i dont understand why people do this...

[flamingspinach]

Well, personally, I look for parts that are "futureproof". Not for upgradeability or anything, just performance. In my first build, I put an S3 Savage4-based video card, and it couldn't even run Quake III for five minutes without overheating. This is why I'm going for a 6800 this time around. Exact processor speed isn't really as much of a problem for me, because the x86 architecture hasn't changed nearly as drastically as the capability specs of video cards over the last several years. A few years from now, if I had spent more on a CPU, my computer would be running fast but my video card might not have hardware support for whatever game I might be wanting to play. That's my rationale for buying a 6800 NU along with an Athlon64 3200+.

-fs

 

[mircea]

I play some games. But I also use the computer for aplications that need a lot of CPU crunching. Can you blamiong me that in my budget I have to lean twords MOB+CPU instead of the GPU?

The point of all the answers saying not everyone is into HI end gaming is that there are plenty of software out there that depend on a good CPU, but there are ONLY games that depend on a good GPU.
So If I can play all the games out there With my 6600GT and the future games fir the next 2 years with respectable visuals (no need to max visuals in order to finish the game) I have some $200 more to put in HDD space and better CPU to do the other things faster.

 

[tweeve2002]

Some people buy a cheap video card because the plan on upgrading latter when that card is bottom of the line of lower...of example I still have my Geforce 4 TI 4200 in my computer,my stsytem is a nice gamming comp exept for the video, sure I cant trun on all the goodies and sometimes my max res is 800x600 but it still prefroms nicedly, now I plan on upgrading it in a few weeks to a nice Geforce 6800 GT, Why I plan on keeping this system around for atleast another 2 years, The main reason for gettng better video now is because i really dont have the money to build a hole new system. and a video upgrade is a upgrade that is going to stick around for awhile, sure in about 6 months the RAM might get switched out for faster RAM so i can OC better or i might get a faster CPU, but the Video card is going have to last me untill i can aford a hole new system. and by that time the 6800 GT will be low end or lower and barrly makeing head way and then I will upgrade the whole system.

my .02c/rant

 

[tm37]

I get the retail edge so I always get a good Processor and then I just get what I can afford.

I did some trading and ended up with a pretty sweet set-up I just need to get a video card.

 

[sprint113]

A good CPU is usually a better, longer term investment than a vid card. I got my 3.0c about a year and a half ago and by today's standards, still pretty good, but compared to the vid cards back then, the 5800 vs 6800.
And esp. with today's market, a good CPU is probably going to last longer than the vid card.

And for examples of other things that people use the computers that people are even newbs @ comps are starting to use their computers for are music ripping, converting home recordings to DVD, and digital picture touching up. All which having a good CPU helps a lot and don't require a good Vid card.
And considering how most users are going for LCD panels, most of which max out at 1280.

 

[Auric]

If Subject X ran the graphics benchmark, let us presume such performance was important to them and they are indeed thus a gamer. So the conclusion is that they blew their wad on everything else and could only afford the 6600 and perhaps are waiting for the forthcoming next generation parts to bring the GPU up to the level of the rest of the system, particularly as noted with SLI.

However, in the example I am compelled to note the the lack of hardware audio, so the most glaring mistake is overspending on CPU only to take a disparate price/performance and quality hit from subpar software audio. But Subject X may likewise be waiting to upgrade.

Another mistake is prolly buying anything OCZ, especially rebranded parts at extra cost. Ditto the "fancy" case, most likely sporting cheesy windows and lights which otherwise would have afforded the missing hardware.

 

[jvarszegi]

Originally posted by: Auric
If Subject X ran the graphics benchmark, let us presume such performance was important to them and they are indeed thus a gamer. So the conclusion is that they blew their wad on everything else and could only afford the 6600 and perhaps are waiting for the forthcoming next generation parts to bring the GPU up to the level of the rest of the system, particularly as noted with SLI.

However, in the example I am compelled to note the the lack of hardware audio, so the most glaring mistake is overspending on CPU only to take a disparate price/performance and quality hit from subpar software audio. But Subject X may likewise be waiting to upgrade.

I have a question about audio. I've seen lots of posts about how processor use goes down with the use of a dedicated sound card, and I can believe that if you're using software audio to start with. My nForce4 chipset comes with on-board audio, though. I haven't don too much with it yet, but it sounds fine for my purposes (playing MP3s while I work, getting decent sound from games, etc.). If I don't have to, I'd rather not yank my SB Audigy 2 out of my girlfriend's workstation (which she uses anyway) or buy another card if I don't need it.

My question is this: am I using software audio right now??? I did install some Realtek drivers/software that goes with the on-board audio, but say I'm listening to MP3s with Winamp, how much of it is using the CPU and how much takes place in the chipset? I spent some time looking through nForce4 specs but was a little over my head. If it'll really make the system noticeably responsive, I'll probably look for a cheap decent sound card.

 

[InlineFive]

Some people only need certain components to be really fast. If you look in the DC forum people emphasize processor speed, memory speed and not much else.

 

[Cerb]

I'd LOVE to have that system.
A 6600GT is nothing to laugh at. While it can't compete with its more expensive brethren, it has no toruble against similar ATi solutions, even pumping up AA & AF.

However, I wouldn't wonder about getting amazingly good 3Dmark scores (yes, they would be amazing, as I have a 5900XT right now).

Why not spend over $200 on a video card, but spend $1000+ on the rest?
Because the rest you are likely to get mroe use out of.
Encoding audio and video...CPU/RAM.
Office stuff...CPU/RAM/HDD.
Gaming is the only nromal application in which ALL parts matter. It is the ONLY application for which the video card, besides good 2d output and DVI compliance, makes a difference.

Also, the monitor makes a difference. I'm a 17" that can do 1024x768 @ 85Hz.
Even w/ moderate AA & AF, something like a 6600GT will do me fine (hell, my 5900XT is still fine, though I do wish I'd waited out for the 6x00 series) until I find another suitable monitor.

Lastly, I know more than one gamer perfectly happy with crappy as hell video cards.
Friend 1: GF4MX 420.
Friend 2: FX 5500 (no, he didn't pay too much for it, $40+tax).
Friend two had to upgrade because of two things. First, my old GF2 GTS was finally dying (stability, video corruption...it's only on its THIRD heatsink fan...), and that WoW was doing too much texture swapping.
He knows of AA & AF. He's seen AA & AF in action. I offered him my 9600XT for $100, and if he'd wanted it more recently, I would have gone down to $70 (I won't want it to be all money down the drain, but no need to amke money on him). But no. He just needs to get 30-60 FPS at 1024x768, lowest quality all around.

For every person who thinks a FX 5200 is going to rock, there's also a guy who knows very well it its capabilities, and is perfectly happy with it.

 

[Tiamat]

If they play games at 1024x768, then a 6600GT could do just fine.

Or, they could probably just buy cheap now, and buy better later.

Or SLI the 6600GT.

200$ saved now on GPU is the difference between getting an AXP system, and getting that A64 system - the later having better overall performance.

 

[Kogan]

Whoa, you called a $200 video card a low/mid end graphics card. I'm still using a geforce2 in a few systems that I use to play half life 2 on. I think they're worth about $15 right now and still play new games great (except doom3 of course)

 

[boggartlaura]

I don't play games, so a even a mid-range video card would be a waste for me. Buty I do typically run 5-6 applications at the same time. So I sepnd my money on a better CPU.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Kogan
Whoa, you called a $200 video card a low/mid end graphics card. I'm still using a geforce2 in a few systems that I use to play half life 2 on. I think they're worth about $15 right now and still play new games great (except doom3 of course)

That's because texture swapping is the only real hurt they feel, if you don't mind low quality. Otherwise, I have a feeling my friend would still be putting up w/ problems of the GF2 until he was forced into buying a new card, were it not on sale (at $80, a FX 5500 is steep...at $40 w/ no rebates retail, you can't argue).

Seriously, most people here have really high standards. In some cases that's not entirely true (I still remember a guy asking if he needed anything better than a 5200 if he only played games at 1280x1024...), but it mostly is. They sell because they are better than IEG and integrated GF4MX.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I have an AMD XP 2600+, top of the line ASUS motherboard (not sure if it still is), top of the line Corsair RAM 1GB, Nice Case, a total of 14 fans, and an FX 5600 Ultra.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I'm not a hard core gamer, but I do like games. I'm using a 12ms 17" gaming LCD with a max res. of 1280 x 1024, but I play most games at 1024 x 768. I currently have 1 6600gt and another one on the way from newegg.

My single 6600gt plays Doom3, and Halflife2, etc... very well at these resolutions, and I'm sure once I add the second one it will be able to handle any of the new games yet to come for a long time. In my opinion high end cards are only worth it if you have a large monitor capable of high resolutions of 1600 x 1200 or higher.

I don't need or want to pay for a gaming monitor with 1600 x 1200 or higher resolution.

 

[jvarszegi]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
If they play games at 1024x768, then a 6600GT could do just fine.

Or, they could probably just buy cheap now, and buy better later.

Or SLI the 6600GT.

200$ saved now on GPU is the difference between getting an AXP system, and getting that A64 system - the later having better overall performance.

I'm using my 6600GT to play games at 1600 X 1200. I just don't turn on AA and AF.