I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008. I consider that to be a dirt cheap price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4 years. I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just fine.
The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth. And yes, I am running a 24" LCD. I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI, but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole new card. The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon Age:Origins - will probably run just fine on my current setup. However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had for years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data). So my upgrade this winter will be Windows 7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and a SSD boot drive. But I have no incentive to change my CPU. --------------------------- Brian Weeden Technical Advisor Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org> Montreal Office +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada +1 (202) 683-8534 US On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske <swza...@yahoo.com> wrote: > With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor > you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there are > times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon as > price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad core > processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used > because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL > > > Brian Weeden wrote: > >> Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer users >> for years now. I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to >> settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area. >> >> Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by. I play most new >> games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years. >> Processor? The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and I >> have yet to saturate all 4 processors. >> >> --------------------------- >> Brian Weeden >> Technical Advisor >> Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org> >> >> Montreal Office >> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada >> +1 (202) 683-8534 US >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske <swza...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP. >>> Better >>> pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot" >>> controller. LOL >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Tomporowski wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7. It seems like the >>>> system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk >>>> action, you get a substantial delay. For instance, I'll be playing a >>>> game, >>>> then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I >>>> get >>>> the circle, then finally it moves the message. Of course, the next >>>> message >>>> goes quickly. The same with getting disk directories. I'll click on a >>>> drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the moving >>>> bar, >>>> then it finally gives me all the folders. Of course, after that point, >>>> everything works quickly. My power settings are for always on, so it's >>>> not >>>> a power down. Anyone else seen this? >>>> >>>> Thanks....Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >>>> signature database 4537 (20091023) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
