ASUS vs Alienware?

[SeanMcFly]

Anybody have an ASUS or an Alienware and would be willing to shed some feedback on it? My laptop's on it's last legs and I'm shopping for a new one.

 

So far I'm leaning towards the ASUS G73SW, but an Alienware has always been mentioned (To me at least) as the best gaming laptop there is.

[djthefunkchris]

I have the PC Asus, and I love it. Liked it so much I bought one for my son, my brother, my dad, my mother and sent one to my brother in Virginia.

 

I have the desktop though, so I don't know how the laptop is.... however I do know one thing.

 

I at first hated it, I can't remember the name of the virus software that was installed on it, but it caused my computer to run worse then my oldest computer.... very slow. After taking of the pre-installed virus software and using my favorite's again, the computer has been noticeably faster then anything I've had a chance to use.

 

Far as gaming, I've played around in Vanguard with it, and was able to walk around with full settings.... Meaning, Vanguard (although I think has improved since) was one of the most intense games out, far as using shadows and all the goodies I ussually turn off in any MMO, but I could walk around with minimal lag in Vanguard.

 

In EQ I could walk around with no lag with all setting as high as they would go (talking about Graphics settings). I've actually three boxed in that game, and my son before I bought his, used to five box on this one.... Normally don't play with full settings (shadows mainly) because it will lag with that many instances going at once.

 

Straight out of the box, after turning off the pre-installed virus software, this thing is a monster. I don't think I could have made a computer from scratch as good as this one, for the cost.

[jbergey_2005]

Ive heard Alienware is great but isnt it 5k to purchase?

 

Perhaps I was just looking at the top one I remember eyeing up an Alienware last year for 5k, and decided it was too spendy.

[SeanMcFly]

Ive heard Alienware is great but isnt it 5k to purchase?

 

Perhaps I was just looking at the top one I remember eyeing up an Alienware last year for 5k, and decided it was too spendy.

 

Alienware's that I was looking at were 1,499. Asus I haven't seen yet, but I'm heading down to the tech store here to check if he has a listed price to order one in.

[mjdgoldeneye]

From what I understand, Alienware is way up there in quality. Alienware makes primary gaming computers, though. If that's what you're after, I couldn't say there was a better choice (aside from building a computer yourself, but with laptops that's difficult).

 

If you don't need a powerful graphics card, you can probably go cheaper.

 

Asus is a pretty good general purpose brand.

 

I now know a lot about PC's after having gone through building a researching my own, but laptops I'm unsure about.

 

Remi should be here any minute with some advice.

[Imarevenant]

newegg

[Remianen]

So far I'm leaning towards the ASUS G73SW, but an Alienware has always been mentioned (To me at least) as the best gaming laptop there is.

 

The bolded part is patently false. It's typically uttered by people who are slaves to marketing and hype and who don't know much of anything about computers. I've made about a hundred grand selling people rigs (desktops) that meet or exceed the specs for the Area 51 or the derivative Dell XPS, for one third the price (you heard me, 1/3). If you're willing to shell out 5-8 grand for a laptop, give it to me. A 40% profit margin is always welcome in my household. I don't do laptops generally (for the reason mjd gave) but I know folks who do and for a cut, they'd do me a solid.

 

I would suggest you take a look at some of the "boutique" PC builders (Falcon Northwest, Voodoo PC, Cyberpower, Ibuypower, etc) and price out a laptop that suits you. Then, go to Alienware's site and price out the exact same specs and compare the prices. Now you'll see why Dell was so hot to buy them, years ago. Mind you, I'm not saying Alienware is bad. They're just ridiculously expensive and it's unnecessary. If you check some of the gaming websites, you'll see ads for lots of smaller companies who make custom PCs and laptops and almost all of them will be less expensive than Alienware for the same computer.

 

If I had a choice between the two options you gave, I'd go with ASUS since it's bound to be less expensive. I have a real problem with overpaying for stuff when I have (multiple) alternatives.

[mjdgoldeneye]

Yea, premade stuff tends to be scaled exceedingly high in price for what you get.

