Build a Triple-Screen Beast for $983

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dario D.

Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
582
So, earlier last year, I realized you could build a triple-screen gaming/graphics PC for $983 (after tax). On it, I can run all at the same time: Unreal Tournament 3 (60-90fps at max settings, measured on one screen only), 3d Studio Max, Photoshop, and Firefox with 4 windows and 30 tabs open, without any slowdown. (most other games run at an average of 60-90fps at max settings/resolution (one screen tested only, no AA), with Crysis a little slower, around 30fps at medium settings. The triple-screen gaming mode, Eyefinity, reduces performance by a random range between 10-50%, depending entirely on which game it is)

I featured the comp in a video that I made for my article on Macs, (which got featured on ZDNet, if anyone noticed).

The video isn't about how to build the PC or anything... Since it's for the article, the point is just to show what, exactly, you can build nowadays, for less than the price of the cheapest iMac. (excluding the Mac Mini)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUOMk9CBtvM

64275052.jpg


47276586.jpg


61650426.jpg


Note: Keyboard/mouse normally go in front of the middle screen. This setup was for photography studio work and just seeing if I could build this (ie, only occasional use), hence my not caring much about layout. (I recommend a layout more like this or this)

------------

How the computer was built (in early 2010):
(update: there's also a proper page for this now, with a hypothetical 2011 build drawn out)

Compaq CQ5320F tower: $300 (was on sale from $400)
(Athlon II X2 240 (equivalent of 6400+ dual-core, less power-consumption) 3gb RAM, 500gb Hard Drive)
3x HP 2009m 20” (or HP 2010i): $360 ($120 each, after rebates)
ATI Radeon HD 5670, 1GB: $135 (is now $80)
Altec Lansing Speakers: $30
HDMI to DVI Adapter: $10
Total: $983
(after tax, and shipping for adapter)

To do this without using ATI's Eyefinity mode (for triple-screen gaming), you actually mix nVidia and ATI video (!)... nothing fancy involved; you just plug 2 screens into the ATI video card, and the third into the onboard nVidia. Works without a hitch. (to have games use the correct GPU, you just make sure the BIOS has the right video card set to primary, which, if you know what you're looking for, is easy as cheese)

If you want to use ATI's Eyefinity mode (which I don't use), you just add a $25 adapter, so that you can plug the third screen into the ATI card... however, doing this removes the ability to maximize windows on any given screen (because all 3 of them are literally considered one), and I use that 10x more than I would triple-screen gaming. (also, both ATI's/nVidia's triple-screen gaming modes give you stretched images on the side screens, unless you position the monitors in a perfectly straight line... which, most of the time, I think nobody is actually willing to do)

------

UPDATE:There have been a few pages of debate over what kind of computer qualifies as being called a gaming beast. Some people believe that a gaming beast can ONLY be a computer of top, top of the line specs... whereas, from my angle, a beast is any computer that can take the latest games with ease, at max settings/res, with really-good-to-excellent framerate. (in other words, a system you could hand to your average serious gamer, and he'd just be good to go)
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna be honest: I have no idea what the point of this thread was. To showcase something?
 
yea I dont get it.. Especially since with a 240 & a 5670 I surely wouldn't call it a gaming machine by any means.. Not even with 1 monitor, much less 3..

I believe that the OP is just excited that he built a triple LCD rig for a grand.
 
I'm sorry, has there ever been a time when you've been able to get a triple-screen system to run all the top games at these framerates, with an $80 video card, a dirt-cheap tower, and 3 gorgeous, 20" screens, for under $1,000? And if it has been possible, was it known by more than a select few, therefor making it not even worth the mention?
 
Cool.

I wish to run three screens here soon, just gotta get a second 470GTX and two more 23" LCDs and I'll be set.

Donations anyone? LOL
 
I'm sorry, has there ever been a time when you've been able to get a triple-screen system to run all the top games at these framerates, with an $80 video card, a dirt-cheap tower, and 3 gorgeous, 20" screens, for under $1,000? And if it has been possible, was it known by more than a select few, therefor making it not even worth the mention?
Was it widely known? Probably not.

But there were earlier times where you could get 3 x 15" screens for $360 with a cheap $300 PC as well as a $135 video card and some cheap $30 speakers for under $1000 after taxes and play whatever was the top game at the time as long you didn't care about the quality of the PC. So your setup would simply just be a faster version of that older PC. Wasn't exactly hard to build ~$450 somewhat gaming-ish PC with OS several years ago.

