Athenian, the system specs you listed are the cream of the crop - there's no doubt about that. What I'm suggesting to JJJ is that one can have an excellent system without spending an arm and a leg. It maybe 10-15% slower but at least you could invest the money you saved into food to prepare for the upcoming food shortage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athenian200
If I may say so... running a bigger monitor doesn't make a program run better, or even improve the graphics quality. All it does is make it slower and increase the viewable area, especially in games. Sure, some people prefer the size advantage, but if you're comfortable with lower resolution, you can have a really fast computer with excellent graphics. I've personally always hated widescreen displays, because they feel awkward and disproportional.
|
Why even invest in those graphics cards, especially SLI configured, if you won't even run at a higher resolution? FPS' cap out on smaller resolutions - it would seem if you have those powerful cards, then a lot of its potential is wasted. Certainly it will last you a longer time if you continued to use the cards under a smaller resolution but remember the higher the resolution, the higher amount of viewable megapixels to the viewer increases. Of course there will be a performance loss, but with the high end components you suggested (especially), it's rather minute. E.g. I'm sure everyone can't tell the difference in an fps between 80fps vs. 100fps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athenian200
He might be able to get triple the ram, but 8GB (which is what my recommendation gave him) is all most motherboards can handle, and games benefit greatly from better RAM. Unless you're building a server, it pays more to have fast RAM than simply more RAM, especially after you hit about 2GB or 4GB. And I'm focused on the future. If he builds the best system now, he can hold off for at least 2-3 years before upgrading, possibly more depending on his needs. People only have to upgrade annually because they go cheaper with their components all the time.
|
It has taken years for engineers to even fully optimize ddr2 modules and dd3 performance mirrors ddr2 as of now, hence why I suggested ddr2 rather than ddr3. The sheer amount of money you save from ddr3 would allow you to purchase the best ddr2 modules. I agree with you that DDR3 is certainly future proof, but expect engineers to fully optimize them in several years. Why pay 700 for ram that is just as good as ram that is 150?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athenian200
I did select a quality power supply that would handle those components, and maybe more.
|
I never implied you didn't. I just suggested not to skimp on those two components when he is in his finally formulating his purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athenian200
Your approach is far too Te (and not great Te either, I might add). You don't understand how the components work together.
|
I don't understand what you mean here. Would you like me to show more F in the sense of being a part of a
consumer movement and purchase a mac? I know you took my post as a personal attack because Ender said your specs were overkill as well, but it seems you have a bone to pick with me. I think you were unjust in your proposal that I know nothing of how computer components work together and I would like an apology.
Another resource:
SilentPCreview - if noise is an issue to you. They also review power supply efficiencies to test manufacturers claims.