PICdude wrote: >> I'm looking at one of a few racing games, such as LFS. I expect I'll >> go with an i5 processor, > Sounds reasonable though perhaps a little overkill. I personally game on = a > pentium G850 (not sure of the exact model offhand) at the > moment. i5 seems to be the bang for the buck nowadays, so I might still go that way. I don't mind spending a bit more (than say, and i3) if it's worth it, as it'll just extend the time to obsolesence. > I wouldn't generally reccomend XP for a new gaming build at this point. X= P > 32-bit is limited to 4GB of physical address space This > means you end up with less than 4GB of usable ram. ... I was actually thinking XP because it's more "proven" (stability) than Win7, and uses less resources. But yes, I had not considered the 4GB limit. Actually the laptop on I'm now has 3GB, but as soon as I get to the 2GB mark (in Task Manager), the computer bogs down noticeably. WinXP BTW. Win 7 is fine. FWIW, stability is of utmost importance here, and I don't mind spending more to get it, as long as I know what it is I'm spending on that will get me that stability. Newer is generally not better for stability though, as I've learned with OS'es and mobile phones. > Also be aware that the gaming world is moving towards directx > 10 or 11 and XP only supports directx 9. Most games do still have a =20 > directx 9 rendering mode but some are now increasing the > minimum OS requirement to vista or even win7. Was not aware of this. > On the other hand if your games and associated software aren't > too memory hungry, you already have a suitable XP license > and you either know you will never be changing games or you > are prepared to do a full reinstall if you do need a newer > game then you may be ok with XP. Not sure how much memory the game will require, but someone on a forum eluded to even 2GB being fine. I don't have an XP license for the machine = and it won't be transferrable, so I'll be getting the license for this specific machine. > Yeah, the days when games could get significant benefit from hardware mix= ing > in soundcards are over. Onboard is fine nowadays unless you > need super high quality output. I don't. No 5.1 etc necessary, as I'll only have a couple speakers flanking the driver's head. >> but I expect I'd need way more than anything on-board for graphics. > > What I generally do is look at the "reccomended" specs for the games ... I found no graphics recommendation for this game. Just 1GHz or better processor, and that too is questionable as my question on the LFS forum seems to indicate a 1.8GHz atom mini-ITX (which I have laying around) may need to be overclocked for decent performance. I won't bother doing that, and I'll just get something better/dedicated. > Unfortunately graphics cards are a mess of inconsistent naming, so > once you decide roughly what price/capability range you want to be > in ... Lets say $50, or even $100 is fine for the graphics card. And from the list I just found, that should be plenty for something decent... http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?cpu=3DGeForce+310M > Also note that intels graphics are now integrated in the CPU so the > ... Was not aware of that. Thought it was on the mobo or chipset, but not in the CPU. My laptop lifestyle has told me however, that onboard graphics (on laptops specifically) suck for gaming, so I was projecting that to desktops, and even felt that it would be worse for desktops as those are generally expected to carry separate graphics cards. > Another component you didn't mention but I will is the power supply. > I'd generally be looking in the 600W range from a reputable vendor > ... Sounds good. Thanks, -Neil. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .