Building new PC - Suggestions welcome

[Roguestar]

1: WoW is one example that you mentioned, and I was aware of. I highlighted the line because you said "almost all".
2: UT3 has been multi-threaded since it came out; this is new to neither you nor me. I'd like some actual sources that compare performance of Crysis and a number of other games across dual core and quad core systems.

 

[clovek1]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
1: WoW is one example that you mentioned, and I was aware of. I highlighted the line because you said "almost all".
2: UT3 has been multi-threaded since it came out; this is new to neither you nor me. I'd like some actual sources that compare performance of Crysis and a number of other games across dual core and quad core systems.

2. Supreme Commander is multithreaded too:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...w1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

i think only Supreme Commander, UT3 (and future games based on UT3 engine) and some racing game support 2+ cores.
quad core makes sense, if you plan to play future games.
not that much of sense, for todays games.
no sense for old games.

2 years ago, almost no game was multitrheaded. today, almost all new games use more than 1 core.
i think this will continue in the future and we may see more advanced AI (theoretically every NPC could use 1 core for "thinking")

 

[DSF]

But again, saying they use more than one core is a bit misleading in most cases. I would be interested to know how much of that Crysis load was one one core and how much was on the other.

 

[clovek1]

Originally posted by: DSF
But again, saying they use more than one core is a bit misleading in most cases. I would be interested to know how much of that Crysis load was one one core and how much was on the other.

how misleading ???
look at this WoW picture.
using 140% of one core. i think +40% gain is quite significant.
http://majko1.evolink.ro/multicore/wow2.png

i assume Crysis can use similar ammount of the second core (up to 50%)

 

[PreachTru]

Would I see any worthwhile performance gains if I went with 8gb of memory instead of the 4gb?


Also decided on purchasing the Dell 2408WFP 24" widescreen monitor ($516).

 

[DSF]

Vista will eat up as much RAM as you throw at it, but it won't make any appreciable difference in games.

 

[clovek1]

Originally posted by: PreachTru
Would I see any worthwhile performance gains if I went with 8gb of memory instead of the 4gb?


Also decided on purchasing the Dell 2408WFP 24" widescreen monitor ($516).

I think all today games, except may be Crysis , are produced only in a 32bit version.
therefore it will not be able to utilise more than 4 GB for gaming.
64bit Vista can use more than 4 GB, mainly as background cash for files from HDD.
it can use the memory for parallel running applications too.

32bit windows can use only 3.2GB RAM, as far, as i know.

i would recommend to buy 4 GB and upgrade in the future, when 64bit games become available and RAM even less expensive.

i am using 6GB RAM and i have turned the windows swap file off, as it is not needed anymore. but i dont recomend more than 4 GB for today.

i am using ATI 4870 and 24" EIZO LCD, even Crysis is playable for me (around 20 fps).

regarding LCD monitors, i recommend you to get S-PVA, MVA or IPS panel monitor.
TN panels are not acceptable for 24" by my opinion.