Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 113062	2010-10-04 00:30:00	$1800 Computer	jd2759 (15763)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1141410	2010-10-04 04:07:00	looks like it could be pricespy? I'm always a bit iffy about getting the top spec of anything related to CPU, graphics, HDD and RAM, since you're paying a heavy premium for something that will fall in price in a few months. For example if you spent money on top spec headphones/speakers, keyboard and mouse, monitor, in a few months (or even years), they will still be usable. The example I think of are high end speakers from decades ago - I bet some people still use high end speakers from the mid 90s today, and they'll sound just as good as speakers purchased today. Another example are the high end trinitron CRT monitors - only now IPS lcds are comparable. Have you looked at some scaling benchmarks to see if the graphics card will be left waiting on the CPU? I don't know if the CPU is fast enough. The graphics card you have chosen is pretty much one of the fastest available, and you wouldn't want it to be held back by a CPU less than 1/10th of the price!	utopian201 (6245)
1141411	2010-10-04 07:57:00	It's for nVidia but it gives you a good idea. Hence, my reason for suggesting just spending $40 extra on the CPU: www.slizone.com	Chilling_Silence (9)
1141412	2010-10-04 08:08:00	lAnother example are the high end trinitron CRT monitors - only now IPS lcds are comparable. Trinitron CRTs I would assume they are into graphics, they are still quite good, some time ago I walked into a printery for a work project of mine (my photographs for their Xmas cards), some still had them. But these days with giga megapixels, users would feel frustrated editing on a small 21" CRT, these days 24" LCDs might be considered the min some are even using 28 or 32" Apple Cinema Displays and Eizo LCDs ... incl a camera club friend of mine, non-pro. Once you zoom into 100% view with the likes of Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture or Phase 1 Capture One Pro to edit, 21" CRT are tiny, 21" CRT might be equiv to a 19" or 20" LCD (viewable screen). These software are more for photographers (streamlined) than the full on Photoshop, with a tap of a mouse button it bumps into 100% view. Unlike Photoshop these software tend not to zoom into increments, ie., 10% view or 80% etc. It's either fit screen size or right at 100%. A 24" screen (1080 or 1200 HD) would show approx a 3 megapixel file at 100% view without the need to scroll. For consumers and gamers - nah. CRTs are not as bright as the "consumer" LCDs, most people tend to want bright, constrasty stuff ...	Nomad (952)
1141413	2010-10-04 21:02:00	But these days with giga megapixels, users would feel frustrated editing on a small 21" CRT, these days 24" LCDs might be considered the min some are even using 28 or 32" Apple Cinema Displays and Eizo LCDs ... ... A 24" screen (1080 or 1200 HD) would show approx a 3 megapixel file at 100% view without the need to scroll. For consumers and gamers - nah. CRTs are not as bright as the "consumer" LCDs, most people tend to want bright, constrasty stuff ... Trinitron CRTs are brighter than shadow mask CRTs in general. My 22" CRT has a maximum resolution of 2048x1536@80hz, which is better than my 24" lcd (1920x1200@60). While my LCD has pixel perfect sharpness, the CRT has higher DPI. The physical viewable image is the same height as my LCD, so I guess if I drove it at 1600x1200, it would be quite a good dual desktop. Also CRTs have no image processing latency as there is no need for a processor to calculate what colour each pixel is. Its why when you look at those 'pro cyber gamer' leagues, they all have battle tank CRTs precisely -because- they are better for fast paced gaming. My LCD is about 20ms behind my CRT, but I know some samsung PVA panels can be up to 60ms behind. This is about as high as some gamer's pings are, so you've basically doubled your ping. There is also no ghosting (response time), but that generally isn't a problem with LCDs now anyway. Sorry to get off topic, but I've never heard of a 28" or 32" ACD, only 27 and 30. But yes I see your point of view.	utopian201 (6245)
1141414	2010-10-04 22:38:00	Damn good card. But I would have gone with Intel. Yup, the 5970 is an amazing card - but nearly every game out that will actually make use of such a good card, given that the monitor listed can only go up to 1366x768, will be bottlenecking the poor little Athlon II long before the 5970 is even working hard ;) I would seriously drop the card back to a GTX460 or a 5850 or something, up the CPU to a Phenom II and up the monitor to a 22" that can handle 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. You'll spend around the same price, and get better overall performance and nicer graphics.	inphinity (7274)
1141415	2010-10-05 09:10:00	Wise words!	Chilling_Silence (9)
1141416	2010-10-05 19:43:00	Odd balance... imo cut back on GPU and up the rest of the spec. +1, yeah, that dual core AMD CPU will be a huge bottleneck on that GPU sandwich...yek!	SolMiester (139)
1141417	2010-10-05 20:04:00	+1, yeah, that dual core AMD CPU will be a huge bottleneck on that GPU sandwich...yek! Yes, absolutely. I have a GTX460 / i7 860 /22" 1080p screen and I'm more then happy with the performance. Lower the spec of the card, get a larger screen and a more powerful processor. :2cents:	wratterus (105)
1141418	2010-10-05 21:29:00	I know it is far out of balance and impracticable, just having a bit of fun	jd2759 (15763)
1141419	2010-10-05 22:13:00	Personally I wouldn't ever skimp on the CPU by THAT much. Minimum I would buy is a Phenom II X4, and if the budget is not big enough I'll just save up.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
1 2 3 4