Computer advice

[Encore Again]

Hi. I tried asking this at the official forums but I couldn't get a strait answer out of them. I'm looking for a new computer to run WoW on high settings,will this work well:

Dimension 9200c

Pentium® D Processor 820 with Dual Core Technology (2.80GHz, 800FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium
Free Upgrade to 2GB DDR2 SDRAM AT 667MHz - $150
No Monitor
8x DVD+/-RW Drive
2 Year Next Business Day Onsite/In Home Service and Tech Support
Free Upgrade to 2GB DDR2 SDRAM AT 667MHz - $150 Value

---------------------

Thanks in advance

[Toxicshadow]

No it'll be terrible.
How will you see what you're doing without a monitor?

OK assuming you just left that line 1 while copy-pasting, what graphic card has it got? Really doesn't matter how much you upgrade the CPU and RAM if you then plug in a GeForce 2..

[poopsmcgee]

yah ur video card is really teh defining character in a gaming pc. i play with everything on max at 1440x900 and here are my specs:

Manufacturer: Poops Mcgee
Processor: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3000+ 1.8GHz
Memory: 1022MB RAM
Hard Drive: (2) 80 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT
Monitor: Hanns-G 19in Widescreen 5ms
Sound Card: Realtek AC97 Audio
Speakers/Headphones: Plantronics
Keyboard: Logitech POS
Mouse: Razer Copperhead
Mouse Surface: Steelpad 5L
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack

[Unknowable]

minimum requirements be damned - you need at least 1gig of ram and a decent (read less than 3 years old) vid card to play WoW at maxed settings - a geforce 7600 will work fine, as poops said. that's the same card (i think, mine has 256mb of onboard) that use on my rig

custom built by me (runs WoW on maxed out settings)
Gigabyte K8NF-9 mainboard, socket 939
AMD Athlon64 3000+ 1.8GHz proc.
two 512k sticks of dual-channel Kingston RAM
GeForce 7600 256mb vid card (pci-e X16 model)
Neovo 19" LCD
OS - Ubuntu 7.04 (linux)

for the best advice on what will/won't run WoW, read the specs sticky (http://forums.worldofwar.net/showthread.php?t=391708) written lovingly and accurately by our very own tech guru Kalos

[Kalos]

I'd just like to put a vote of no confidence in the Pentium D class processors. The Athlon 64's are better and equally priced. Barely more expensive are the Core 2 Duo's, which blow away any Athlon/Pentium processor made. The Pentium D is old stock Intel stopped making last year, they're just trying to ditch it even at a loss, it's better than throwing it out. But a user could do much better for the same amount of money. An Athlon X2 pretty much wipes the floor with the Pentium D's, eats up less power (costing you less per month) and priced the same now.

[poopsmcgee]

Barely more expensive are the Core 2 Duo's, which blow away any Athlon/Pentium processor made.
dood u might wanna do a bit more research on that. they don't blow the amd's away, but the new amd 4cores do blow the coreduo away. all while being about 1/2 of the cost of intel's 4core, which isn't benchmarking any better than amd's.

[Kalos]

dood u might wanna do a bit more research on that. they don't blow the amd's away, but the new amd 4cores do blow the coreduo away. all while being about 1/2 of the cost of intel's 4core, which isn't benchmarking any better than amd's.
I'd like to ask for a link. Considering AMD themselves have refused to show any benchmarks or any prices, how can you say it'll do anything of the sort at anything of the price, unless you've been reading the inquirer?

Besides of which, those processors are vapourware, we're not probably going to see them until September. I judge on what the user can buy now, not on what's promised and we have no information on. As of now, AMD doesn't even have a quad core out, and I'm certainly not going to advice people to sit around for a processor that might not be all that good, considering AMD have been so desperate to keep its performance secret.

Just as a point of interest, Intel have a $255 quad core. Are you seriously suggesting AMD are going to be releasing any high performance processor brand new at $65?

You're floating away on a future dream. There are no solid facts about K10 what so ever, just hot air from the PR department. Hopefully benchmarks shall appear soon, but right now there are no good comparisons.

Research I do. Rumours and promises I don't. I was the same with Core 2 Duo. Stated to people Athlon 64's were better for the consumer on the high end until they came along, were out in the shops, and it was quite clear that Intel's benchmarks were right on. AMD haven't even got to the benchmark release stage.

[Toxicshadow]

Erh.. guys..

Hate to break this to you, but WoW isn't made for running on multiple cores so there really isn't much gained.
I mean, price per GHz on each core isn't much higher than price per GHz on a single-core so u might as well get a dualcore, but other than that..

Save your money for Graphics and Beer.

[Kalos]

Erh.. guys..

Hate to break this to you, but WoW isn't made for running on multiple cores so there really isn't much gained.
I mean, price per GHz on each core isn't much higher than price per GHz on a single-core so u might as well get a dualcore, but other than that..

Save your money for Graphics and Beer.
This is accurate to some extent. However, the operating system is a multitasking agent in itself. While WoW cannot be broken down and divided between the two core, there are at least fifteen smaller processes going on that belong to the OS, and whatever background rubbish you have going. On a single core design, everything needs cycles from the one core, so WoW is being cycled in and out of dominance due to other things needing apart of the cycles to keep running.

On a Dual Core, Windows usually maps the Game to it's own core, meaning it it always running, not being cycled in and out in order for the basic background junk to get it's work done, that can go on the second core. Hence, it is actually worth getting a dual core as it does spread the workload, even if it isn't in the traditional manner of the program being split into seperate threads and being able to run in parellel.

Plus, there is no single core equvilient in performance/price ratio to Core 2 Duos. The Core 2 Solo processors are no where near as a good, designed to be something like a low end Celeron type in comparison, greatly losing performance. Really and truely, the E4300 is the best processor for gaming that can be gotten, no single core comes close to it's performance without costing more that that dual core actually does. It's not only newer, it's a cheaper technology too, rather than pouring resources into constantly bumping up one core Ala Pentium 4/Athlon 64 processors.

I'm in agreement on the Quad core, completely unneccessary in the consumer market. But if it declines much more, it'll be practically the same price anyway. I'm not even sure why Intel is sacrifing profitablity and longetivity of thier processors by moving them for so little and so quickly, they seem to be really keen on miving in the foundations for the world where programs are mostly threaded by providing consumers with the technology now for the market to expand upon. In practical terms however, don't expect to see this come true for at least seven years.

[Neshie]

i would strongly object to buying a pre-fab already complete computer, unless you know the guy who build it. Like Kalos said, the D processor isnt really that good. other than that, what is the videocard, whats the power supply, motherboard etc etc.
Usually what they do is put some mediocre/good hardware in such a computer, with alot of budget crap combined. You'd be better of buying all the parts and put it together yourself, or let the shop do it.
It might be a bit expensive, but at least you know whats in it, and that'll hold on for a few years.

As to the core 2 duo blowing away amd. That isnt really true. the X2 5000+ perfoms about the same as the C2D 4400 ^^