Build a Triple-Screen Beast for $983

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another thing... this thread should bring back memories (or nightmares) of all of our first (and probably last) prebuilt/cookie-cutter computers.... I KNOW you all bought one at least ONCE in your life, as I did (for my first PC)...

For me it was a Quantex, around 1999/2000. Ahhh the Computer Shopper heyday... That rig was not a beast at the time, but maybe a really big scary bird at least. I still have it too :)
 
I think a decent quality 24" single monitor would have been better.

Plus I would never base my "gaming" rig off a budget compaq box. For $300 you pretty much got yourself a low quality motherboard with no overclocking abilities, a piece of junk power supply that will limit your future growth, cheap memory and an ugly case that probably has poor cooling.
 
I was under the impression that most if not all (apparently not) integrated video setups are disabled as soon as you plug in a discrete video card. Is this adjustable in some BIOS now?

Am I simply mistaken here, or is this motherboard an exception? If this is so how can you tell which integrated solutions will allow for this? I was also under the impression that in order to use Eyefinity you needed to buy a Monitor with "Display Port" which of course costs 3x as much? I have seen converters, but they seem to cost about the difference between the monitors anyway at 100-200$, making it pointless.

I know I looked into doing this but as soon as I saw that I would have to buy 300-400$ Display Port monitors I quickly gave up on the idea as reasonable.
 
I think the real value of the post is a mental shift for people. Before today, I wouldn't doubt if many people had a mindset that 3 monitor setups were for the people with tons of money laying around. The reality is...not so much anymore. It is a good time to be a PC enthusiast again...console just don't have the shiny they once hand. There really needs to be a refresh.
 
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.

That's a fantastic build.
 
I like where he is going with this. Not all of us are looking for 60+ FPS in every game while having triple monitors guys. Some of you need to keep your ignorant comments to yourselves.
 
Why is a 3 week old thread with a Compaq as the base front page material?

Props to the author for the intent and publicity on ZDnet and [H] front page, but the build by bastage is MUCH better and it's actually a build. I wouldn't call buying a Compaq "building" a computer.
 
I need 9000 usd for two more projectors and i'm set for eyefinity :p
Am seriously thinking two hilariously cheap projectors for my sides.
but don't know how much it's really worth, have tried eyefinity, but can't see me using it too much.
 
A new, triple screen, desktop setup for under $1000 on December 2010 prices... and including tax and shipping? Well done, OP.

The other 95% of that article you wrote was also interesting.
 
The fact the OP bumped his thread lost even more credibility. Where I see the point of the article as being a very nice computer for an average user, it's nothing close to a beast or worthy of the attention it's been given on an enthusiast level.
 
I like where he is going with this. Not all of us are looking for 60+ FPS in every game while having triple monitors guys. Some of you need to keep your ignorant comments to yourselves.

And you need to realize our legitimate issue with this thread: the OP is advertising his system as something that it's not. It's nice that his original site was featured on ZDNet, but that doesn't make his system a beast, no matter how much he spent on it.
 
An OEM build does not even begin to count as an 'enthusiast' build on ANY level. The fact that you also picked hardware from one of THE crappiest names in OEM building is enough to discredit this. (We call them "Compuke" for a reason. I used to work on their manufacturing lines. The hardware is PURE CRAP and their QC is even worse most times. I've replaced more Compuke motherboards for my clients than any other brand - aside from HP. Go figure...):confused:

Is it practical for the budget-minded? Sure. Is it appealing in that respect? Sure.

Otherwise... This is NOT worth any of the attention it has been given.

Sorry, Op. But I agree with the individual who said your head is getting too big here. There is NOTHING unique or even noteworthy about your setup. I am also hard-pressed to believe that this setup will run games at worthy resolutions. (1600 x 900? Are you serious? REALLY?)

I really don't understand why they posted this on the front page. Maybe because there are so many poor folk out there who can't afford an awesome rig? I suppose this might appeal to them. Hell... I myself couldn't do a full system upgrade the last seven years.

But I also have STANDARDS that I refused to break. ALL OR NOTHING. That is what makes a true gaming rig. I refused to upgrade ANY of that Athlon XP 3200+ system. It would be a waste of money.

NOW I'm rockin' an i7 950, 6GB Corsair DDR3 7-7-8-20, ASUS X58 board, HAF-X case and an EVGA GTX 570 Superclocked - with a second one on the way to go SLI. The monitor is an LG W2340VG with a very nice gloss screen, awesome color and 1920x1080 res.

All of this - including the second GTX 570 and all other random fixings - comes to approximately $2600. My wife is quite annoyed with me. I got a SECOND JOB to make the money. It was worth it.