 

My tower and everything in it (not counting the monitor, keyboard, speakers, new copy of Windows 7, and so on that I already had) cost about $675 and it runs anything that I've tried at max settings. Quad-core 2.9GHz processor, 4GB of RAM (add $50 that I spent to bring it to 8GB), and ATI Radeon HD 5770 graphics card (along with motherboard, power supply, various drives, and so on).

 

My HDD is just a 640GB 3.0GB/s drive (6.0GB/s is generally the good-but-still-reasonable standard), but it's still damn fast and 640GB is plenty of room for me.

 

If you got all that in a premade it'd surely cost over a grand (and have all sorts of obsolete or troublesome tech to make upgrading difficult).

[Remianen]

If you got all that in a premade it'd surely cost over a grand (and have all sorts of obsolete or troublesome tech to make upgrading difficult).

 

And don't even mention the trialware your hard drive would be packed with. Boot it up, launch your browser (IE, natch!) and see four toolbars auto-hooked to the damn thing.

[mistaken]

sorry to say but since Alienware got bought out by dell, they have become part of the corporate machine.

 

I know this doesn't help you differentiate, but when you think Alienware think Dell.

 

 

Don't say do I want Asus one of the tops parts manufacters in the world or a custom built Alienware from guys that know how to tweak the crap out of stuff.

 

 

Think do I want some rocking parts put together by a guy who's paid to only construct at pc from ASUS products or a guy who's paid to watch the bottom line and put the pc together from which ever quality vendor will give him a good price.

 

want custom built, go to one of the true custom build shops.

[liontamer]

I've been shopping for a computer myself for a few years and recently got a laptop and am half way towards building a desktop.

 

I don't know a ton about either company, but I do know that when a relative who works in computing first showed me alienware 2-3 yrs ago their computers rocked and dwarfed anything the other companies had out there (although you paid a ton more to get it as well). Since then I'm not sure they've even changed the specs or the price and you can buy cheaper computers with better parts elsewhere.

 

as others said, you can build better cheaper as well, which is the route I'm going. From the bit of reading I've done over the last several months, I'd say first decide your goal. Is it top notch performance (in which case you may need to spen a lot, last I looked the top notch CPU alone was >$1000), good performance on a budget, having an upgradeable machine with a long shelf life, or just a budget computer? Once you figure that out pick the motherboard that best suits you and go from there assembling parts. If you can afford to spread it out over weks or months, wait for sales and rebates and save a lot of money.

 

for my laptop I ended up going with the HP tm2t because some other computers (lenovo U1 hybrid) were delayed over a year (and I'm still not sure if it's come out) and I wanted a portable computer, with a tablet feature that could handle business and be ok for games. I was also in a rush because my old desktop and PC died within a short span of each other. I got it on a good deal around black friday with an employee discount, but think I made a mistake in not shelling out a little extra on the top notch CPU because it can't handle graphics from games 2 yrs old, which has been an issue since building my desktop has drawn out so long. That said, TEW runs fine, and I'll probably be getting an XBox soon so my gaming needs should be met anyway, not that I have that much time to play them.

 

Also, I saved on a monitor by simply setting up my getting a good TV and putting it in a place I can use it as a TV or a monitor, so right now it's both. Unfortunately though I can't figure out how to split the screen to get both at once. That said, playing TEW on a 46 inch has a unique feel to it.

[Bigpapa42]

This thread brought up a question and I figure its just as it easy to put it here as anywhere else.... I've long been thinking about building a decent gaming system ever since my desktop died. I'm no computer expert but its just always something I've wanted to do. Is building one a bad idea for someone who isn't exactly a full-blown computer tech expert?

 

Also, what are some good sites to check out? For info, tips, and even buying parts? Thanks!

[mjdgoldeneye]

This thread brought up a question and I figure its just as it easy to put it here as anywhere else.... I've long been thinking about building a decent gaming system ever since my desktop died. I'm no computer expert but its just always something I've wanted to do. Is building one a bad idea for someone who isn't exactly a full-blown computer tech expert?

 

Also, what are some good sites to check out? For info, tips, and even buying parts? Thanks!

 

Well, I started a thread asking for computer advice and the conclusion I made was that buying your own parts and assembling it yourself is the most economical and satisfying option.

