mysteryboyee Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 no you didn't. That's a ridiculous claim that is demonstrably false. yes i do, and its true, and you want proof about the $600 dollar thing? here you go :http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-x51/pd.aspx look at the dell price, it says $699 idk what your talking about it being false, as it says right there in bright blue that its $699, so about $700 idk whats wrong with you if you think that thats $1000 or more. so to original poster, a cheap gaming computer would be an alienware x51 thats under $1000, and while there are better ones out there, dont forget dell is more known, oh, and as for people who say alienware sucks, then in case you didnt know, alienware wasnt ALWAYS owned by dell, it used to be its own indiviual company, and have you ever tried an alienware, and if so, what gen, cause dont forget, just because something is bad, it doesnt mean it stays bad for the rest of eternity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysteryboyee Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 In all honesty, anything over 200fps isn't exactly a huge change from 100fps, and anything above 1000fps is just serious overkill. It's like people saying "yay, I have 32GB of RAM! Wait... What difference does this make to gameplay again?" umm, well some people like to do super ram intensive stuff along side there game, like i run tons of virtual machines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzy6868 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I somehow doubt it. It's well known all big names are a no no if your serious about your computer-buying business. Dell makes good toasters, but gaming computers? Nope, for the reasons Sacrieur described so well. I guess I'll have to go ahead and shamelessly plug-in ASUS computers, they have great hardware, are not overpriced and very well built (cooling in mind, retro-lighted keyboards) and other good stuff. well if there no good for gaming why can i play crysis 3 on max? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzy6868 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 In all honesty, anything over 200fps isn't exactly a huge change from 100fps, and anything above 1000fps is just serious overkill. It's like people saying "yay, I have 32GB of RAM! Wait... What difference does this make to gameplay again?" yes it is overkill my xps i get 350 fps on extreme i get 100 fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErusPrime Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 yes i do, and its true, and you want proof about the $600 dollar thing? here you go :http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-x51/pd.aspx look at the dell price, it says $699 idk what your talking about it being false, as it says right there in bright blue that its $699, so about $700 idk whats wrong with you if you think that thats $1000 or more. so to original poster, a cheap gaming computer would be an alienware x51 thats under $1000, and while there are better ones out there, dont forget dell is more known, oh, and as for people who say alienware sucks, then in case you didnt know, alienware wasnt ALWAYS owned by dell, it used to be its own indiviual company, and have you ever tried an alienware, and if so, what gen, cause dont forget, just because something is bad, it doesnt mean it stays bad for the rest of eternity I meant your FPS. Alienware definitely doesn't have the hardware to run MC at 3000 FPS. especially for $600. Alienware wasn't always owned by Dell. They didn't suck back then. they had good parts. Dell wanted the name because of it's status amongst gaming rigs. Then they filled them with cheap dell parts. I've worked for Dell. you're an idiot. If you want a gaming rig, you either pay a lot of money for a company to do it for you or you build it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacrieur Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 A single 660 GTX won't run MC at 2000 FPS. We have the benchmarks right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylord Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 you dont know what your talking about, i use alienware and get about 2000 fps at max setting in tekkit/technic, AND i get about 3000 fps on vannila minecraft, so, do you get those fps? i didnt think so, and, idk what your talking about it being overpriced, as you can get an alienware x51 for around $600 which is a LOT cheaper then my old computer that was in fact overpriced, of course, then again, i got my old laptop at about 2004ish, so i guess then those specs were considerd good (old laptop was a compaq a916nr) which died about 8 years after i bought it, so it lasted a while, but anyway, alienware is fine Errrr. Errrrrrrr. I think I'll settle for the "no comment" option. You should simply be aware that everybody is aware of the fact you're saying total BS. well if there no good for gaming why can i play crysis 3 on max? Not saying they CAN'T have powerful hardware, but if they do, it'll be overpriced as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Regarding the insane claims of 2000 FPS, you understand your monitor only refreshes at a rate of 60FPS, nd even then I'm pretty sure the human eye can only see at around 80FPS (I'm not 100% sure) it could even be 120 but nowhere even close to 500 not to mention 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacrieur Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Human eye has trouble with anything over 30 fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylord Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Human eye has trouble with anything over 30 fps. Heck, a movie, without comparison, seems fluid at 24. I do notice a difference between 60 and 160 FPS, but it's so minimal, even if it was possible to have a monitor able to spit 1000 FPS, I probably couldn't make the difference between that much and 200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzy6868 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 even if you get 1000 fps 200 fps wat ever the normal monitor/screen can only show 60 so it is pointless that is why were is no difference after 60 fps coz the monitor cant keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylord Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 even if you get 1000 fps 200 fps wat ever the normal monitor/screen can only show 60 so it is pointless that is why were is no difference after 60 fps coz the monitor cant keep up Is that so? I doubt it. 60 FPS is good for Technic, but it isn't excellent for most games, even the recent ones. Pretty sure relatively new monitors can display at least up to 200 FPS. Going to google that ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzy6868 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 did you not see i put normal as in average. The maximum fps is the refresh rate of the monitor. Often it is 60hz or 75hz and sometimes 120hz (HDTVs are usually 120hz). hz is fps and even if they made a monitor that could do more than that your eye can see only see from 35 to 100 hz or fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylord Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 did you not see i put normal as in average. The maximum fps is the refresh rate of the monitor. Often it is 60hz or 75hz and sometimes 120hz (HDTVs are usually 120hz). hz is fps and even if they made a monitor that could do more than that your eye can see only see from 35 to 100 hz or fps Dayum, you learn everyday! To clarify this, the number of Hertz of your monitor can be used to know your maximal FPS. If your definition is, let's say 1080p, it means you have a "progressive" monitor, and for those, you have to divide the Hz by two to find your max FPS. So, a 120 Hz 1080p monitor's max FPS is, indeed, 60 FPS. If your signal is "interlaced', the max FPS is a 1:1 conversion from the Hz, so a 120 Hz TV in interlaced mode max FPS is 120 FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzy6868 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 60hz is 60 fields per second, and 2 fields makes one frame. 60hz is 30 frames 120hz is 60 frames etc. A few things to keep in mind. No video game, DVD, bluray player etc put out a single higher then 60hz. There for anything above 60hz is being faked by the TV. The time it takes to fake the extra hz adds a delay/lag. If you plan on playing games you can not use 120hz (most sets will let you use a game mode, but that turns the screen back to the normal 60hz). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheap Shot Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Ahaha alright bros lets warp speed at thousands of fps on our $700 i3 alienware with 6GB of ram for some reason and an outdated memory card. Wooooaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Back in reality I just bought a new computer. http://pcpartpicker.com/ca/p/q5VC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzy6868 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Ahaha alright bros lets warp speed at thousands of fps on our $700 i3 alienware with 6GB of ram for some reason and an outdated memory card. Wooooaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Back in reality I just bought a new computer. http://pcpartpicker.com/ca/p/q5VC just looked seems good to me hope you enjoy it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacrieur Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 He clearly knows what he's doing. I'm happy for you Cheap Shot! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheap Shot Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 He clearly knows what he's doing. I wish, otherwise I would have spent a little more and got overclocking parts. This is my first PC buy so I'm playing it safe. Should be more then enough for gaming though. Anyone who tells you that you need an i7 or more then 8 gigs of ram at higher then 1600 speed is high or trying to make you waste your money. The returns are near non-existent. Video card on the other hand, matters a lot. I'm going with a 660 ti and that should be plenty for me and run most things on high or maxed graphics, and I got it on an amazing sale. The 670 and 680 are better preforming non budget cards though. If you can get a 670 on sale and can afford it, that's your card. It's still quite expensive though, and in a year or two it will be $100-200 less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacrieur Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Well a few things stick out: You're using pcpartpicker. i5 instead of i7, as you said, waste of money. Cheap memory: it really doesn't matter what memory you get, it's about $20 for 4 GB sticks. Any memory speed over 1000 is generally all the same anyway (unless you're running lots of computations on very large files). So the 1600 is just an added bonus. An Intel SSD, bought for $0.58/GB, runs at 6 Gb/s. A case with rubber grommets for wiring. Good wiring is much, much easier with these. Too many people skimp on the case and then have wires falling into fans and other scary stuff. Seasonic PSU: another part people skimp on. This PSU is gold certified and high quality (yay sea sonic). It's also MODULAR, yay! With that and a good case, wiring is going to be a breeze. It's not impossible to make things look quite spectacularly wired without a modular PSU or case built for it, but it's much, much easier. Better airflow means cooler parts which means better computer health. --- That's why you know what you're doing. I'd say it's pretty solid for a first build and I think you'll enjoy putting it together. I'm unsure on the Zotac; I generally prefer stuff by EVGA. I don't have a whole lot of experience with nvidia cards, I tend to stick to the radeon line in light of nvidia's inferior cards in the past, and now they just build cards that are better than ATI's for gaming, but worse for other applications like mathematica, photoshop, or 3D modeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanotac Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Ahaha alright bros lets warp speed at thousands of fps on our $700 i3 alienware with 6GB of ram for some reason and an outdated memory card. Wooooaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Back in reality I just bought a new computer. http://pcpartpicker.com/ca/p/q5VC This post has been deleted !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorcer Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Lol I bought it i needed a new cp anyways so i bought it i trusted ur judgement plus i edited the case i got this case i spend a lot of money on the oil but its worth it my family is pissed at me for wasting money but hey if u die ur not gonna carry money with u so why not spend it and no if u think i am a spoiled teen i am not i just got a lot of money to spend. not gonna tell u how much and i am not braggin That hurt my brain to read. Also, having lots of money to spend with no repercussions is basically the definition of spoiled. Maybe you could spend some money on grammar classes? Also, saying "not braggin" is (IMO) equivalent to "braggin" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylord Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Lol I bought it i needed a new cp anyways so i bought it i trusted ur judgement plus i edited the case i got this case i spend a lot of money on the oil but its worth it my family is pissed at me for wasting money but hey if u die ur not gonna carry money with u so why not spend it and no if u think i am a spoiled teen i am not i just got a lot of money to spend. not gonna tell u how much and i am not braggin I could have a lot of stuff to say about the social and intellectual implications of this post, but if I only leave the essential, nice case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacrieur Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 He doesn't actually have that case, he's lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzy6868 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 i5 instead of i7, as you said, waste of money. i have a i7 an like you said if not for realy high end stuff i5 is best i only got the i7 as it is the best for adobe after effects and as i do lots of video editing and this is not many games out there that support quad core so cost wise i5 is ur best option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts