Okay, so I’m looking to buy a desktop machine mainly for the purpose of playing games; ideally I’d just like to pull one off the shelves at Costco, as mail order for various reasons is a PITA. I’m mainly looking to play RPGs and strategy games (Elemental and Civ5 are the recent ones of interest), plus MMOs, specifically WoW but I might want to check out some others as well. Ideally I’d like to be able to play Diablo 3 once it comes out; otherwise I figure on raiding good old games for my hours and hours of play time over the life of this computer.
Anyway, the two options I seem to have from Costco include:
That would be the direction I’d go, in fact it is close to what I’m running now ( same processor, different video card ) and it is a nice luxury to finally be able to run games at full graphics settings. I like to go longer between upgrades and so usually try to buy at the upper mid-tier to lengthen my useful computer life.
The worry I’d have with the other machine is less the processor than the on-board graphics. Usually those perform fairly poorly relative to regular video cards, though I’m not up on the latest stats, so I’m not sure just how big of a performance hit you’d be taking. But I imagine it would be a big one.
Short Answer: No, integrated (i.e. Intel) graphics will not run modern games adequately.
It sounds like you are unlikely to upgrade components yourself, but if you want that option the more expensive computer uses a newer platform which has much more longevity in it. The Core2 platform is rapidly approaching obsolescence.
Also if you can wait 3-6 months Intel is releasing a new line of processors (based on the Sandy Bridge architecture) which will mean a drop in prices for current hardware, as well as the option to buy newer hardware that will last longer.
Definitely go with the more expensive build. There is virtually no chance you’ll be able to play Civ 5 on an integrated chip (The minimum system requirement is a Core i3 CPU with integrated graphics, and that’s a lot more processing power than the X4500 has.), and I have to imagine even WoW would be a stretch at higher resolutions.
I’d say the second, but I wouldn’t even really recommend the second; that’s a really weak video card for that particular processor, which is pretty typical for off-the-shelf retailer boxes. Unfortunately, there’s a reason that one of the most common PC-building refrains is “get a Dell, then replace the video card”. If I wanted to future-proof myself for 2-3 years, I wouldn’t go any weaker than a 5770, and even that’s likely to be pretty low end a few years down the line.
Yeah, I was actually reading the 5570 as a 5770. A 5570 is defintely a bit anemic - I’m running an older but much beefier 4890 to get all that “full graphics settings” eye-candy.
The 5570 isn’t a disaster but if you’re looking to game that’s underpowered. You’d be way better off with a much cheaper CPU and a better video card. I’d recommend a 5770 or GTX 460 if it’s an option.
Imho: whatever your budget is, 50% of it is going for graphics card.
Possibly, if you are seriously a gamer, 75% or more should be budgeted for a graphics card.
Imho, in this situation, my choice would be to get the best CPU available with the crappiest GPU available from Costco, with the idea that whatever leftover money you have will go towards a good graphics card.
In fact, I would recommend going for the best Costco setup with integrated graphics, then waiting 3-12 months, while saving, to get a graphics card.
75% is a silly number. In an $800 system, you should have a $600 graphics card? And what else, a tin box for a case and an old electric generator out of a blender for a power supply?
Edit: The costco integrated graphics machine might not even have a graphics card port.
For gaming, yes I would, since I could get a workable 2 core CPU system for like $200, or less if I had reusable components. I assumed that the OP wanted gaming #1 beyond any other functions a serviceable computer could provide.
Well, it really depends on what the OP wants. I would have recommended something else if the requirements were lower. In this case, gaming was #1. So, the OP should spend more on a GPU and upgrade the cpu/mobo around it, giving it more years of use.
Price me out any $800 system where a $600 video card makes sense.
Actually, price me out any system where the 75% number makes sense. $300 video card in a $400 system? $800 video card (if any exist anymore, I guess you could crossfire two $400 cards) in a $1200 system?
Then price it out. List me any components with their prices where building a system with 75% of the budget going to the video card makes sense. Quit dodging. It’s a horrible idea. Horrible.
You’ll concede it because your idea is absurd. I recommend people invest heavily in the video card and I’m talking more in the 25-35% cost range. You’re suggesting they stick a radeon 5970 into a Pentium 4 2ghz with a $17 foxconn motherboard sitting in a cardboard box or something.
Recommending he budget a system a certain way, and then asked to elaborate on how much he should spend roughly on each component say you don’t want to “dredge up the stats” is some bizarre way of giving advice.
