Cheap Gaming Rig

Takaharu

I decided I might re-join my friends with LAN gaming. Rather than hauling my PC to and from theirs every time I want to game I thought I might throw together some components.
I've got a choice of two options really. I can either use my gf's old PC that she used to use as a secondary, which has an AMD X2 6000, 2GB DDR2 800MHZ, 550W (I think) PSU, disk drive or build up another PC using a Core 2 Duo (can't remember the number), buy a Gigabyte GA-G31M-ES2L, swipe 2GB DDR2 533MHz from work, probably utilise the PSU from my gf's spare PC and use my old case. Either way, I'd have to buy a graphics card, which brings me to the reason for my post.
Is it worth me forking out £33 for a motherboard, considering the PC I have available to me and what sort of graphics card is good value-for-money for around £60?
We're going to be playing CoD 1, United Offensive, 2, possibly 4, Dawn of War 1 (all expansions), 2, Unreal Tournament (all of them), Command & Conquer First Decade, 3, Battlefield 2, Fear, Battlefiled 1942 and possibly a couple of newer games at 1280x1024.

After looking over some online discussions & benchmarks it seems like the Nvidia 9600 GT is a decent VFM card and I can get an XFX 512MB version for just over £60.

__________________

Optix

You could probably pick up a 9800GT for around that much but then again I think hardware costs more in the UK than it does in the US so my GBP to USD method is likely flawed. I would think a 9600GT should be able to run all of those pretty handily so you're right on the money with what you were thinking.

__________________

Cow_160483

Yup that 9600 Gt should do the trick but i hope the processor does not bottleneck it .

__________________

Decode!
Muhahahahah!

MIG-31

Id be tempted to look more towards a 9800...The price should not make much differrence unless it's outside your budget..

But im not sure if a Palit GeForce GT 240 1024MB GDDR3 PCI-Express Graphics Card would suit you..

They are currently around £60 or so in the uk..

Palit GeForce GT 240 1024MB GDDR3 PCI-Express Graphics Card [NEAT2400FHD01] Graphics and Video NVIDIA Graphics Plus GT 240 Series

__________________

ET3D

Without knowing the particular Core 2 Duo CPU, it's impossible to tell if it's better than the Athlon. I think that the AMD will be good enough to support all the games you want to play, so save that MB cost. I agree that GeForce 9600 or GT 240 will be pretty good for your needs.

Takaharu

Considering I'd have to fork out for a motherboard and graphics card I'll probably just use my gf's.
Out of the 9600GT and GT240 which one gives a better performance for gaming at 1280x1024? They're practically the same price and I haven't used either manufacturer before...

__________________

DJ BIG T

gt240 is like having a 9800gt

__________________

Takaharu

By what I've read around the 240 doesn't fare quite as well with GDDR3 compared to its GDDR5 version. Is it worth getting the GDDR3 GT240 over the 9600GT (which, by the looks of it, only comes in GDDR3)?
Also, if I do go for the GT240 is it worth going for the 1GB version over the 512MB?

Last question (of this post) - is Palit reputable or is it better to go with another well-known company like XFX?

__________________

MIG-31

I used to use a 9600 GTX and that ran very well,But the 9800GT i used after that was great..

I would opt for the GT240 seeing as its just an overclocked (at Default) 9800..

From overclockers.co.uk the price difference from 512mb (2000mhz) to 1gb (1600 mhz) is just £5.

But take a look around at the price ranges... You may find one a little cheaper..

But it depends on what you want to lose out on... Personally i'd choose the 1 gb for future use over the 512mb card

As far as i know Pallit is pretty good and have not had any issues with them in thew past..

I'd avoid Inno3D,I have had to return one card by them 3 times in 2 months..So thats one i avoid.

__________________

Optix

The GT 240 is yet another crippled G92 core (c'mon Nvidia - roll out Fermi!) so it's essentially the same as a 9800GT. Similar to how a 250 is the same as a 9800GTX but with an updated BIOS. Sneaky, sneaky.

__________________

DJ BIG T

yeah that was sneaky of them to do that...

__________________

Optix

Completely off topic but you can flash your 9800GTX+ with a 250 BIOS and run it with a 250 in SLI mode. Nice to know since you can't find 9800GTX+'s for sale anymore without paying an arm and a leg.

__________________

BlueMak

so you don't want to go the Radeon way?

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

isaak

Just for clarification, a friend of mine has a Pentium 4 550 (3.4ghz) and a 9600GT, he plays everything roughly medium sometimes higher fine. Got through MW2 on it not sure what settings, but I think the 9600 is fine, plus you have a better processor

ET3D

I don't know where you guys get your opinions about the 240. From all the reviews I've seen it loses to the 9600 in a lot of cases. And that's with GDDR5. (It has a 128 bit bus compared to 256 bit for the 9600, so needs that GDDR5 to get the bandwidth.)

The most comprehensive 240 review I can find at the moment is here: techPowerUp :: MSI N240GT GeForce GT 240 512 MB GDDR5 Review :: Page 1 / 34. It has pretty comprehensive benchmarks, including for 1280x1024 for a variety of cards.

For example, CoD 4, 1280x1024 2xAA 8xAF, the 240 gets 53.2 FPS, which is entirely playable, but loses to the Radeon 4670 (56.3 FPS) and certainly the GeForce 9600 (68.6 FPS).

On another game that Takaharu mentioned, Fear, again 1280 2xAA 8xAF, the 240 gets 82 FPS, the 4670 83 FPS, and the 9600 122 FPS.

It does beat the 9600 in other games (such as Call of Juarez 2), but that's the GDDR5 card. The GDDR3 one is likely to fare worse.

Frankly, seeing these numbers I'd suggest getting the Radeon 4670. It gets decent enough frame rates for these older games and you can find it for under 50 pounds.

Takaharu

I'm generally a fan of ATI but I'll use Nvidia if it works out better value-for-money.
I can get a 4770 for £58... wait, what? Why am I still here if it's that price? From what I've seen that bad boy comes closer to the 250.

__________________

ET3D

It's definitely faster than the GeForce 9800 and it beats the 250 in many cases. Go for it!

Cow_160483

Glad that sorted out the problem

but seriously just get your hands on a 4770 and be done with it

__________________

Decode!
Muhahahahah!

BlueMak

Glad to be of help.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

aNy_oNE

Not all Inno3D cards are bad! I've had my Inno3D 9600GT for 1.5 years working flawlessly It is admittedly one of the cheaper brands though.

isaak

Yeah, my old ocmputer (now passed on to my dad) has been running fine for about 2 years - Inno3D 8800GTS

blibbax

I had ain inno3d 8500GT for a while... lowest of the low... but it worked flawlessly at a 50% OC in my PC for a few months, and now has continued happily in my mum's PC for over a year. It even managed games :O

__________________