With modification and very low standards to match that of the Compaq PC you bought, all of these gaming setups show that you could build a gaming PC for $450 with OS:
Circa 2009: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033858755&postcount=2
Circa 2008: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032542153&postcount=5
Circa 2007: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1030731772&postcount=4
Circa 2006: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1030192521&postcount=5

Ok, 2006 would have been a pain and might not have been possible. But from 2007 onward, yeah, more than likely a low quality gaming capable setup would have been possible for $450 capable of handling whatever games at that era at ok-ish settings.

Since you factored in rebates, there were more than likely rebates for monitors all those years ago that dropped them down to $120. And not everyone had/has to pay taxes on certain online purchases.

So in other words, great that you did such a feat and that you're proud of it. But not exactly amazing or new to computer hardware enthusiasts who've been up to date on hardware the last 4 or so years.
 
personally I wouldn't call unreal tournament a top game. How does it run COD:BO, BFBC2, L4D2, FarCry, WoW, StarCraft 2? How much eye candy can it handle on 3 screens?

This is not meant as troll post but more of a lets keep it real here. The 5670 is a mid level card at best and isn't a gaming card past a 1440x900 res. Your system looks great, and you seem proud of your build which is one of the things we support here. But, this setup wont be running anything intensive on eye-finity.
 
Ok, 2006 would have been a pain and might not have been possible. But from 2007 onward, yeah, more than likely a low quality gaming capable setup would have been possible for $450 capable of handling whatever games at that era at ok-ish settings.
I understand what you're getting at, but "low quality gaming capable setup" at "ok-ish settings" isn't what this triple-screen build is about. ;) It's about most games running at 60-90 fps, at max settings (much less with Crysis). And the build is top-notch; to the average gamer or gfx person, there is no discernible way in which the system is "budget" or light-weight.

You've always been able to build a cheap triple-screen system that will technically let you PLAY games, but now we're breaking through to being able to do an amazing build that can actually be called a true enthusiast's gaming/graphics system. (not to the extent of one that is actually using the VERY latest hardware, but plenty good enough)
 
I understand what you're getting at, but "low quality gaming capable setup" at "ok-ish settings" isn't what this triple-screen build is about. ;) It's about most games running at 60-90 fps, at max settings (much less with Crysis).
What other games? What resolution? You keep repeating that over and over but you've only listed two games, UT3 and Crysis, neither of which are particular good metrics for gaming performance. UT3 since it's based on an engine from 2007 that scaled remarkably well with older/slower hardware and Crysis since it's just a poorly coded mess of a game.

And you haven't listed the actual resolution in which you played those games at all. I can get max settings out of any game if I play them at 800X600. So without listing what games you actually played, a verifiable screenshot or performance number that actually shows you getting 60FPS to 90FPS, and what resolution you played the games at, that entire statement means nothing.

Again we're talking about the HD 5670 1GB here. It's not that great of a card unless you're playing an older game or at a low resolution.
And the build is top-notch; to the average gamer or gfx person, there is no discernible way in which the system is "budget" or light-weight.
Yeah that's bull. Just because the average person/gamer can't tell the difference between a good quality or a lower quality item does not make that low quality item a "top notch" item. It's like saying that the average person can't tell the difference between a real Gucci handbag and a fake Chinatown Gucci handbag and therefore that fake is "top notch". That logic does not track.

The average gamer will immmediately figure out that it's a budget system when he starts playing higher-end games like COD:BO, BFBC2, ME2, etc just by the performance of the system itself. And the average gamer/enthusiast will notice that since that system is so cheap, there had to have been many cutting corners and such both in quality and performance.

You've always been able to build a cheap triple-screen system that will technically let you PLAY games, but now we're breaking through to being able to do an amazing build that can actually be called a true enthusiast's gaming/graphics system. (not to the extent of one that is actually using the VERY latest hardware, but plenty good enough)
You're stretching things a bit: The HD 5670 1GB is by no means a true enthusiast's gaming GPU. That setup in no way can be called a true-enthusiast's gaming/graphics system. Or even close to one.
 