It comes with the territory.

Runs Crysis flawlessly. Runs BFBC2 at ridiculous frame rates. WILL run BF3 awesomely when it comes out. WoW looks outstanding.

Honestly? I don't mean any personal offense when I say this but...

GO BIG OR GO HOME.

I thought this was an enthusiast site... Tips and what-not for anyone and everyone are OK. But this is ridiculous...because NO ONE HERE CARES that you built a completely SUB-PAR gaming system for under $1,000. Three monitors? It's not even VISION or nVidia's 3D Surround.

WHY anyone would actually care about this is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was an enthusiast site... Tips and what-not for anyone and everyone are OK. But this is ridiculous...because NO ONE HERE CARES that you built a completely SUB-PAR gaming system for under $1,000. Three monitors? It's not even VISION or nVidia's 3D Surround.

WHY anyone would actually care about this is beyond me.
Well, you obviously cared enough to make your first post here.

(What? I'm just saying.... :p)
 
Well... I was kind of talking about the system itself. I DON'T care about it. From the looks of it, not many other folks here do, either.

I was honestly just surprised to see this on the front page. I thought, "Wow. Really? Under $1,000? This guy must be a genius."

THEN I saw a COMPUKE system. All I could do was breathe a sigh of disappointment. Should have known better, I guess. :p
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bastage
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.
----------------------------------------------


That's a fantastic build.

----------------------------------------------
Except for the power supply. That's an automatic fail. The CX series power supplies were crap. They have a horrible track record of failure.

Much better monitors, too. But they're still 1600x900...

Otherwise I agree. That's a pretty decent build for that money. Leaps and bounds better than the build being shown by the OP.
 
I agree its not the gaming beast he seems to think it is by any means. But it is notable that a decent rig can be built that will play games at decent fps on a budget.

And for someone who is in a University (like myself) at present thats good info to know. I think i'd go for 2 screens personally unless it was meant for hardcore gaming and could utilize them all for that. I feel like 3 screens for that box is overkill.

* crawls back into his Hard-cave to watch posts silently for a few more years*
 
Except for the power supply. That's an automatic fail. The CX series power supplies were crap. They have a horrible track record of failure.

Track record is alot better for the corsair cx series then anything to do with the Compaq name ever.. Although not my 1st choice it fits the build well enough for the budget. If I were building it for myself I would spend about 50 more total & would have changed out to a better PSU & a Haf 912.. But that build was done to show a point. & Even with a mediocre power supply it would be enough to power that system & would prove to be better then the crap that comes stock in a compaq.
 
I need 9000 usd for two more projectors and i'm set for eyefinity :p
Am seriously thinking two hilariously cheap projectors for my sides.
but don't know how much it's really worth, have tried eyefinity, but can't see me using it too much.

build your own. Cheaper and better quality.

http://www.lumenlab.com/d//
I THINK those are the guys.

I'm probably going to go this route when i buy a house. Take over the basement with 3 projectors.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/how-to-build-your-own-hd-projector-part-1/ they cite lumen labs but the lumen lab forums are down, so If you are serious wait for that. Each projector can be built for ~$500 and it will easily beat a $2000 projector you would buy from a major manufacturer
 
I agree its not the gaming beast he seems to think it is by any means. But it is notable that a decent rig can be built that will play games at decent fps on a budget.

And for someone who is in a University (like myself) at present thats good info to know. I think i'd go for 2 screens personally unless it was meant for hardcore gaming and could utilize them all for that. I feel like 3 screens for that box is overkill.

* crawls back into his Hard-cave to watch posts silently for a few more years*

I just feel sorry for you poor bastard college kids. ALMOST enough to forgive this machine.

*thinks*

ALMOST... LOL!
 
Track record is alot better for the corsair cx series then anything to do with the Compaq name ever.. Although not my 1st choice it fits the build well enough for the budget. If I were building it for myself I would spend about 50 more total & would have changed out to a better PSU & a Haf 912.. But that build was done to show a point. & Even with a mediocre power supply it would be enough to power that system & would prove to be better then the crap that comes stock in a compaq.

Hehe... Well... If THAT was the point, then this is DEFINITELY in the wrong thread. Where's the "random crap" thread?

I won't argue though that the CX series still have to be much better than some stock hunk of junk out of an OEM system. Especially Compuke.
 
For me it was a Quantex, around 1999/2000. Ahhh the Computer Shopper heyday...

