bottleneck for PC games performance - another "I'm getting new PC" thread

[Hivetyrant]

Originally posted by Callum: Yeah... but they aren't bug fixes... It's entirely new code...

Not entirely true, the security framework is completely different, but all the base ideas and layout are there.

[Sir Krustin]

Hopefully they'll fix all the issues (ie, default behaviour) that make XP such a security risk.

[Hivetyrant]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: I have heard mixed things about Vista. I think some on IW use it though at work. Apparently Dx10 is exclusive to Vista too :-/.

Correct, though a limited version of DX10 wil be available for XP, features such as directplay and xbox live won't work correctly.

Vista is an absolute pig and aside from DX10 and various basically cosmetic improvements with a few security bugfixes, has nothing on XP to the casual user.

As usual, micro$haft is relying one or two key features to force everybody to cough up and upgrade. [/QUOTE]*No, the DirectX10 API is Vista exclusive. I have never heard of any plans for a cut down version for XP.
*If your video card is decent, Vista is damn nice, and runs anything fine, I have had improvement’s in gaming performance rather than slowdown’s.
*A few security bugfixes? The security framework has completely changed, though there isn’t much that is unbreakable in an OS, the new framework is designed in a way that will make it damn hard.
*The new layout of Vista has far greater capabilities than XP, the data indexing and searching function of Vista is an enormous improvement over any other OS, and there are $hitloads more improvements but I don’t need to list them here, as it’s starting to get a bit off topic.

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Hopefully they'll fix all the issues (ie, default behaviour) that make XP such a security risk.

Yeah, I think they have learned their lesson when it comes to security.
Though it has taken them a while, from what most people can tell, the new Os is a vast improvement in security [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-11-2006, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Hivetyrant ]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Hivetyrant: Have you ever dealt with Dell when it comes to faulty parts?

No, but I understand they offer really good service.

Originally posted by Hivetyrant: quote: Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by Hivetyrant: Good price? This is a tough one, as Dell have very good prices, though when you get into their top of the line machines it starts to creep up. You can however still custom build the system and choose what you want and don’t want.

Dell can't offer a system comparable to, say, an Alienware at any kind of a reasonable price. Your local vendor, however, can. [/QUOTE]The Dell XPS systems beat 98% of the Alienware systems, apart from their custom made watercooled systems, and there are limited edition XPS systems that can beat those.
The difference here is that with Dell and Alienware you get guarantee’s and longer warrantees than the individual manufacturers, the local shop may offer extended warranty, but I doubt it compares to Dell or Alienware. [/QUOTE]I don't know where you get your info on the XPS vs. Alienware comparisons, but I'd say they're out to lunch. The most common Area-51 systems - the 7500 for example - are only a little more than the XPS 700, and offer far superior performance.

The FSB and ram on the Area-51, for example, both run at 1066mhz while the XPS offers a highest ram speed of 667mhz (with the FSB running at 800mhz). In fact, if you upgrade the XPS to the same CPU as the Area-51, the price rises to almost $1000 more than the Area-51.

The XPS offers the GS model of the 7900 video card, while the Area-51 uses the GT or GTX versions. Both base models offer 250GB of fast SATA storage, but the Area-51 trumps the XPS at the high-end with 750GB in a single-drive configuration, with raid-0 and raid-1 options available.

[ 09-10-2006, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Hivetyrant]

The difference though, is that Alienware overclock their hardware before it's shipped to get those speeds.

But now that I look at some of their systems, I admit I was wrong.


But it's hard to believe that they would be that much cheaper....

You do know that Dell own Alienware right?

[ 09-11-2006, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Hivetyrant ]

You people with your fast responses and debates make it so hard to follow up and make my own decent response and make any sort of worthwhile contribution [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Harkoliar]

hey i want to ask.. drivers unsigned cannot be installed in Vista?? That would be a problem for generic hardware brands wouldnt it?

[Hivetyrant]

Originally posted by Harkoliar: hey i want to ask.. drivers unsigned cannot be installed in Vista?? That would be a problem for generic hardware brands wouldnt it?

Yep.

It costs about $500US to get a driver signed of by Microsft I believe, plus there is a heap of testing that must go with it.

[Harkoliar]

geez, i find that very suspicious to be quite monopolizing in such a way, that you need to buy some generic hardware, making sure its drivers are compatible AND signed with Vista.

On the other hand, it would force manufacturers to be more inclined to be sensitive to Vista software and making sure they dont create any problems.

but ill go for the wait and see approach [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Lavindathar]

Hivetyrant, stop double posting ALL the time. Just edit your previous post and include it all as one.

Anyway, back on topic.

We have one Dell pc, a PB laptop and a gaming HP machine.

The HP gaming machine offered far better performance for price than the Alienware's one could offer....and we went looking for an alienware one originally!