I understand what you're getting at, but "low quality gaming capable setup" at "ok-ish settings" isn't what this triple-screen build is about. ;) It's about most games running at 60-90 fps, at max settings (much less with Crysis). And the build is top-notch; to the average gamer or gfx person, there is no discernible way in which the system is "budget" or light-weight.

You've always been able to build a cheap triple-screen system that will technically let you PLAY games, but now we're breaking through to being able to do an amazing build that can actually be called a true enthusiast's gaming/graphics system. (not to the extent of one that is actually using the VERY latest hardware, but plenty good enough)

OMG Dude you need to deflate your head.. That is not a Gaming or Enthusiast rig. Pure & simple. It doesn't have enough video horsepower to push a single monitor at decent settings on a new title. Much less running eyefinity. I mean sure your version of OKish may be everything as low as it will go, but gamers dont build systems to play everything at bare minimum. Also when you say it will play Most games at 60-90 fps.. I am sure you are right. Only because you didnt specify most modern games. I mean I am sure that thing blows through Quake & Diablo II.. But its no match for modern games.

& As has already been pointed out.. That is not an Amazing build.. I Wouldn't put it anything past kinda neat & thats just because the case is shiny..

Edit: damn danny beat me to tearing that response down.
 
What other games? What resolution? You keep repeating that over and over but you've only listed two games, UT3 and Crysis (...)
Hmm... you haven't watched the video, or seen the article? In the article, see the notes under the video. (the video mentions a list of games that the system can run at 40-60fps, then, in the notes, I clarify that I meant 60-90fps)

The games mentioned are:
Unreal Tournament 3
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Batman: Arkham Asylum (40-60 fps)
(tested on single screen, at the native res of 1600x900. Eyefinity drops performance between 10-50%, depending on the game (note: I don't use Eyefinity, nor do I necessarily recommend using it, if, like me, you MUST have the ability to maximize on any screen. I think they might have this fixed this by next year... but I'm not sure if it's a hardware limit or not.))

And you haven't listed the actual resolution in which you played those games at all.
The video mentions running at max res, and the monitor specs are in the article (and in this thread), so, if needed, you can lookup the res (1600x900).

Just because the average person/gamer can't tell the difference between a good quality or a lower quality item does not make that low quality item a "top notch" item.
I'm certainly not claiming that the specs are the best that exist. "Top notch" is usually understood as also meaning "really, really good" (unless you start intentionally shutting down plausible meanings, and only allow a hyper-literal definition to qualify)... and this is reaching outside the realm of just gaming. You can easily run a 3d graphics app, Photoshop, and Firefox with multiple windows and a ton of tabs open, with no slowdown.

It's like saying that the average person can't tell the difference between a real Gucci handbag and a fake Chinatown Gucci handbag and therefore that fake is "top notch". That logic does not track.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we have here the Lamborghini from a few years ago, and, while it's not as fast as this year's model, it's still entirely a force to be reckoned with.

The average gamer will immmediately figure out that it's a budget system when he starts playing higher-end games like COD:BO, BFBC2, ME2
No, see above for this...

You're stretching things a bit: The HD 5670 1GB is by no means a true enthusiast's gaming GPU. That setup in no way can be called a true-enthusiast's gaming/graphics system. Or even close to one.
I'm measuring by performance, and what you can do with the system. You're sticking with the hyper-literal definition of "true enthusiast", which means ONLY a person who has bought into a system with top, top of the line parts. Unfortunately, I think only the 0.01% of people who actually build those systems will ever maintain that a "true enthusiast" is someone who builds their type of system, which would create a disconnect from the way everyone else perceives this. There's a psychology lesson in there somewhere, but I hope this makes sense so far...
 
Last edited:
Hmm... you haven't watched the video, or seen the article?
Read the first two paragraphs of the article and stopped: The level of snarkiness and holier than thou attitude was just too much for me. It reminded me way too much of a Windows 7 infographic that I saw on this forum several months ago.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Batman: Arkham Asylum (40-60 fps)
Yeah this is where I just don't believe you. My old 8800GT, far faster than the HD 5670 1GB, struggled with BFBC2 at medium settings and Batman:AA at medium to high settings at 1440x900. So no way your HD 5670 1GB could do better than my 8800GT at a slightly higher resolution. My old E6400 @ 3.2Ghz wasn't that far off from the Athlon II X2 240.