 

So, I did. And it was.

 

I might just be insanely lucky, but I (with pretty much no hardware experience) was able to purchase and assemble an entire computer on the first try without so much as forgetting to plug in an LED. I was flawless and I was totally shocked. I knew what the components of a computer were and how they interacted, but I didn't know much about how everything was physically connected within the machine. I will say that it does take a few hours of following directions and reading manuals to make sure you're doing things right, but it's worth it and most people can handle it.

 

If you need help, the people here can certainly try. I took Remi's advice and aimed for around $700 and managed to do what I wanted for a little cheaper (a bunch of the parts I bought went on sale right when I was ready to buy them).

 

That didn't include an operating system (Windows 7 Home Premium cost me $30 because I'm a student), a monitor (mine cost $179 a few years ago... However, it's a Dell monitor I got from Staples several years ago, so that isn't a reliable benchmark), or any peripherals (mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc.).

 

Your primary check list for building a computer is as follows:

• Motherboard
  
• Processor
  
• RAM
  
• Hard Drive
  
• Graphics Card
  
• Power Supply
  
• Optical Drive (DVD or Blu-ray)
  
• A Tower to Hold Everything
  

 

I bought every piece of my machine from Newegg.com. They're your best bet.

 

Here's what I have (I'll try to explain what stuff means under each section):

 

Motherboard: MSI 880GM-E43

CPU Brand - AMD

Socket Type - AM3

Memory Support - 4x240pin, DDR3 800/1066/1333/1600 (OC), 16GB Max

 

The CPU brand is the company that makes the processor. The 2 major brands are Intel and AMD. A lot of people take issue with AMD, but I don't believe it's warranted. They're nearly identical in performance given the same specs and each is a tiny bit better at some things than the other. In no case that I've seen is either processor noticeably better. So, basically, let the price decide.

 

The motherboard is a very important decision when building a computer. Your motherboard is the foundation to which nearly everything attaches. How many and what type of various elements you can include is determined by the motherboard. The most important things to look for are socket type, memory capacity, expansion slots, and what storage devices the board supports. Also, consider what ports are included (USB, HDMI, etc.).

 

The socket type is basically what alignment of pin slots the motherboard has. Only processors with the same socket type as the motherboard will work. For AMD, AM3 is the standard socket type you'll want to look for. I'm not sure about Intel.

 

Memory capacity determines how much RAM the board can support. Mine can support 16GB, which is a whole lot. I have 8GB of RAM now and I doubt I'll need more during the life of this computer. If I do, I have room. Also, memory type/speed standards are important. You'll want DDR3 memory most likely.

 

Expansion ports determine what sorts of cards you can include on the board. Pretty much any graphics card needs a PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot, and pretty much and motherboard will have one. Other sorts of PCI slots will be necessary if you've got a sound or firewire or whatever card to use.

 

Finally, your motherboard determines what speed of hard drive the board can support. My motherboard has SATA 3.0GB/s ports, so it can't use SATA 6.0GB/s hard drives. For me that isn't a problem as 3.0GB/s drives are still pretty standard, but you might want to get a 6.0GB/s drive as that's growing to be quite common. Right now, my HDD is the slowest component of my system. However, I haven't experienced any noticeable draw backs. Really, my drive is just "fast" instead of "damn fast".

 

 

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 635

Quad Core, ~2.9 GHz

 

As I said before, you've got a choice between AMD and Intel. Honestly, which you choose isn't of great consequence. The specs of the processor is far more significant.

 

I would strongly recommend at least a quad-core processor. There are five and six core processors out there now too, but four is plenty.

 

I know with AMD that there's 2 types of processor they make around the level that I purchased: Athlon and Phenom. The only difference is that the Phenom has an additional cache that the Athlon doesn't have. In regular English, the Phenom is a little faster. It's also proportionally more expensive (maybe $20 more expensive than the Athlon I got).

 

 

RAM: A-Data 2GB x4

DDR3

8GB Total

 

RAM is easy. It's pretty cheap (4GB was $50 last I checked and 4GB is plenty) and putting it in the motherboard is the easiest job of the assembly process. I originally had 4GB and got another 4 for Christmas. It only took about 5 minutes to install it and 3 of those minutes were getting it out of the packaging...

