hmm if by non gaming u mean close to or literlally linux non gaming - then your setup would wor nicely, I personally love to play games from timew to time, though I have a 2yo pent4@2,6ghz 1gig of ram and 6600gt to play around with, with alittle clocking they work nicely... for almost all purpouses
fx5200 will run hl2 nicely (more or less nicely) and will deal with photoshop or 3d modelling apps quite well so [y] - get it
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 0:34 ID:107EyyLz
What the fuck, Geforce FX 5200 is the worst card ever made, why would you want to get that? Does it cost like 1 dollar? Because I'll be damned if it's worth more than that.
Name:
OP2007-08-14 3:38 ID:tK04Vu3+
On this box(not the one I am building) I only had integrated graphics, so my friend gave me a GeForce FX 5200 that he wasn't using.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 3:51 ID:107EyyLz
>>5
He probably hates you, even I wouldn't give that to a friend
Name:
OP2007-08-14 4:13 ID:tK04Vu3+
Nvida>Intel i8xx integrated
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 4:36 ID:DAU3xH8v
orly?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 7:21 ID:1hpeuKJo
>>7
That's like saying herpes is better than AIDS... do you really want either?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 7:39 ID:tK04Vu3+
No, buy the Nvidia FX 5200 can run OS X86 well my integrated couldn't run it worth a shit.
yea '9' no one will want either but... if someone tied you down and 2 men where standing there and u HAD to have the choice of chosing herpies or H.I.V/aids - you would choose herpies... note if u dnt answer the question you would recieve both LOL
people will disinguish that herpies is a BETTER disease to have than HIV.
unless your just running microsoft office, you need something with a little more kick than that highly out of date machine. Seriously if the cost is over 800 bucks for everything its a huge ripoff. You would not be able to do full renders in Maya without leaving the machine to its own devices for at least ten minutes, and that is without Specular and other rendering tools turned on. Photoshop CS3 needs at least 256 RAM to start, adn Vista need bare minimum 256 to run (dont run vista that solves that) but at the same time you still need a 6800 at least for a vid card. You are just throwing your money away otherwise. Its cool to want to stay a little below the curve, but the 5200 is way below the curve now as far as new tech is concerned.
Go for an Asus board instead of Gigabyte, Go for crucial RAM instead of Generics, Get at least a 6800 card or better, Go for an AMD processor, and Stay with the HD and PSU
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 6:46 ID:Xn8f09e8
I'm using the 5200 now, it runs WoW,Vista,OS X86, and beryl all fine. Also Intel>>>>>>>>>>>>AMD
>>14
Ya intel is better than AMD if you like a useless FSB, and poor Relay. My AMD fx-67 processor is only 2.65 ghz, and is better than the 3.2 ghz processor from Intel, it has a better FSB speed, and its hyper transport is not the bottleneck that an Intel is. I have run high end games on systems that run intel vs AMD processors, and the intel always runs cooler, but never runs at capacity so you are never getting all the performance out of the Intel processor. Since the bus on an Intel chip is so much smaller, it is not able to transport the same amount of data hence the lower temp. If I put a cooling unit on my AMD it would be able to be OC'd and run at around 3 ghz I just havnt gotten around to it yet. I almost bought the Refrigeration unit so that I could run it at 4ghz, and still have it below freezing.
If you are seriously guaging your graphics cards capabilities on the low quality renderings of WoW you should try to play Oblivion on full settings, and watch how it crushes your card.
WoW's architecture graphically is horrible, the models are extremely low Poly, the Textures are not bumped, and are low res, the models just get retextured instead of actually wearing clothing like in other games. And its draw distance system even on full is a pitance in comparison to almost every mmo out there.
And as far as Beryl is concerned it runs on OpenGL, Nvidia cards are designed to run best under the conditions of an OpenGl environment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 8:29 ID:Xn8f09e8
I do believe I said non-gaming PC. WoW is the most graphically demanding thing I will do on the computer. Since it is not graphically demanding I don't need a good card.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 9:13 ID:MYEf/5xp
>>17
If you already knew you were building it dont fucking ask for others opinions. The point of the question you asked is input from others and most everyone has told you not to build it. Your wasting your money on parts that are more than out of date, and its not worth the time and effort to build this. You could build a much more capable machine for just a little more cash.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 9:20 ID:Xn8f09e8
Your opinion was to switch to AMD and buy a new video card instead of using the one you already own, that you are happy with. I read your one opinion on AMD>Intel then I go to newegg/hardware chat rooms and every one tells me to go with a core 2 duo.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 9:57 ID:MYEf/5xp
The intel has a better cache at 4 megs, but the bus is split unlike the AMD. The 1333 mhz bus is split between the processors giving a 666.5 bus to each processor where as the AMD has a 1000mhz bus for each processor giving it total of a 2000 mhz bus. The specs state is 2000 mt/s, the intel processor doesnt list its MT/s rating which is odd. If your really going to drop 220 on the processor you should go for the quad core thats 2.4 ghz in all truth that is the intel I would go with If i was going to choose to use intel its only 289.99 its not that much more expensive in teh scheme of things and its bus is not that much slower. Its the same socket, and is not that much more expensive. The core 2 duo looks nice in theory, but i still dont trust Intel unless its one of the quad processors becuase I have a system that is running it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 10:19 ID:RsuRxCcf
>>16 >>20
Don't have a shitting clue what they're talking about. First off, real-world usage shows that, watt-for-watt, Intel is walking all over AMD. That is a FACT. It used to not matter, but it used to not require kilowatt power supplies to play games.
It's true that hypertransport is faster than the FSB on an Intel configuration. What the people that made the mistake of buying AMD this time around WON'T tell you is that in either layout, there's so much bandwidth it doesn't even matter. Your bottleneck at this point is the processor (I count the hard drive as a given anymore- It's slow as ass, get over it). When you only have two cores, 1333 MHz FSB is plenty (really, you say you trust a core 2 quad, but don't believe that a core 2 duo will perform? Apply your own logic to it!)
e6350, 2GB decent ram (picked up 2 GB Corsair XMS2 for $90 five months ago), nvidia graphics card (because ATi STILL can't write drivers for shit), cheat WD or seagate 300/320 GB hard drive and a decent mobo. I did this for less than $500 five months ago- you can meet or beat that easily.
>>21
I trust a core 2 quad becuase I have used systems that run them, and those systems run dual quads so the fsb is not an issue.
In a system that is running a single processor for me at least, a quad would be much more efficient in how it handles the work load for what I do with it. My single core AMD handles everything fine, but it gets entirely too hot for my tastes. But it being that hot I do know that Im getting everything out of it that I want. I've had this box for 2 years, and its about time for an overhaul anyway. at elast the processor should be replaced if anything.
And yes ATI does have horrible coders, and needs to stop writing for directx instead of Ogl.