reason the "captain" thinks that our home built computers are crashing and or on fire around the clock. I have a computer that now my Fiance uses that I built over 5 years ago and it still works just as good as the first day I built it. My gaming rig cost me a fraction of the cost that a comparable dell would cost. Not to mention I was able to pick my power supply and motherboard.

As for OS oem is a great way to save money but, I already have a copy from my other computers so I do not need to pay for 3 copies of xp pro when I already have it likewise with other software. Dells are great machines for what they are but a gaming rig is always better built by hand.

Santosh · Jun 17, 2005, 09:20 PM // 21:20

CyberPower Systems rock. Customizable to your desired specifications. The best bang for your buck. Hands down.

I've played all kinds of games (EverQrack, Rome:Total War online, and now GW) with the system I bought over a year ago. P4 3gig, 1gig ram, 800mhz motherboard w/ hyperthread, dvd/cd burner, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 256mg, 80gig hd. All for $1239 (which includes tax and shipping already). I don't get lag unless it's server side and that's with close to full graphics on. I don't turn it up all the way because the graphics hurts my eyes.