 

DDR3 is the standard type now. Memory speed matters too, so if you see something like "800/1066/1333/1600" on your motherboard listing, those are the speeds that it can take. The higher the better. If you see "(OC)" next to a speed, try to avoid it. That means that the board can handle that speed when it's overclocking and overclocking is a little advanced for a first timer.

 

 

Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 5770

1 GB Memory

128-bit

DirectX 11

HDMI Port

 

If you intend on playing games, here is where you'll sink a lot of your money into. If not, you can save a lot.

 

My GPU was something like $165-180 and it isn't top of the line. (However, as far as ATI cards go, it's a very popular standard that can run just about anything... I call it "The Morgan Freeman". )

 

You have 2 major choices here too: ATI or NVIDIA. You'll tend to see ATI with AMD processors and NVIDIA with Intel processors, but you can mix and match if you want.

 

Also, it's worth noting that ATI and NVIDIA cards are made primarily by 3rd party companies who simply use their technology. You'll find cards made by people who just make graphics cards, motherboard manufacturers, and all sorts of tech companies.

 

I can't point out any companies as being notably good or bad, but my card is a Sapphire and it's done me well so far.

 

 

HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black

640GB

7200 RPM

32MB Cache

SATA 3.0GB/s

3.5"

 

There's some variety in hard drives. Capacity greatly varies as does RPM and transfer rate. There are also solid state drives which are faster than standard platter drives, but also much smaller in capacity and higher in price.

 

My drive is full of all sorts of music, movies, games, and a big Windows operating system and it's about 27% full. I shouldn't have to worry about space during the life of this computer, but it might be advisable to go up to something like 750GB or 1TB. I doubt you'll really need more than 1TB.

 

The majority of drives are SATA 3.0GB/s drives, but 6.0GB/s drives are, obviously, a lot faster. (That speed is how fast the drive can communicate with the processor/memory.)

 

Also, most drives now are 7200RPM, but there are 10000 and 15000 RPM drives that are also faster (and more expensive).

 

-----

 

So, there's a bunch of information. It might not make sense now, but when you're looking through listings, if you're wondering about something, it's probably up there.

 

I didn't really know what I was doing when I built my computer, but it turned out quite well.

[Bigpapa42]

I would hug you if I could! That info all makes sense and was a lot of what I was looking for. I think I'm in pretty much the same boat you were - I know what the components are and have an idea of what to look for, but am leery of what mixes and matches. I started looking at stuff, realized I didn't even know whether I wanted to go AMD or Intel, and then kinda felt overhwelmed. I have a basic idea of what connects to what, but have never actually done it. I have never configured BIOS or set pins, etc.

 

My desktop died about two years ago, so I have a monitor, mouse, etc. That stuff isn't a problem. My plan is to keep it under $1k if possible (Canadian) but with the idea of buying parts over a 6-9 month period, so it spreads out the cost. Watching for sales, etc. Then again, I'm eying unnecessary stuff like liquid cooling, so maybe $1k won't do it...

[Remianen]

I would hug you if I could! That info all makes sense and was a lot of what I was looking for. I think I'm in pretty much the same boat you were - I know what the components are and have an idea of what to look for, but am leery of what mixes and matches. I started looking at stuff, realized I didn't even know whether I wanted to go AMD or Intel, and then kinda felt overhwelmed. I have a basic idea of what connects to what, but have never actually done it. I have never configured BIOS or set pins, etc.

 

My desktop died about two years ago, so I have a monitor, mouse, etc. That stuff isn't a problem. My plan is to keep it under $1k if possible (Canadian) but with the idea of buying parts over a 6-9 month period, so it spreads out the cost. Watching for sales, etc. Then again, I'm eying unnecessary stuff like liquid cooling, so maybe $1k won't do it...

