Are the following specs good for gaming?

D

Dollar

New Member
Hi all. There was a day where I saw a prebuilt desktop PC from acer with the following specifications:
-AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+ (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache)
-2GB DDR 2 RAM (Upgradable to maximum 4GB)
-256MB Ati Radeon X1650 Graphic Processor Unit
-250GB S-ATA HDD
-High Definition 7.1 channel integrated audio
-16X DVD Dual Layer (DVD+/-RW)
-Windows Vista Home Premium Operating System
-19" LCD Monitor
-Speakers with Subwoofer
-1 Year Onsite Warranty (Norton 2006, Adobe, Office and DVD productivity software bundled)

I am just wondering does these specs from acer made a good gaming PC? I am also concern whether windows vista home premium is a good choice for gaming.
 
Uh looks alright if you ask me but if I remember correctly that video card is on the shabby side.

I used to have a card very similar to that and it used to run cs maxed out and all but was laggy and not all that good.
 
hpi said:
Uh looks alright if you ask me but if I remember correctly that video card is on the shabby side.

I used to have a card very similar to that and it used to run cs maxed out and all but was laggy and not all that good.
Click to expand...

Is the Ati Radeon X1650 256MB GPU able to handle graphically intensive games such as lord of the rings, world of warcrafts and certain MMORPG such as quake and games like CS Source?
 
Dollar said:
Is the Ati Radeon X1650 256MB GPU able to handle graphically intensive games such as lord of the rings, world of warcrafts and certain MMORPG such as quake and games like CS Source?
Click to expand...

Wow it would run. Lord of the rings iunno I never even saw it in real life.

Quake not sure maybe on medium and wow on high but it run better on medium.

It ran my css for almost a year and did fine but it was laggy and it skip sometimes/
 
hpi said:
Building that system on your own would come out to the same price or not much lower.
Click to expand...

The acer desktop PC is already the most budget and value for money that I can find among other major brands. Why would a DIY be of any lower price with the same specs as acer? And why would a prebuilt PC cost more? Can anyone explain the difference as well as the pros and cons between prebuilt and DIY desktop PC to me? Isn't same specs equals same cost?
 
Dollar said:
The acer desktop PC is already the most budget and value for money that I can find among other major brands. Why would a DIY be of any lower price with the same specs as acer? And why would a prebuilt PC cost more? Can anyone explain the difference as well as the pros and cons between prebuilt and DIY desktop PC to me? Isn't same specs equals same cost?
Click to expand...

Because DIY's cost cheaper. Companies charge more because THEY built it so it's like there making a profit.

Take alienware for example: Take there best model with all the highest end stuff and it comes out to 11 or 12 thousand something $'s but if you do it yourself it would be half of that.
 
Same spec does not equal same cost. Prebuilts must have a fee for building a computer, or else the company won't be able to survive!

With prebuilts, you can customize it for your exact needs, and get high quality parts everywhere. You also gain a better knowledge of computers, and don't have to check with "people higher up" to find out if the cheap components they put in can handle an upgraded graphics card, for instance.
 
Ok. Now I finally fully understood the cost difference because of the fee payable to prebuilt. But I shall still stick to the acer prebuilt desktop PC because firstly I do not know how to build one, and secondly I am not into overclocking which voids warranty, which is not an issue for me.
Now my next question is whether the AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+ (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache) is better than P4 and PD Dual Core as well if it is comparative to Intel Core 2 Dual E4400 (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800Mhz FSB)?
Another thing is why websites and shops specs chard only show the Ghz and L2 Cache but not the FSB speed for the AMD processor?
 
Dollar said:
But I shall still stick to the acer prebuilt desktop PC because firstly I do not know how to build one, and secondly I am not into overclocking which voids warranty, which is not an issue for me.
Now my next question is whether the AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+ (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache) is better than P4 and PD Dual Core as well if it is comparative to Intel Core 2 Dual E4400 (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800Mhz FSB)?
Another thing is why websites and shops specs chard only show the Ghz and L2 Cache but not the FSB speed for the AMD processor?
Click to expand...

Building is easy is just connect cables and assemble simple as that, overclocking isn't hard, the only problem would be if you cpu gets ****ed up but the chance of that happening is like less than 1% even if you didn't know how to overclock, by around 1000$ you could get good stuff like 2gb ram ddr2 pc 800, a E4300 which can be easily overclock to 3ghz and a 8800 gts which is one of the latest models of nvidia, with this you could be able to play most actual games.
 
Dollar said:
The acer desktop PC is already the most budget and value for money that I can find among other major brands. Why would a DIY be of any lower price with the same specs as acer? And why would a prebuilt PC cost more? Can anyone explain the difference as well as the pros and cons between prebuilt and DIY desktop PC to me? Isn't same specs equals same cost?
Click to expand...

Nope, the only con to DIY is the time. The money, I would say, is about 10% less, give or take.
 
hpi said:
Even then how long does it take to build a pc? Took me what? few hours to build it all and install everything and all that.
Click to expand...

I agree is just matter of a few hours, the only real CON is if something doesn't work/is defective and you have to rma and wait for a new replacement other than that there isn't real con
 
Dollar said:
Ok. Now I finally fully understood the cost difference because of the fee payable to prebuilt. But I shall still stick to the acer prebuilt desktop PC because firstly I do not know how to build one, and secondly I am not into overclocking which voids warranty, which is not an issue for me.
Now my next question is whether the AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+ (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache) is better than P4 and PD Dual Core as well if it is comparative to Intel Core 2 Dual E4400 (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800Mhz FSB)?
Another thing is why websites and shops specs chard only show the Ghz and L2 Cache but not the FSB speed for the AMD processor?
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for expressing all opinions. Can somebody explain the highlighted portion to me?
Thanks in advance.
 
INTELCRAZY said:
Because AMD doesn't have an FSB, they have HT. Who said that?
Click to expand...

No one said that. I am just a newbie with computers you see. What is HT by the way?





On the other hand, not to be confused with the above question,
I would like to know as for the Intel Core Dual E4400 (2.0Ghz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800Mhz FSB), does the 800Mhz FSB means that the ram speed can only support up to DDR2 800Mhz? And does the info in brackets refers to motherboard specs rather than processor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top