Your showing your age, or lack there of. Not the Computer Shopper heyday by a long shot. In the dirty old days of mass 8086/8 and 286 clone's (mid-80's) that shit was incredible. As thick as a phone book of any US city large enough to have a ghetto, including full sections devoted to old school independents like Atari/Apple/Commodore/Timex-Sinclair/TI.
Ahhh, I would love to flip the non glossy pages of one now and pick out my new EGA card. Hopefully one that does Eyefinity for under $1000 :D
 
UPDATE: There have been a few pages of debate over what kind of computer qualifies as being called a gaming beast. Some people say that a gaming beast can ONLY mean 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.

And that's where we'll have to agree to disagree: Your computer isn't really a good gaming machine as it has a low-end, dual-core processor and a low-end video card. While it works for your needs, several people here have informed us of their issues with similar setups.
 
There seems to be a lot of disagreement over what "beast" is supposed to mean, so, I added this to the OP:

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)

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
That's a nice build. However, you're saying all this without realizing that my build is from early 2010. (the first words in the OP are: "So, earlier last year, I realized...") I'm sure you don't WANT me to appreciate your posting this build, but it furthers my initial point in posting my comp in the first place: pointing out just what kind of triple-screen computer you can build nowadays, for under $1,000. (Ie, you're basically just posting a more up-to-date build you can pull off) And surely someone out there must agree that my build is still pretty impressive, considering that it ended up on the front page of HardOCP, being a year old...

Update: after tax and shipping, this build is going to be exactly $1,098.85 (in other words, beyond the precious $1,000 level), and you forgot the mouse, keyboard, and speakers... but I still like it. One important aspect of my build was that the $983 was after tax/shipping. One of the main reasons I went with a pre-made tower was that it shaved off a crucial $100 that I would've needed to buy Windows seperately (which would've broken the $1,000 level). The Compaq also comes with a keyboard and mouse.

And that's where we'll have to agree to disagree: Your computer isn't really a good gaming machine as it has a low-end, dual-core processor and a low-end video card. While it works for your needs, several people here have informed us of their issues with similar setups.
If you build this comp, piece by piece, you won't have any performance issues that others might be claiming on their rigs (I've been too busy to read the whole thread, or post much, for that matter. I can't imagine what issues one is likely to have here. (<key word there: likely)).

As for agreeing to disagree, I'll settle with letting those who wish to do so refer to the build as just a "Triple-Screen Gaming/Graphics System", and not a gaming/graphics "beast", but that doesn't mean I think a majority of people see it that way. (more on that in a sec) I'm not leaning toward this guess, but it could POSSIBLY be the majority here, though I really have no idea what exact definition of things more people here hold (and, because the way the human mind works, you high-end enthusiasts (as with anyone) are going to believe that others must see things more the way that YOU do, which isn't always reliable)... Regarding all this, I've always had this quote on my website, here, that goes: "When people comment on internet articles, or in forums, never automatically assume you're getting a majority opinion. You're usually just getting the opinions of the opinionated; those who have, for whatever reason, been prodded into thinking they should say something. -Source unknown." YouTube comments are a case-study of how this works...

And, the issue in THIS thread is so easy for me to understand both sides on (it's not like POLITICS or anything), that I personally assume the nay-saying fits perfectly with that. It doesn't mean you're wrong or that I'm wrong: it just means that a heavy amount of nay-saying is going to be inevitable, no matter WHO is right, because enough people are going to disagree to create some ruckus.
 
Last edited:
If anyone actually read the article, the point was to prove how bad ass a system could be built for under a grand and thus beat apple. bastage did a lot better (time frame aside, choosing compaq will always be a horrid base), but still compare either machine to an ENTRY level imac...

Should make mac desktop users feel a bit ridiculous. Maybe not front page worthy, but its a very valid point in the apple vs pc argument imo
 
If anyone actually read the article, the point was to prove how bad ass a system could be built for under a grand and thus beat apple. bastage did a lot better (time frame aside, choosing compaq will always be a horrid base), but still compare either machine to an ENTRY level imac...

Should make mac desktop users feel a bit ridiculous. Maybe not front page worthy, but its a very valid point in the apple vs pc argument imo

Which isn't an entirely new point to begin with. Even the biggest Apple/Mac die-hard would concede that a "good" Mac would cost more than a similarly configured PC.

And "bad ass"? The OP simply added on a low-end video card to a prebuilt Compaq system!
 
That's a nice build. However, you're saying all this without realizing that my build is from early 2010. (the first words in the OP are: "So, earlier last year, I realized...") I'm sure you don't WANT me to appreciate your posting this build, but it furthers my initial point in posting my comp in the first place: pointing out just what kind of triple-screen computer you can build nowadays, for under $1,000. (Ie, you're basically just posting a more up-to-date build you can pull off) And surely someone out there must agree that my build is still pretty impressive, considering that it ended up on the front page of HardOCP, being a year old...