 

Every journey begins with the first step. In addition to mjd's awesome post, here's my advice for building a gaming rig:

 

If money is an issue, go high end with your processor AND video card. Those two components offer you the best bang for your buck in staving off obsolescence. As an example, this computer has an NVidia 8800 Ultra in it that was purchased when the card first came out (it's the highest end model in the 8-series). When this computer was built, quad cores were 'pie in the sky' (which should tell you how old it is). To this day, I can play all current games at full graphics settings and max fps (60). I'd also say load your board with as much RAM as it'll take but RAM is dirt cheap and that's pretty much a given so I won't bother mentioning it. I can run 8 WoW clients (or 5 EQ1 or 6 EVE or 4 LOTRO) at the same time and still maintain fps over 40.

 

You don't need liquid cooling. Not even if you live in Arizona or Nevada. Liquid cooling requires far more maintenance (refilling and cleaning the reservoir and making sure the pipes stay in good condition) than air cooling. You'd do better by simply keeping the temperature in your computer room (or room where your computer is) lower than the rest of the house most of the time. I go buckwild with cooling because my home office has no windows (just a skylight that's useless most of the time) but all my friends (who are techies) say it's overkill (and I agree but still...). I go so far as to choose a case based on how many (and how large) fans it supports.

 

One thing that can help with cooling is using a big case (which allows for better airflow). This computer has a CM Stacker, which is massive, but man air flows through this sumbitch as if it were a sunlit meadow.

 

Storage: Go big or go home IMO. Now, that doesn't mean go ridiculously big but I'd say at least a terabyte, total, assuming you plan to use the computer (to some degree) for 3-5 years. I built this one in October of 2008. It has 3 terabytes of hard drive space. I'm currently using....537 gigs. That's with 14 MMOs and around 30 games installed and tons of screenshots, graphics, etc. If you're not a spacehogging digital packrat (I don't uninstall games), 1 TB is plenty.

 

I would say 1k is doable but I'd recommend going to 2k. This is mainly to allow for splurges without feeling like you busted your budget. If you set the budget to 2k and wind up spending 1.2k, it's a great feeling (and far better than spending 1.2k with a 1k budget and winding up with 'Hamlet-itis').

 

A friend of mine has a site he keeps updated with system specs (and prices) for various tiers of PC. Check it out: http://www.rabb1t.com/systems.html

[Bigpapa42]

Thanks a ton for the info, Remi. Your friends site should be a big help as well.

 

The case I'm eying up is a Cooler Master HAF. Space isn't an issue in my place. Liquid cooling is more of a "that would be cool" aspect than "that's necessary". Might be something I play with down the road but won't bother it with it off the start.

 

Trying to decide between AMD and Intel. Going AMD saves a few bucks, which could be applied to increasing for 8G RAM to 16G. I was looking at six core, but I think quad core would be sufficient.

[Bigpapa42]

So two more questions...

 

Regarding graphic cards... I'd like the set the next system up near my living room entertainment system. I'd like to use my existing monitor but also run an HDMI through the stereo receiver, so I can use the TV. Not looking to set up a true dual monitor system, but just be able to use either. Would simply using both outputs off any card work or would I need a special card?

 

One idea that I kinda like is having a smaller (maybe 20-40 G) solid state drive for the Operating System, then a larger internal hard drive for everything else. Any reason that's a bad idea, beyond the additional cost?

[mjdgoldeneye]

Thanks a ton for the info, Remi. Your friends site should be a big help as well.

 

The case I'm eying up is a Cooler Master HAF. Space isn't an issue in my place. Liquid cooling is more of a "that would be cool" aspect than "that's necessary". Might be something I play with down the road but won't bother it with it off the start.

 

Trying to decide between AMD and Intel. Going AMD saves a few bucks, which could be applied to increasing for 8G RAM to 16G. I was looking at six core, but I think quad core would be sufficient.

 

I can vouch for AMD. My friend built a comp equivalent to mine, but he got Intel/NVIDIA. I tried some benchmark tests and there were some speed differences but they weren't consistent at all and never noticeable. Some programs boots more quickly for one, some on the other. At best, it was only about a quarter second in booting big programs like Adobe Premiere. Considering margin of error, that isn't even scientifically valid...

 

People tend to have some sort of inherent hate towards AMD, but when I prompt them as to why, they never have a straight answer. Most of them never even had an AMD processor!