I don't play COD:MW2 on the PC so can't comment on that.
I'm certainly not claiming that the specs are the best that exist. "Top notch" is usually understood as also meaning "really, really good" (unless you start intentionally shutting down plausible meanings, and only allow a hyper-literal definition to qualify)... and this is reaching outside the realm of just gaming. You can easily run a 3d graphics app, Photoshop, and Firefox with multiple windows and a ton of tabs open, with no slowdown.
No, Top notch is usually understood as "of the highest possible quality" or excellent quality. Not "really really good". Even by your "really really good" definition, that system still isn't "really really good". It uses a cheap-o motherboard, cheap-o case, cheap-o PSU, and low-end GPU. How is that really really good? Really really good in comparison to what?

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we have here the Lamborghini from a few years ago, and, while it's not as fast as this year's model, it's still entirely a force to be reckoned with.
Yeah I don't see that system at all as being a "Lamborghini". The "Lamborghini" is a high-end car enthusiast brand, not sometime you can associate with a low-end PC that's been modified to do some gaming.

I still don't see how it's a force to be reckoned with when it comes to gaming. The HD 5670 1GB isn't that powerful of a card in the first place.

I'm measuring by performance, and what you can do with the system. You're sticking with the hyper-literal definition of "true enthusiast", which means ONLY a person who has bought into a system with top, top of the line parts.
No I'm not. I still consider myself a true enthusiast even with my current mid-range hardware. A true enthusiast is someone who truly understands what he/she is buying, the willingness to actually build the PC, the methods in which to make a viable high performing yet stable stystem, and what kind of performance he/she is trying to acheive or will get. It doesn't necessarily mean someone who spends a ton of cash on the highest end system possible.

In other words, yes I'm measuring by performance as well. And from every review I've seen of the hD 5670 1GB so far, it's simply not that great of a card.
 
Was it widely known? Probably not.

But there were earlier times where you could get 3 x 15" screens for $360 with a cheap $300 PC as well as a $135 video card and some cheap $30 speakers for under $1000 after taxes and play whatever was the top game at the time as long you didn't care about the quality of the PC. So your setup would simply just be a faster version of that older PC. Wasn't exactly hard to build ~$450 somewhat gaming-ish PC with OS several years ago.

I was playing Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 on a three-screen PC in 2000 that probably cost a total of about $1000 to build. (Overclocked Celeron, Matrox dual-head card plus Matrox single-head card, three fairly cheap 15" CRTs.) FS98 was specifically the first because it was one of the few 3D games that worked windowed, and allowed multiple windows. (I had to open one view window per monitor, and make sure the windows didn't overlap monitors!)
 
You guys are good at pissing in people's cheerios. The point is that you can build a triple screen rig for less than a grand. Doesn't mean it's gonna be screaming fast, but it can be done.
 
You guys are good at pissing in people's cheerios. The point is that you can build a triple screen rig for less than a grand. Doesn't mean it's gonna be screaming fast, but it can be done.
The title of the thread is "Build a Triple-Screen Beast for $983" yet the machine he built is FAR from a beast.

Tho this is coming from someone who games on a EVGA SR-2 with dual hex core 3GHz Xeon's and two EVGA 480 FTW's with 24GB of RAM. OK now I'm just bragging. :D
 
give the man some props, he thought outside the box, and just wanted to share what he did with the rest of us.

Sure my monitors cost more then his entire setup, but he has the same thing I do, and got it substantially cheaper.

I think he's just pointing out the fact that to get into a multi monitor setup is dirt cheap with the deals you can get now.
 
yea I dont get it.. Especially since with a 240 & a 5670 I surely wouldn't call it a gaming machine by any means.. Not even with 1 monitor, much less 3..

I believe that the OP is just excited that he built a triple LCD rig for a grand.

That's exactly what I thought. Max settings on current games at 800X600 maybe.
 
give the man some props, he thought outside the box, and just wanted to share what he did with the rest of us.

Sure my monitors cost more then his entire setup, but he has the same thing I do, and got it substantially cheaper.

I think he's just pointing out the fact that to get into a multi monitor setup is dirt cheap with the deals you can get now.

In that case, it was perfectly reasonable for the OP to brag about his accomplishments to his original audience. His point then wasn't that he could build an Eyefinity setup for around $1000 but that he could build one for less than an Apple system with similar specs.

To us, who've researched, built, and talked about hardware constantly, his system isn't that impressive... especially when you talk about these specs for the PC tower:

AMD Athlon II X2 240 dual-core processor
3GB (2GB+1GB) DDR3 1333 dual-channel RAM
500GB 7200RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s HDD
SuperMulti DVD Burner with LightScribe Technology
Onboard NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE Graphics with 256MB integrated shared graphics memory
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM

For a $300 computer, those are pretty good specs; but as part of a $983 "beast," not so much.
 
I am very very confused as to why you waited an entire year to make a post like this? You did all this in early 2010, why all of a sudden share in 2011?

Not taking anything away from you - it's cool you share. Next time you may want to be a bit more clear on what the point of your post is, and why you are sharing. It's not all that relevant right now, especially since its over a year old.
 
Triple screen....sort of.....work station kinda thing, OK

Gaming "beast" = fail.
 
In that case, it was perfectly reasonable for the OP to brag about his accomplishments to his original audience. His point then wasn't that he could build an Eyefinity setup for around $1000 but that he could build one for less than an Apple system with similar specs.

To us, who've researched, built, and talked about hardware constantly, his system isn't that impressive... especially when you talk about these specs for the PC tower:

AMD Athlon II X2 240 dual-core processor
3GB (2GB+1GB) DDR3 1333 dual-channel RAM
500GB 7200RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s HDD
SuperMulti DVD Burner with LightScribe Technology
Onboard NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE Graphics with 256MB integrated shared graphics memory
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM

For a $300 computer, those are pretty good specs; but as part of a $983 "beast," not so much.

point taken, and i would be inclined to agree, i could spend 600-700 dollars towards the computer itself and get 3 monitors for 100-150 dollars each and it would be a better "beast"
 
If you want to use ATI's Eyefinity mode (which I don't use), you just add a $25 adapter, so that you can plug the third screen into the ATI card... however, doing this removes the ability to maximize windows on any given screen (because all 3 of them are literally considered one), and I use that 10x more than I would triple-screen gaming.

Use Catalyst Control Center to create a normal profile and save it. Then set up your Eyefinity and save it as a separate profile. Then when going to game, just right click your CCC icon and go to Activate Profile; takes 3 seconds to switch.
 
Pro-tip on the maximize window thing on eyefinity:

Make sure you have ATI hydravision. It allows you make grids on the screen and things will maximize and/or lock to those grids (the grids are hidden when hydravision is out of setup)... Just make 1 grid square for each monitor and voila. it works. Also adds some nice "send to x location" buttons at the top. I havent used hydravision in a while... but im 95% sure it does what you wanted.
 
Kudos on the build, but sorry, I'm with the rest in that, while I applaud anyone building their own (kinda, in your case), that thing is -far- from being a beast.
 
give the man some props, he thought outside the box, and just wanted to share what he did with the rest of us.


Uh no. If he was truly thinking outside the box he would have picked up some crts from yard sales. Could have had 3 19s for about $20. They would have complimented the Compaq nicely.



j/k!
 
That baby IS a beast, and that dude has been featured on both ZDNet AND [H]ardOCP front page. How many of you suckers can claim that??? In fact, I DARES you all to reckon with his forces. :D

My only real problem with this post, specifically the video, is that he claims the machine will run anything you throw at it. Will it run Final Cut Pro? (legally, or illegally) :rolleyes:

It is a nice looking setup for sure, even if it is a Compaq.
 
You guys are good at pissing in people's cheerios. The point is that you can build a triple screen rig for less than a grand. Doesn't mean it's gonna be screaming fast, but it can be done.

hah, seriously. This forum has some of the most bitter people I've ever seen. I applaud the OP for getting mentioned on ZDnet and for just creating a well written article. But excuse me, you guys can go back to playing syntax games and shitting on him.



EDIT- ah, a few decent people have stepped up :)
 
OMG.. Nobody is doubting the fact that its a cool build.. The reason that the OP was met with a stone wall from most of the forum regulars is that he is touting this as a gaming beast.. Any what way you slice it this is no beast at all. Also a triple 20" gaming rig for 1k still isnt all that great.

Edit: Here is a quick throw together build from newegg for 999.99 shipped that will completely & totally obliterate the OP's build in basically every what way shape & form..

185 AMD Phenom II X4 840 Deneb 3.2GHz + BIOSTAR TA870U3+ AM3 AMD 870 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0
180 XFX HD-685X-ZNFC Radeon HD 6850
50 COOLER MASTER Elite 430
50 SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD502HJ 500GB 7200 RPM
40 ORSAIR Builder Series CX430
40 G.SKILL Value Series 4GB
100 Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
345 3x Acer S201HLbd Black 20" 5ms LED-Backlight LCD monitor

& Then you also get 40 in MIR making this about 960 bucks & it actually has enough video horse power to do the job..

So to recap this is less money, 2 more Cores & higher Mhz, more ram, usb 3.0 & sata 6gbps both on the motherboard, more ram & enthusiast quality components all the way around.

So again how was the OP's build good at all.. And for the record this build can be done cheaper mid month when the Newegg combo's are at there height.
 
Last edited:
tough crowd... one mans trash is another mans treasure... i'm still rocking my oc'd quad q6600 w/dual 4850's and could rock the triple screens with no problem... I play the latest & greatest sc][ & black ops, smooth as silk... a sea of roses... what I took from that setup is you don’t have to spend rich man money to play in style...
 
Your article is all over the place and you contradict yourself more than once. Apple does not need to sell a cheap desktop computer now, and no one knows what the future holds. Tablets could be the future for a lot of people that don't have a passion for computers like we do here. As far as poor countries go, I think they have more things to worry about than Apple computers. It's also amusing that you think you can run the 200+ billion dollar company better than it is now.

As far as your Compaq, you mentioned needing a better PSU for a more demanding video card. I agree, hell I'm surprised it's able to run your card. It doesn't even have a 24 pin connector. Your PC also doesn't have the hard drive cage that fits in that chasis, or a rear fan. I guess that's what you get for a $300 Compaq. Cookie cutter garbage. Sure it may run now, but for how long? Also good luck trying to upgrade that in a year like you mentioned in your article. It's already outdated now. That chipset is over 5 years old. Instead of buying a new one though you might want to look into buidling your own. As far as your triple monitors go, most people don't have the room for a huge desk like that. One thing beastly about it though is the huge bezels you have dividing your screens. On a positive note it was an interesting read and I do like looking at people's setups. But do yourself a favor and stay away from Compaq next time, you sound like you can build one yourself.
 
The machine is fine for its purpose, in that it's comparable to the average mac and yet has thrice the screen space. The problem comes out from the title: Gaming Beast. That machine won't be able to push a game at a decent resolution over all 3 monitors, so it's not going to be up to snuff there. Bastage's build has parts that can handle that kind of stress adequately, though.

Again, I can see your point, and the point of this machine. The error is in touting it as a gaming beast which it's not. It can handle games probably slightly more than decently on a single monitor, but anything else is pushing it.
 
OMG.. Nobody is doubting the fact that its a cool build.. The reason that the OP was met with a stone wall from most of the forum regulars is that he is touting this as a gaming beast.. Any what way you slice it this is no beast at all. Also a triple 20" gaming rig for 1k still isnt all that great.

Edit: Here is a quick throw together build from newegg for 999.99 shipped that will completely & totally obliterate the OP's build in basically every what way shape & form..

185 AMD Phenom II X4 840 Deneb 3.2GHz + BIOSTAR TA870U3+ AM3 AMD 870 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0
180 XFX HD-685X-ZNFC Radeon HD 6850
50 COOLER MASTER Elite 430
50 SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD502HJ 500GB 7200 RPM
40 ORSAIR Builder Series CX430
40 G.SKILL Value Series 4GB
100 Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
345 3x Acer S201HLbd Black 20" 5ms LED-Backlight LCD monitor

& Then you also get 40 in MIR making this about 960 bucks & it actually has enough video horse power to do the job..

So to recap this is less money, 2 more Cores & higher Mhz, more ram, usb 3.0 & sata 6gbps both on the motherboard, more ram & enthusiast quality components all the way around.

So again how was the OP's build good at all.. And for the record this build can be done cheaper mid month when the Newegg combo's are at there height.

Apparently the OP built his in early 2010, so many of those parts weren't nearly that cheap... but for someone trying to copy this guy, that is a great $1k rig. And if you don't like 3x screens, replace it with one 22-24in.
 
Not a bad build for early 2010 but I would have rather gone with a single 22-24 high quality monitor with a higher max resolution. Something like a refurb 2408 or something. Those monitors are crap for anything other than web browsing when comparing to a decent one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top