OT: gamer video board

I need to build up a computer for a gamer, and wish to know about the better boards. Please give reason as to why Z is better than Q and pricing. Is it always the case for these, that the higher the price, the better?

It isn't just the motherboard. Out of the box motherboards that use the same chip sets, unless pushed, tend to perform similarly although differences in price can, but not always, reflect differences in build quality and hence long term reliability. In truth there are some amazing bargain priced motherboards out there. Ah, but what type of motherboard and what platform? Do want to use two video cards and do you understand what is availiable now and what ATI is promising? Do you understand the differences between Nvida 64 bit chip sets and Intel

64 bit chip sets? Do you understand the difference between 32 and 64 bit technologies? Do you understand the difference in how AMD and Intel implement 64 bit technologies? Do you understand the differences between AMD dual core and Intel dual core technologies? Why one is good and one is about to be abandoned as a cobbled together me-too product? Do you even need or want dual core processing? Do you understand if or how differences in memory and bus speed may or may not be important? Do you understand how or if to overclock? Is AGP a quaint term out of the distant past or something you equate with PCIe? Do you understand why you may or may not want to use RAID and the differences between different types of RAID arrays? Do you understand how to ensure adequate cooling for high end, high speed, very hot components? This is something understimated by many do it yourselfers (as well as corporate vendors!). Your humble correspondent has seen home built and manufactured desktops that could double as a furnace for a small apartment building. In truth there are several smaller vendors who can build you a very high end, dual card/dual 64 bit core Raid arrayed system for less than you can build it yourself and with a warranty to boot. You might want to check them out.

Is a good site for reviews.

The higher the price, the less incremental performance gained. It gets to the point where you're paying for single-digit FPS gains over a friend's machine, but spending hundreds more. IMHO, the formula is as follows:

$0 - $50 --> trash barrel, play games released up to five years ago.

$50 - $100 --> cheapskate, play games released up to three years ago with reduced quality and low resolution

$100 - $150 --> low-end, may be possible to run a game from one year ago with reduced quality and low resolution

$150 - $200 --> midrange, play older games at high quality and resolution or new games at low quality and medium resolution

$200 - $250 --> upper-midrange, play new games at moderate quality settings and possibly high resolution

$250 - $300 --> nearly top-end, play new games at good quality and high resolution

$300 - $350 --> solid top-end, play new games with high quality and high resolution

$350 - $400 --> serious top-end, play new games with high quality and maximum resolution

$400 - $450 --> top-end of what most people are willing to spend, plays today's games at maximum quality and resolution and may survive a couple years of tomorrow's games.

$450 - up --> obsession cards, primary purpose is getting a 2FPS edge on others with the same compulsive disorder.

That's how I see it. In terms of FPS we're talking about a tenfold increase from the $50-$100 range to the $250-$300 range. From there to the $450+ cards you're looking at maybe 50% more FPS.

alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt

Right now there's two major competitors, NVIDIA and ATI. ATI seems to have stumbled badly in the last upgrade cycle leaving the Geforce series of NVIDIA at the top. One edition back from the top of the line would be the sweet spot.

Robert

So is

They have a review of 10 of the latest Video cards here:

Robert

I would first check on Toms Hardware; there is a recipy for a USD 500 Gamers PC for inspiration. Everything PeeCee related changes every week anyway, so my accumulated wisdom is obsolete anyway ;-)

Here goes:

Get a PCI-Express Motherboard (MB). One can run several Graphics Cards in parallel on those IF the MB supports it.

Athlon 64 3200 is nice too, a lot of performance for the money and it has some sort of idle mode that cuts power consumption down. At least 1 GB of RAM is needed, More than 120 GB disk too, Internet. Windows 64 SUCK and cannot even run itself properly, let alone a game, so just plain XP for now.

Religion! The Market is basically ATI Radeon and Nvidia Gforce leapfrogging each other. At present Nvidia is at the top. ATI will come up with something. So whatever goes in the box is what happens to match the money you have now ;-)

Geforce 6600 with 256 MB DDR RAM is IMO ok for games now at USD 99, but ... If those GF 6600 can be paralleled they might be a better bet than a single high-end card.

No, it's like it always is:

There is a relation up to where the rationality of getting the "better" item disappears and it just become a fashion accessory because the underlying games engine (and the monitor) no longer support any better resolution/quality. There is also not much point in framerates many times above what one can visually see.

I think the departure-from-sanity-point right now is about USD 200-250 for the GPU.

Toms Hardware has analysis: