Juggernut;4230195DirectX10 = Same as 9 but 20 fps less.
DirectX9 = Obsolete within 18 months. I was in between the GTX and GT or GTS but after looking at a list in the new PC Gamer UK issue, the GTX was the second best graphics card on their list of about 40. In regards to Vista, yes right now, there maybe compatibility issues. But, with this comp I've basically future proofed it for at least 2 years. For example, 4GB of RAM may seem overkill right now since hardware tests on games where they had 2GB and 4GB, the extra 2GB hardly made any difference. But, in the future it might be essential to have 4GB RAM. Just like it is essential now to have 1GB. And, Vista is not just a pretty version of XP. Major parts of the Windows software has been overhauled. For example, the NTFS volumes can run chkdisk and repair corrupted volumes on the fly. Which means no restarting everytime you install something minute like a toolbar. In addition, 64-bit allows me to have the 4GB in the first place and a maximum of 16GB as well as protected me from XP munching viruses that were written in 32-bit code. As for the processor, I had no idea what was going on their since even after my research I couldn't get me head around all this cache stuff and dual core and quad core. But what I do know is more games are designed to take advantage of dual core than they are quad. The 250GBs is enough for me. I don't keep the things I download and I won't be getting loads of games. The only thing that maybe a problem is the fact of video uploading. If 250GB is not enough then I'll get an external hard-drive which shall probably turn out to be rather handy anyway. The price. I got it from PCSPECIALIST.CO.UK - Custom PCs, Custom Computers, Custom PC, Custom Built Computers, Gaming PC and it was the cheapest place I could find after searching for about 2 weeks. That as well as the fact that the testimonials were very good made me actually purchase it from there. Basically yes, I should of built the computer myself. It would have been cheaper, more fun and better sense of completion at the end. But the sad thing is I ain't bovvvered. :( I'll let you all know what it's like when I get it. Thanks for those that have complimented me on my purchase (no one yet I think lol) and thanks for those whom have criticised my purchased. You are honest and have enlightened me into the realm of compootors. :)
DnC;4230521DirectX9 = Obsolete within 18 months.
He's right, as much as we hate to admit it. We're gonna need to upgrade if we wanna keep up with the rest of the PC gaming world. Or we could just send nasty emails and letters to Microsoft and every game developer to stop wanting us to use DirectX10. Or even better: STOP BUYING VISTA, DAMNIT! No one is forcing us to do it, and there's supposedly 18 months until we need to upgrade, so Microsoft has more than a year to make Vista what it's supposed to be. If it still sucks, I guess we can still play some older games, like Battlefield 2... DX9 is gonna be obsolete, but not useless.
I don't know about Vista, and I would personally have at least 500GB hard drive, but what can I say, I'm pretty much salivating right now, my computer was bought four years ago too, and its struggling with pretty much every game I play on it, if it plays at all.
Where do you live...? I need to come kill you and steal your video card.
gravy666 STOP BUYING VISTA, DAMNIT!.
Have you actually used Vista? or are you just saying that because other people do? Seriously, Vista is not that bad if you have a system capable of running it well. If your building a new PC, there is really no reason not to get Vista at this point. You get DX10 support (which if your building a new system with good specs, your going to want), and DX9 games run almost just as fast as with XP. Like i said, if you have the specs for it, your not going to notice a few less FPS in your games.
Kwould;4229962Am I the only one that thinks 1,200 quid is a little pricey for that setup? That is equal to 2,350 USD! Given, hardware prices in the UK are comparably higher than in the US, but you should be able to cut at least a third off that price if you build it yourself. That said, I would agree with what others have previously stated: swap the E6850 for an E8400, swap the 8800GTX for a 8800GT or GTS(G92), and pick a better HDD. As for the OS, there are many users who have all ready said "don't get Vista", but I reckon if you have to spend money on a new OS license, it might as well be Vista. The (few) compatibility issues will be worked out in time.
Which is about $1000 more than a computer of this performance should cost.
Which means that, while this rig is technically proficient and will turn in acceptable frame rates, it's a rip.
Adequate recommendations have been made, but consider ditching the extra 2GB of RAM. It's an extra cost you don't need to incur for extra performance that you will very likely not notice. You can always upgrade later, when it'll actually matter (probably by the end of 2008).
Juggernut;4230195DirectX10 = Same as 9 but 20 fps less.
Incorrect, and substantially. DX10 = DX9 but with 10 EXTRA fps DX10 is a lot faster at rendering things due to improved calculations, thus improving frame rate, only difference is, this improved speed, allows for improved quality, which in turn, takes down the FPS, put a DX10 version of Fear with the same graphics (textures and all) up against a DX9 version, and you'll see a >20% performance boost (on average)
In New Zealand, it would cost about NZ$2200, which is around 1200 Euro.
I think we are talking about different games here. Some games get less fps while some get more. It could be that it is vista, that it has to load more unused processes.
And yes, I know. More and more games are using DirectX 10 today. For more info as i checked, check here. X-bit labs - The Second Encounter: DirectX 10 Games vs. Contemporary Graphics Accelerators
It renders better, but when we have a game that doesnt use these effects, It might even take some FPS.