 

Actually, if you specifically look at the $100-$200 processor range, AMD tends to rate a little higher.

 

As for cooling, I don't have much. I have a heat sink and big, chunky fan that came with my processor and then my case fans. (I do have, like, 5 case fans, though... )

 

In fact, I kind of whiffed on putting thermal paste on the processor (I thought "Hey, the fan already has stuff on it, that should be enough") and I haven't have any heat problems at all. It's quite cool (relatively speaking), says my temperature thingy. My room IS cold all the time, though...

 

So two more questions...

 

Regarding graphic cards... I'd like the set the next system up near my living room entertainment system. I'd like to use my existing monitor but also run an HDMI through the stereo receiver, so I can use the TV. Not looking to set up a true dual monitor system, but just be able to use either. Would simply using both outputs off any card work or would I need a special card?

 

One idea that I kinda like is having a smaller (maybe 20-40 G) solid state drive for the Operating System, then a larger internal hard drive for everything else. Any reason that's a bad idea, beyond the additional cost?

 

I know my graphics card has an HDMI port. My motherboard does too, but that's for the on-board GPU. If you hook up 2 monitors, you can probably choose what display to use in the control panel.

 

As for the storage, putting the OS on a solid state could be viable. I'm not sure separating the OS and the applications would cause trouble though.

 

I do know that putting applications on a solid state and storing all your data on a regular drive works well. I'm not sure where the OS would be better off.

[djthefunkchris]

Wasn't AMD originally hated because the RAM was built in and you couldn't upgrade it?

[ritwik]

Apart from the awesome info provided by many people on this thread, I would advise you to check out http://www.hardware-revolution.com/ as it contains many different sample configurations at various price points.

[Remianen]

Thanks a ton for the info, Remi. Your friends site should be a big help as well.

 

The case I'm eying up is a Cooler Master HAF. Space isn't an issue in my place. Liquid cooling is more of a "that would be cool" aspect than "that's necessary". Might be something I play with down the road but won't bother it with it off the start.

 

Trying to decide between AMD and Intel. Going AMD saves a few bucks, which could be applied to increasing for 8G RAM to 16G. I was looking at six core, but I think quad core would be sufficient.

 

Yeah, I did the liquid cooling thing with this one at first. Then I freaked when it started to overheat and the friend that installed the system asked me, "when was the last time you refilled the reservoir?". I was like, "did the what?"

 

I'm a hardcore, dyed in the wool, AMD person. Until Intel comes out with a processor that blows AMD out of the water (literally and figuratively), I'm not paying more cash for somebody's name. I'm currently on a streak of 5 straight computer generations of AMD and I've never had an issue. AMD seems to me to be the underdog in the processor "wars". They push the envelope and Intel has to stay on their toes to keep their market share. It's like WWE when WCW was viable. Take AMD away and Intel will go with "the Madden formula" and not actually innovate anymore. Competition is good for consumers.

 

For very different reasons, I'm an Nvidia person to the very core of my being. The reason is simple: all of the games I play (mostly MMOs) have problems at some point with ATi Radeon cards but they NEVER have similar issues with Nvidia cards. The reason is simple: Nvidia supports game developers FAR moreso than ATi. A game developer is often given a kit with at least one of every card Nvidia currently supports (which is why so many games have that little 'Nvidia: the way it's meant to be played' logo on their website or splash screen), so that game is designed, tested, and played on Nvidia cards. This means any and all problems that come up are dealt with immediately. ATi has never supported developers that way so Radeon glitches are common and often take months to fix (because the developer often has to go out and BUY Radeon cards for QA/testing purposes. You tell me. 85% of your playerbase uses one type of card and fixing/supporting the other 15% is going to cost you money upfront. How motivated would you be to fix issues for that 15%?).

 

If you can swing it, go six core if only to put yourself slightly ahead of the curve. Going with bleeding edge generally means that much longer before you HAVE to upgrade or replace.

 

So two more questions...

 

Regarding graphic cards... I'd like the set the next system up near my living room entertainment system. I'd like to use my existing monitor but also run an HDMI through the stereo receiver, so I can use the TV. Not looking to set up a true dual monitor system, but just be able to use either. Would simply using both outputs off any card work or would I need a special card?

