PC for a modest gamer ..

ShadowHearth

Piliger wrote: »

By the way thanks for all the advice and help you guys... appreciate it a lot:p

Let us know the qoute, if you don't mind ofc. Just interesting how much they will want for all this.

I would still find out more on mobo you getting.

nesf

Sean^DCT4 wrote: »

Can't say I agree with the i7 being a waste for gaming. I suppose it's relative to the graphics card you have and the quality of graphics you want. I would have thought the i5 would be a bottleneck with a decent graphics card.

The problem is the i7's big advantage over the i5 is Hyper Threading. i.e. logical cores. So it can appear like an 8 core processor to programs (but isn't as good as a true 8 core processor). This is godly in stuff like video processing and similar but hardly any games are coded to take advantage of it precisely because so few people have i7s. Because of this you get feck all advantage to an i7 for gaming.

In a perfectly coded game an i7 would perform much better but such games don't exist at the moment, most still scale poorly past 2 cores because of developers catering for the dual core market. It's been this way for ages. 64 bit took forever to become mainstream and until it did there was zero advantage to having more than 4GB of memory in your system because games just weren't designed to use more than 2GB.

The only reason to get an i7 is for non-gaming purposes, so if like me you do a fair bit of video converting or whatever then yes it makes some bit of sense but even then unless you do a lot of it it's hard to justify the extra expense.

nesf

ShadowHearth wrote: »

i did not say everyone play at 1080p, but most who play BF3 on pc will play it atleast on 1650x1050

god, my 5 years old dell was on 1650x1050 since i got it first time. its hard even get a monitor which is not 16x10++

Most people I know don't upgrade often and when they do it's generally just a better graphics card. A lot of people will still be playing at 1280 x 800 or similar and playing modern games on Core Duos and worse.

If you're on a budget it's not a terrible idea because you can get away with much cheaper cards than HD monitors. If you're silly enough like me to game on 2650 x 1440 or greater then you're into silly money territory to be able to play games at max (to the point that I'd recommend people to stick to 1080p if they've more sense than money). If I grabbed my old 1280 x 800 monitor that I was using up til 4 years ago then I could get away with a 150 euro graphics card for the vast majority of games.

ShadowHearth

nesf wrote: »

Most people I know don't upgrade often and when they do it's generally just a better graphics card. A lot of people will still be playing at 1280 x 800 or similar and playing modern games on Core Duos and worse.

If you're on a budget it's not a terrible idea because you can get away with much cheaper cards than HD monitors. If you're silly enough like me to game on 2650 x 1440 or greater then you're into silly money territory to be able to play games at max (to the point that I'd recommend people to stick to 1080p if they've more sense than money). If I grabbed my old 1280 x 800 monitor that I was using up til 4 years ago then I could get away with a 150 euro graphics card for the vast majority of games.

150eu will buy you 6870 which will play anything on 1080p.

Monitors are very cheap now too and for awile. It's very very rare to see monitor lower them 16x10 these days.

I really doubt that there are many people who play mw3, wow, bf3, skyrum, lol on 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

It would actually would fun to make a pole in games forum: " on what resolution you play games". It's a shame I suck at doing polls. Whana do it m8?

nesf

ShadowHearth wrote: »

150eu will buy you 6870 which will play anything on 1080p.

Monitors are very cheap now too and for awile. It's very very rare to see monitor lower them 16x10 these days.

I really doubt that there are many people who play mw3, wow, bf3, skyrum, lol on 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

It would actually would fun to make a pole in games forum: " on what resolution you play games". It's a shame I suck at doing polls. Whana do it m8?

They're cheap if you have a job and are working, if you're a student or a teenager dependent on your parent's largesse they're not.

Monotype

Take a look at the figures from the steam survey.



There's a lot of people around with lower resolution monitors. I acknowledge that these might not be the hardest core gamers and a few resolutions may belong to laptops. But 1280x1024 is still quite popular and I know a lot of people still going with this resolution. It's really only in the last year that full HD screens have plummeted well into affordable levels and pretty much taking over as the most common resolution to buy. Screens often get carried across several upgrades and new builds so it can be a while before they are upgraded, regardless of what is currently stocked in shops.

nesf

Monotype wrote: »

There's a lot of people around with lower resolution monitors. I acknowledge that these might not be the hardest core gamers and a few resolutions may belong to laptops.

There's also the thing that quite a few people don't care much about resolution or screen size enough to invest in a new monitor if their current one isn't holding them back. Bigger monitors mean needing better graphics cards and more expense.

If gaming is a side hobby, which is it is for a lot of people, then why would they automatically go out looking for HD monitors when buying one means more expensive graphics upgrades going forwards? Yeah it's different for pretty hardcore gamers willing to build, tweak and overclock but for someone like my brother who games only a handful of hours a week a monitor upgrade wouldn't be a big priority for gaming.