& unfortunitly I dont have access to a complete list of early 2010 prices or I could have done it then too.

In early 2010 I built a i3 mITX gaming rig for 600ish & Then a couple months later I Built a 1055t with a 5830 mATX rig for around 7ish (monitors aside on all of the above). So figuring 350 for triple monitors event eh 7ish wouldn't have been far off.
 
lol, don't swallow your cake too fast. ;)

I drew up several builds before choosing mine, and came to a few conclusions:
1) In early 2010, you could do a CHEAPER build than mine, but with a disappointing loss of "wow-factor". Ie, far less attractive and/or smaller screens - something I wasn't willing to do, because part of the point was to compare with a Mac's appeal. (Visually, the screens I chose were in my personal top 3 of all the screens they had at my computer store (which was something like 30). I couldn't believe they existed for that price...)
2) Sticking with a pre-built tower (Compaq), you could shave off a crucial $100, to keep the system under $1,000, after tax/shipping. (see the "Update" line in my post above)

choosing compaq will always be a horrid base
I see. ;)
 
Last edited:
lol, don't swallow your cake too fast. ;)

I drew up several builds before choosing mine, and came to a few conclusions:
1) In early 2010, you could do a CHEAPER build than mine, but with a disappointing loss of "wow-factor". Ie, far less attractive screens (and/or smaller) - something I wasn't willing to do, because part of the point was to compare with a Mac's appeal. (Visually, the screens I chose were in my personal top 3 of all the screens they had at my computer store (which was something like 30). I couldn't believe they existed for that price...)
2) Sticking with a pre-built tower (Compaq), you could shave off a crucial $100, to keep the system under $1,000, after tax/shipping. (see the "Update" line in my post above)

Man dude the only wow factor in your rig is the "Wow that dude is proud of his POS rig".. The i3-530 mITX I Build in early 2010 had a 5750.. So More CPU & more video power in a much more attractive case (lian li q07).. The only thing you did outside of the ordinary is simply attach 3 cheap monitors to a cheap ass build that doesnt have the power to push them at decent settings.

Edit: infact search works well.

That build has a Phenom II x4 925 & a 5770 for a AR total of 673. Then if you add the 360 you paid for the monitos your at a final total of 1033. Now while this is 50 bucks more then your build. You get a Much better CPU, GPU, Case, PSU, RAM, & Motherboard. Your build has a bigger HDD & no other advantages. Massaging at the time could have also been done to match the price goal & the bigger HDD as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're fighting a point of mine that I'm not making. You're saying that it was technically possible to build better triple-screen PC in early 2010. If so, woot, sounds good. :) Even more clout for my point: 1) that we can do amazing triple-screen builds for cheap now, and 2) that Macs are going to have to adapt (especially price-wise).

I never said anywhere that I piled through 10,000 PC parts, and discovered the #1 best build you could EVER do, under $1,000. I said that I realized it could be done, and did it. (I merely did the best I could, with my limited time)... then I shared it, because I knew that incredibly few people realized that the PC market had reached this point, where you could do a triple-screen build like this. According to probability, SOME people out there knew (maybe even one or two have posted builds), but likely nobody knows who they are, nor is it relevant to those who might want to build a budget triple-screen system. What's relevant is that people can learn how to do this.
 
Last edited:
You're fighting a point of mine that I'm not making. You're saying that it was technically possible to build better triple-screen PC in early 2010. If so, woot, sounds good. :) Even more clout for my point: 1) that we can do amazing triple-screen builds for cheap now, and 2) that Macs are going to have to adapt to this (especially price-wise).

I never said anywhere that I piled through 10,000 PC parts, and discovered the #1 best build you could EVER do, under $1,000. I said that I realized it could be done, and did it. (I merely did the best I could, with my limited time)... then I shared it, because I knew that incredibly few people realized that the PC market had reached this point, where you could do a triple-screen build like this. According to probability, SOME people out there knew, but nobody knows who they are, nor is it relevant to those who might want to build a budget triple-screen system. What's relevant is that people can learn how to do this.

No the point is that your defending your piece of shit system that you called a gaming beast.. & no matter how much you lie about it your build does not meet even your definition of beast..

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)

At this point I am completely baffled as to why you even try to defend your calling this a gaming system. Everyone has basically said the same thing & that you did not build a gaming rig.
 
