Which Computer?

[Matthew5117]

After recently viewing the Total War series, and decided I also wanted to play Huge maps, I want to get a new computer. I've looked all over the internet, but I see no search engine for computers.

So, my question is, what computer has these following system (can't think of the word...)?

I want...

4 GB RAM (3 GB RAM is okay...)
200 GB Hard Drive (or something like that)
at least 2.8 GHz
but under $1000

Is this possible? I've seen computers with these preferences, but I don't need 500 GB Hard Drive! Right? (just making sure ) I just want to play Total War and Civ IV.

 

[Krill]

Build your own? It's alot easier than people think, and it's the best way to get the most bang for your buck.

Would you need a new moniter and peripherals, or would your old ones make do?

 

[Matthew5117]

Would a complete inexperienced person in computer engineering be able to build a computer?

My old ones would not make do. I'll still keep it for work etc. This PC will be for games only.

 

[Krill]

I built my first PC from scratch when I was 18. If you read the instructions beforehand you should be fine.

I don't know what is a good PC at the moment, and I'm not sure you could quite fit a Core i7 into a $1,000 budget, which is unfortunate as all other sockets are obselete and you won't be able to get much out of them when you upgrade.

 

[Matthew5117]

Okay. I looked at some websites regarding building a computer, , I don't think I am up for it.

So I searched for more computers and I found this one...
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...0&lid=197374&acd=10466193-249294-enter_sub_id

Its customizable, so that should be good. On top of that, its fairly cheap. Can you (krill) help me choose what parts please? If not, maybe someone else can recommend the parts necessary to play not only Civ IV but today's games.

Before that though, is this a good computer?

 

[Krill]

That is a rip off and horrendously overpriced. It has an obselete processor and intergrated graphics, it won't run a huge map in CIV (which, don'tf orget, is 3 and a half years old!).

If you really don't want to build your own PC, you are going to have to risk paying an extensive premium over the parts.

This looks like a decent deal below. one thing to note: the new core i7 work best on multiples of 3 GB of ram, and ddr3 ram is expensive, so you are going to have to make do with less if you get a core i7 PC. The graphics card isn't particulary brilliant, being based off a model that is around 2 years old, but it is good enough to run a huge map in CIV by a fair margin IMO so long as you keep on restarting civ every few hours (which you should be doing anyway...)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227123

 

[Krill]

It would probably be better if you went down to the computer forum further down the board though and asked this question, you are more likely to get mroe knowledgeable people than in this forum.

 

[Matthew5117]

Wow... I'm glad I came here for advice. I didn't realize it was so bad...

Moderate Graphic Card... :undecided: I'm looking at something more extensive to keep for a while. Plus, $1000 for 2.66 GHz?? Doesn't sound good.

Back to the building option. Is it really possible for someone who has no experience whatsoever to build a good computer? Is it possible you can give me more advice?

I will also be posting this in the Computer Forum, thanks.

 

[Krill]

It's not the amount of gigahertz, it's the amount of work that gets done with it. That processor is the current best line of processors (at least those meant for home use, anyway), and while it is the entry level one (the third from top line), it still blows everything else out of the water (OK, that might be an exaggeration, but it is better, and more upgradeable, than anything else you can buy at the moment).

Also, the graphics card isn't that special, but in CIV the game is processor limited and not graphics limited. I do agree that you could be looking for something slightly better, but at your price point, and considering what you want to be playing, you may want to see what you can cut out.

Ideally if you were going to build your own PC you get most of what you wanted, but as you are looking to buy the whole package, you are going to have to search very thoroughly to find a good deal.

 

[Matthew5117]

It's not the amount of gigahertz, it's the amount of work that gets done with it. That processor is the current best line of processors (at least those meant for home use, anyway), and while it is the entry level one (the third from top line), it still blows everything else out of the water (OK, that might be an exaggeration, but it is better, and more upgradeable, than anything else you can buy at the moment).

That's what another guy said in the other thread. Lots of help there already!

Also, the graphics card isn't that special, but in CIV the game is processor limited and not graphics limited. I do agree that you could be looking for something slightly better, but at your price point, and considering what you want to be playing, you may want to see what you can cut out.

I should mention that I might buy new games that require more...

Ideally if you were going to build your own PC you get most of what you wanted, but as you are looking to buy the whole package, you are going to have to search very thoroughly to find a good deal.

Is the searching really that much harder then assembling a computer??

 

[Zubbus]

- Specification is the word you're looking for.