 

One idea that I kinda like is having a smaller (maybe 20-40 G) solid state drive for the Operating System, then a larger internal hard drive for everything else. Any reason that's a bad idea, beyond the additional cost?

 

There are multimedia video cards in every line that offer the features you're looking for. You'd be best suited to get a card specifically designed with dual monitor support, I'd think.

 

I don't think you'd have a problem. You'd have the SSD set up as the boot drive but you'd have to manually choose a different drive when you're installing new software (because the program will default to the boot drive). You won't get the performance advantages of the SSD though because your programs will be loaded from the slower drive (the non-SSD). But boy, it'll boot up like a champ!

 

EDIT: Full disclosure: this PC has an Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 processor in it, but only because it was free.

 

Also, does anyone have any experience with the NVidia GTS or GTX series? I think my 8800 Ultra is dying so I need to replace it ASAP. I'm looking at the GTX460 but have read some good reviews on the GTS 450. I tend to shy away from "budget" cards since there's often a massive tradeoff in performance but given the fact I'm building a new PC in April, I really don't want to spend $500 for a card just to keep this one going (and I don't generally cannibalize).

[Bigpapa42]

Unless I find some major reason to look at Intel, AMD is more appealing right now. The Intel motherboards can go up to 24 Gigs of RAM, as opposed to 16 Gig for the AMD-based ones, but I somehow don't think that 16 Gig would be lacking anyway.

 

As for the SSD... Maybe use it for the OS and primary programs then? I just wanted to avoid having it get too cluttered and easier to reinstall Windows if/when it starts to tank. In that way, the faster access speeds are really just a bonus.

 

Thanks for hte help everyone. I feel ten steps ahead of where I was a few days ago.

[mjdgoldeneye]

For very different reasons, I'm an Nvidia person to the very core of my being. The reason is simple: all of the games I play (mostly MMOs) have problems at some point with ATi Radeon cards but they NEVER have similar issues with Nvidia cards. The reason is simple: Nvidia supports game developers FAR moreso than ATi. A game developer is often given a kit with at least one of every card Nvidia currently supports (which is why so many games have that little 'Nvidia: the way it's meant to be played' logo on their website or splash screen), so that game is designed, tested, and played on Nvidia cards. This means any and all problems that come up are dealt with immediately. ATi has never supported developers that way so Radeon glitches are common and often take months to fix (because the developer often has to go out and BUY Radeon cards for QA/testing purposes. You tell me. 85% of your playerbase uses one type of card and fixing/supporting the other 15% is going to cost you money upfront. How motivated would you be to fix issues for that 15%?).

 

If you can swing it, go six core if only to put yourself slightly ahead of the curve. Going with bleeding edge generally means that much longer before you HAVE to upgrade or replace.

 

Well, according to Steam (which represents the majority of PC gamers as most PC gamers have Steam now), ATI has a 33% share (and the other 66% isn't just NVIDIA... some sad folks have Intel's own integrated graphics or "other", whatever that is). They're more competitive in terms of distribution than AMD is compared to Intel. (Speaking of that, here's the Steam Hardware Survey. It'll give you an idea of what sort of components people are using. The software stats at the bottom are also interesting to look at too.)

 

On my end, I've seen as many games optimized on ATI as NVIDIA. In fact, most games utilizing DirectX 11 are optimized for ATI. I can't say ATI doesn't care about game developers because, in that case, what exactly do they care about? They want their products to be of good quality so people buy them and who're they marketing to more so than gamers playing games made by developers?

 

Also, AMD processors seem to mesh a bit better with ATI GPU's and Intel goes well with NVIDIA. Most motherboards that support a given processor brand will normally have onboard graphics from said graphics card brand. I think the cards are built to work hand in hand with a given CPU brand's instruction set. Honestly, AMD and Intel processors don't differ THAT much in function, though. It's mostly a design thing. Think more engineering and less computing theory.

