I also wonder if it would be cheaper or possible to upgrade my current desktop instead of getting a new one...
Processor: 3.5-4GB quad-core
RAM: 6GB
HDD: 200GB (I don't need a lot)
Video card: I guess I should get something better than an Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT (I don't know what to go for with that)
OS: Windows 7, if I can run things in Vista and XP mode; otherwise, I can stick with Vista
Crescent Pulsar S wrote:I really don't know what I need; I typically don't push my computer much at all, but sometimes a game or other kind of program demands more than it can handle, and that happens more often over time. Whatever I'm able to afford won't just take into account what it can't do now, but what might be demanded of it later, since there's no telling when I'll have another opportunity to get a better computer again.
As for my current processor, it's a Pentium dual-core CPU E5200. I have no idea if that or my RAM is the weakest link, or both.
So long as the price is right and the performance is good, I'm not overly concerned with HDD storage space.
I have no idea what kind of video card I'll need for whatever I'll do in the future; I don't think I've ever played anything that my video card couldn't handle, but that's a moot point when I keep encountering more games that demand RAM and CPU that my computer can't muster.
Simple approach... determine what you use or do now. The most hardware intensive stuff is graphics, be it games or cad imaging or similar.
Different people have different ideas on how to figure stuff like that out, but not everyone needs a more advanced system.
I really don't know what I need; I typically don't push my computer much at all, but sometimes a game or other kind of program demands more than it can handle, and that happens more often over time. Whatever I'm able to afford won't just take into account what it can't do now, but what might be demanded of it later, since there's no telling when I'll have another opportunity to get a better computer again.
As for my current processor, it's a Pentium dual-core CPU E5200. I have no idea if that or my RAM is the weakest link, or both.
Other than that, at some point in the future I'd like to make music and animations. The last time I'd tried either, things hadn't run so smoothly despite meeting the requirements for them, so I'd want that to be a non-issue as well.
So long as the price is right and the performance is good, I'm not overly concerned with HDD storage space.
I have no idea what kind of video card I'll need for whatever I'll do in the future; I don't think I've ever played anything that my video card couldn't handle, but that's a moot point when I keep encountering more games that demand RAM and CPU that my computer can't muster.
Crescent Pulsar S wrote:Thanks for all that. Man, there's so much to consider. I kinda miss just getting computers, now. XD;;
As for the motherboard, I think the identity can be gleaned by the model of my computer? (Which is a Dell Studio 540.)
Not quite true. I just ran a few games of Starcraft 2, and you can turn down the graphics a LOT(enough that my previous gfx card, a 3450 could run it fine), but the limiting part, that´s the cpu. Bigtime.
Same goes for some other games, like "Hearts of Iron 2".
There is a severe need to keep gfx intensive and NOT gfx intensive games separate when determining hardware.
Games =/=(does not equal) gfx intensive by default. But if it´s a first player shooter game, THEN you generally need better gfx.
Do also note later in that same post I suggested actually looking at the system requirements for all of them plus ones considering and consider the highest as a baseline.
of course a game like say minesweeper would be less intensive than say mass Effect 3. But most games will be more intense than say merely checking email, browsing internet, etc...
About the only other hardware intensive thing to come to mind are things that hit the drive often... file servers for example... but no way will I believe that an issue here...
EDIT: Under no circumstances do I recommend any non-game fanatic overclock their systems. I do not care if it is safer these days, it simply is not worth it, and can damage the system unless they know what they are doing.
Well, next time I turn my computer on, I'll fiddle with the BIOS and see what happens.
Crescent Pulsar S wrote:Well, I'm not in dire need of it right now, but I thought I'd at least get to know what to do if I feel I can't wait, or if the opportunity to buy a new computer passes me by. I didn't find the BIOS key this time (I literally get a split second to see the Dell logo before it goes to load the OS), but by chance, out of the likely keys my research turned up, I ended up finding some other thing where I finally found the option to turn off the auto-restart feature.
Upon turning it off, though, my computer proceeded with loading the OS, so I guess I'll wait to make another attempt the next time I turn my computer on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users