- 2GB will run a huge map fine. Although rigs these days come with 4GB at not very much extra $. I doubt they actually had 4GB to use when they were *making* this game and testing huge maps. Extra hardware obviously usually makes things go a tiny bit faster. Although in this case, over 2GB requires (or so I was told) 64-bit OS. And while 64-bit OS are working properly, a lot of drivers for various hardwares *aren't* working too well with the 64-bit OS. Another option is to just install a 32-bit OS onto it like I have - occasionally memory leaks (not as bad as it sounds once you figure out this is the problem).
- The thing about hard drive is, most built units will already have a harddrive in it and the OS installed onto it. So if you order a different hard drive the shop has to redo some work and you end up not saving much money. Downgrading to 200GB from a unit that already offers 500GB might just save you as little as $10~20.
- DO pay some attention to the processor. I think anything that has dual-processors is more than enough.
- DO pay some attention to the graphics card (and a power supply that can feed it). A 9400 is managing well (but not heavenly flawless) on max graphics settings. Although if you settle for average settings then any budget series 8 or 9 card should do.
- Building a computer is not a huge challenge, but you will run into a few hiccups. If you got the money to spend + not so much the time to build + don't really care about learning to plug things onto the motherboard yourself, then just buying a ready one is still the much simpler way of life.


This is my new computer (just base unit no OS/monitor/mouse/keyboard though)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=270351229872
And I installed old school 32-bit Windows XP on it (not exactly recommended).
It's running Civ4 + 2 expansions pretty brilliantly.

As you can see, it works out to roughly $450. And I think this is the the run of the mill budget computer these days, on top of that I think things are most likely slightly ahead on your side. Trying to go a little cheaper will probably get you a much inferior computer while saving only a little cash.

If you need a new monitor, etc, those will add up, but then again, those are pretty easy to add.

 

[Matthew5117]

- Specification is the word you're looking for.

That's the word!!!!

- 2GB will run a huge map fine. Although rigs these days come with 4GB at not very much extra $. I doubt they actually had 4GB to use when they were *making* this game and testing huge maps. Extra hardware obviously usually makes things go a tiny bit faster. Although in this case, over 2GB requires (or so I was told) 64-bit OS. And while 64-bit OS are working properly, a lot of drivers for various hardwares *aren't* working too well with the 64-bit OS. Another option is to just install a 32-bit OS onto it like I have - occasionally memory leaks (not as bad as it sounds once you figure out this is the problem).

Even if 2GB RAM is enough for huge Civ IV maps, I think I am going to play other games. Does this change the fact that I should get a 2GB RAM?

I'm not sure if I understand the bit part. I know that (correct me if I am wrong) 64-bit is necessary for Vista. Could you help me understand this a bit (get it? lame joke I know) more...

- The thing about hard drive is, most built units will already have a harddrive in it and the OS installed onto it. So if you order a different hard drive the shop has to redo some work and you end up not saving much money. Downgrading to 200GB from a unit that already offers 500GB might just save you as little as $10~20.

So don't buy a different hard drive if I am going to buy a prebuilt computer? And go along with 500GB because its cheap for what it is worth?

- DO pay some attention to the processor. I think anything that has dual-processors is more than enough.
- DO pay some attention to the graphics card (and a power supply that can feed it). A 9400 is managing well (but not heavenly flawless) on max graphics settings. Although if you settle for average settings then any budget series 8 or 9 card should do.

Believe it or not, that clears up a lot!

- Building a computer is not a huge challenge, but you will run into a few hiccups. If you got the money to spend + not so much the time to build + don't really care about learning to plug things onto the motherboard yourself, then just buying a ready one is still the much simpler way of life.

I think about this more, its hard to chose!

This is my new computer (just base unit no OS/monitor/mouse/keyboard though)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=270351229872
And I installed old school 32-bit Windows XP on it (not exactly recommended).
It's running Civ4 + 2 expansions pretty brilliantly.

As you can see, it works out to roughly $450. And I think this is the the run of the mill budget computer these days, on top of that I think things are most likely slightly ahead on your side. Trying to go a little cheaper will probably get you a much inferior computer while saving only a little cash.

If you need a new monitor, etc, those will add up, but then again, those are pretty easy to add.

Looks like a good computer! Okay, maybe I'm only saying that because you brought it!

Anyways, do you know where I can find this computer at retailer stores?

Thanks so much for your help!

 

[Krill]

That PC Zubbus posted probably isn't going to run new games at decent settings, the graphics card is low level (good enough for decoding HD movies but not intended for good quality gaming), and hte processor is obselete three times over.

It is however, very cheap, but you get what you pay for.