To Dario: Around forums like this one, gaming systems don't begin with, or include the word "Compaq" anywhere in the specs. In fact, your post is the first I've ever seen with a compaq desktop PC showcased in it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that most people here build PC's and generally abhor prebuilt mainstream desktops (edit: they mostly abhor ANY prebuilt machine, even Dell XPS, and some even scoff at even higher caliber machines, though not nearly as much). As I said before, you have a nice system, and very nice setup.

To everyone else: Stop acting like dicks. It won't kill you to cut the guy some slack. The system he has IS a gaming system. In the real world (yes, I said THE REAL WORLD), a gaming system is a system that can play a game, PERIOD. 3D games of course; not talkin' about minesweeper here. It doesn't have to have a $500 video card or push insane FPS, eye candy, etc...

You guys are trying to make the OP look stupid but it's starting to backfire.

edit: I do agree of course, the PC in question is not a beast in a gaming aspect.
 
Last edited:
To everyone else: Stop acting like dicks. It won't kill you to cut the guy some slack. The system he has IS a gaming system. In the real world (yes, I said THE REAL WORLD), a gaming system is a system that can play a game, PERIOD. It doesn't have to have a $500 video card or push insane FPS, eye candy, etc...

Really.. "a game"... Well in that case I have this awesome Dell Mini 9 Netbook packing an awesome 1.6Ghz single core atom gaming processor.. & yes it must be a gaming system because it can play doom like a champ..
 
Really.. "a game"... Well in that case I have this awesome Dell Mini 9 Netbook packing an awesome 1.6Ghz single core atom gaming processor.. & yes it must be a gaming system because it can play doom like a champ..

Well I wouldn't go that far lol... Pretty much any PC that has a dedicated, reasonably modern graphics card can surely be considered a gaming PC to the general populous, whereas something with integrated graphics is surely not a gaming pc (even though it might still run some games).

Most people don't build custom or "true" gaming PC's for many reasons, and rightfully so, especially considering the economy.
 
Really.. "a game"... Well in that case I have this awesome Dell Mini 9 Netbook packing an awesome 1.6Ghz single core atom gaming processor.. & yes it must be a gaming system because it can play doom like a champ..
lol.... it has "hyperthreading," so it must have double the power!! :D :D
Well I wouldn't go that far lol... Pretty much any PC that has a dedicated, reasonably modern graphics card can surely be considered a gaming PC to the general populous, whereas something with integrated graphics is surely not a gaming pc (even though it might still run some games).

Most people don't build custom or "true" gaming PC's for many reasons, and rightfully so, especially considering the economy.

Well, considering some HP Pavillion "Elites" are still shipping with a HD5450 at Costco, I'll agree with that. Some HD5450 are Eyefinity capable, too, lol.
 
Well, considering some HP Pavillion "Elites" are still shipping with a HD5450 at Costco, I'll agree with that. Some HD5450 are Eyefinity capable, too, lol.


Well there ya go!
HP Pavilion + radeon 5450 = Elite
OP's Compaq + radeon 5670 = BEAST

OP's computer room is the cleanest I've ever seen in this forum in 8 years too. That's pwnage
 
Well I wouldn't go that far lol... Pretty much any PC that has a dedicated, reasonably modern graphics card can surely be considered a gaming PC to the general populous, whereas something with integrated graphics is surely not a gaming pc (even though it might still run some games).

Really.. Where do you draw the line.. I mean seriously whats reasonably modern.. thats a matter of perception & my perception is that to be a gaming rig it needs to have a video card that was released new in the last 3 years (which OP's does meet) and that card should be of a gaming class.. Which the 5670 never was. The 56x0 series were upper mainstream where as the 57x0 were low end gaming cards & the 58x0 were full on gaming cards. None of the components in OP's build were made for gaming. So just because you can hodge podge a few components together & play old games on it, that does not make it a gaming rig.

Had the OP said he built that rig to rock out to Unreal Tournament & Quake III in eyefinity all I would have said is that thats a bad ass concept. But then the OP calls it a beast and it can take the latest games with ease, at max settings & really good to excellent frame rates the line has to be drawn.

Hell for that matter I Dont call my current rig a Gaming Beast & its a Phenom II x4 810 with a 6850 & 4gb of ddr3 1866 Mhz.. My rig is however at-least a gaming rig since the 6850 is a gaming card (lower end none the less)..
 
Hell for that matter I Dont call my current rig a Gaming Beast & its a Phenom II x4 810 with a 6850 & 4gb of ddr3 1866 Mhz.. My rig is however at-least a gaming rig since the 6850 is a gaming card (lower end none the less)..
ya know, anything short of a GTX570 isn't a gaming card ;)



I kid, I kid! :D I'm biased :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top