 

Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate as a ATI user. I can't say anything bad about NVIDIA, but I can at least say that it might not be worth counting out ATI if you can get a good deal. I can't recommend either because I haven't had an NVIDIA card. However, I know my experiences with ATI have been good.

[Remianen]

Well, according to Steam (which represents the majority of PC gamers as most PC gamers have Steam now), ATI has a 33% share (and the other 66% isn't just NVIDIA... some sad folks have Intel's own integrated graphics or "other", whatever that is). They're more competitive in terms of distribution than AMD is compared to Intel. (Speaking of that, here's the Steam Hardware Survey. It'll give you an idea of what sort of components people are using. The software stats at the bottom are also interesting to look at too.)

 

On my end, I've seen as many games optimized on ATI as NVIDIA. In fact, most games utilizing DirectX 11 are optimized for ATI. I can't say ATI doesn't care about game developers because, in that case, what exactly do they care about? They want their products to be of good quality so people buy them and who're they marketing to more so than gamers playing games made by developers?

 

I'm telling you what developer friends tell me. I asked a few years back how much Nvidia pays to get their logo on the splash screen of seemingly every online game released. The answer I got was, "a whole lot of product for us to test on". For the most part, I'm not referring to single player games either (except a handful of studios). I mean mainly MMOs, none of which are optimized for DX11 (not a single one). They all utilize DX11 but they're not created for/on that particular iteration (and they won't be until 2015ish. 9.0c still gives you access to far more users than 10 or 11).

 

I have never owned a single ATi card that didn't give me massive problems in the games I tend to play. I had a rig with Crossfire that I had to sell because one card went bust (faulty fan mechanism). Let's not even talk about the shaky quality of Catalyst drivers every 2-4 releases. I'm not spouting an opinion based on hearsay. I've tried ATi cards (going all the way back to when 3dfx's Voodoo cards were Nvidia's primary competition), from the All-in-Wonder to the 5770. ATi cards are cheap (compared to Nvidia) so it was easy to justify buying them, at first. But I've had one problem with Nvidia cards (a FX 5950, way back when, that overheated because the stock fan speed was too slow) but I'm something like 5 for 18 with Radeons (and the 5 that weren't fubar, I had to deal with bad drivers). My gaming is srs bizness as my primary hobby so I don't mess around. I also stress my rigs far moreso than most gamers so reliability and performance are HIGHLY valued.

 

As an example, my 2.5 year old 8800 Ultra was in its death throes on Wednesday so I needed to buy a replacement. No one I know (with similar playstyles, if not the same exactly) recommended a Radeon for me. I got a lot of, "For most people, the 6870 would be cool but not for you" and similar things, from ATi fanbois, no less.

[mjdgoldeneye]

<p>Well, the odd thing is that Civ V has the NVIDIA stamp, but 2K and Valve (the game needs Steam) either stealthily or just outright recommend an ATI card because they have more mid-level DX11 cards and they want to show off the technology.</p><p> </p><p>

I'm sure that now DX11 has been out for a bit that NVIDIA has some affordable (less than $250) cards going? I normally don't consider graphical quality to be of utmost importance, but one day (because I was impatient and wanted to do a bunch of intensive background stuff while playing Civ V) I decided to run the game in DX10 mode and it was noticeably different. The water in DX11 is notably of higher quality, the textures are less jagged, and there are a few little perspective things that are handled in DX11 and not DX10. For example, the fog of war in V is made up of clouds and, because the perspective isn't fully top-down and clouds are supposed to be above the ground, when you move around, the edges where the clouds meet revealed terrain need some parallax going on and it's way better in DX11. (It turns out I could just run DX11 anyway without issue. I wasn't used to having a good computer yet at the time. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />) DX11 is definitely worth it.</p><p> </p><p>

For what it's worth, I've coexisted peacefully with Radeon cards throughout my years. Even though most of the games I ran weren't even rated to work on the cards I had, things were pretty smooth. Now that I'm ahead of the curve, it's obviously still smooth. My only probably was my eBay-ordered premade comp's clip-on graphics card fan got jammed with dust and it kept overheating the GPU, crashing my games. I just switched it with a heatsink I had and it was all good. The issue was all age and poor internal maintenance, though.</p>