If you wanted a cheaper PC than the Core i7 option, then you would probably be better off with an E8400 processor (the processor at the best price point after the Core i7 got reduced in price a some weeks ago). It's an older processor, not as good as the Core i7 920, but it is significantly cheaper. It's on dual core, but if you aren't running background apps on your computer, and you are only using it for games (ie no HD decoding/encoding, not multitasking) then the fact that it is dual core isn't going to matter, and is cheap at $164.99 at newegg.com. The Core i7 is quad core, so if you expect to be running processor intensive programs or multitask alot (like, I'll have civ 4, firefox with 10 tabs, vlc media player playing a movie, msn, virus scanner and other stuff at teh same time), but is more expensive, at $288.99, along with the motherboards costing more (but generally being faster motherboards with faster, but more expensive ram).

If you intended to play other, more graphically intensive games, then that would skew you best choice in favour of the cheap processor and more expensive graphics card (don't look at a 8 or 9 series graphics card, look for something along the lines of a nVidia 285 or maybe something a little lower down than that). Such a graphics card would be expensive, and I don't know what sort of PC you would be looking at buying if you got one.

 

[Matthew5117]

I recently researched about the difference between a quad and a dual processor. My understanding is that a lot of games don't use the function of the quad processor. On the other hand, I'm planning of having MSN, Virus Scanner (really no choose there...) but that's about it. If I use only these programs at once, is a dual processor okay? My other question is how much longer do you think it is until games start using the quad processor?

I'm pretty strict about graphics. I hate to see a terrible game. I also foresee to play graphic intensive games. So maybe I should buy a Nvidia 285...?

After reviewing the computer parts, I'm okay going a little over $1000, maybe even up to $1500...

 

[ori]

just speaking about civ4 and its expansions: they do not use more than one processor - a dual core can be slightly better than a a similar one core computer only because the operating system can do all the background stuff on the second processor. A quad core will not do anything to help and in fact in many cases a high end single core (which is pretty much phased out of production by now) will be quite competitive - since the individual cores in dual core and quad core processors are not much better...
Bottom line: for many older applications a good dual core will likely beat a similarly priced quad core - new applications (starting the last two years maybe) are often able to utilize multi-core platforms - so that for things other than the relatively old Civ4 a quad core may prove to have better life expectancy
The programs you list will do fine on a dual core - and you will see no appreciable difference on a quad core though.
As for memory usage: in 32bit windows the max capacity for every application is set to 2GB - however this can be easily modified to 3GB. Since the operating system uses some memory itself you will get improved performance of memory hogs like Civ4 going up to 4GB of RAM - the memory limit of 32bit operating systems.
I would recommend going for 4GB of RAM if you want to go for good Civ4 experience - this is usually the bottle neck for huge maps and larger mods

 

[Matthew5117]

just speaking about civ4 and its expansions: they do not use more than one processor - a dual core can be slightly better than a a similar one core computer only because the operating system can do all the background stuff on the second processor. A quad core will not do anything to help and in fact in many cases a high end single core (which is pretty much phased out of production by now) will be quite competitive - since the individual cores in dual core and quad core processors are not much better...
Bottom line: for many older applications a good dual core will likely beat a similarly priced quad core - new applications (starting the last two years maybe) are often able to utilize multi-core platforms - so that for things other than the relatively old Civ4 a quad core may prove to have better life expectancy
The programs you list will do fine on a dual core - and you will see no appreciable difference on a quad core though.
As for memory usage: in 32bit windows the max capacity for every application is set to 2GB - however this can be easily modified to 3GB. Since the operating system uses some memory itself you will get improved performance of memory hogs like Civ4 going up to 4GB of RAM - the memory limit of 32bit operating systems.
I would recommend going for 4GB of RAM if you want to go for good Civ4 experience - this is usually the bottle neck for huge maps and larger mods

Dual core sounds okay. What about Civ V though? Realizing it may not come out until a few years, I'm hoping to use the computer until then (I could always upgrade though). Do you think Civ V have high system requirements?

 

[ori]

As with all games: Civ 5 will have higher system requirements (likely a standard system at the time it is announced). I would be genuinely surprised if it would not utilize multi-core and a lot of memory (current min specs say 512 MB - I'd probably expect that to go up to 1 or even 2 GB). Though that is guess work - mostly because this would look much different if they announced it now (e.g. release early 2010 or so) or wait a few more years...

 

[Matthew5117]

Is it possible they would utilize the quad-core function?

 

[ori]

I would expect so - but you never know. The more time goes by the more likely
Today single core computers are not actually sold by most large vendors anymore in large numbers - so that I expect any new game to be able to utilize multi-core systems. But you never know until you see it

 

[Matthew5117]

Ah, I could always upgrade if they do.