2010-09-21, 03:09 PM
singularity Wrote:Your laptop has a connector for video input (e.g., capture card, tv tuner)? Or you're going to take off your laptop's screen and rewire it? Or you're going to use VNC (e.g., TightVNC) or some other remote desktop software? (Note: VNC/RDP is too slow for gaming purposes.)
Otherwise, you cannot use your laptop's screen as a monitor for a new/other computer.
I have monitors lying around the house.
singularity Wrote:Regarding your questions:
1) The usual...: better performance at the same prices. (will probably be around 10-15% performance increase)
Really? I was under the impression that since they'll be new, it'll be more expensive. Got any sources on this?
singularity Wrote:2) If you're planning to build a computer that will "last" for more than 5 years, I think you're doing it wrong. After 5+ years, it really should be reassigned to secondary computer status... Specifically, used for "old" games (no new games when the comp. is 5+ years old), web browsing, e-mail, etc. (It may be possible to extend usefulness with a video card upgrade, but then it would be better to save that money to use for a new computer.)
Overclocking would be part of the deal, but as far as I've seen in the gaming world, I've seen plenty of games that will most likely run fine with technology from the yesteryears. I hope there's nothing wrong with that. Unless the overclocking goes horribly wrong that is =P
singularity Wrote:4) Doesn't really matter. However, for graphics cards of the exact same model number, GDDR5 > (G)DDR3 > DDR2 (old cards..). For example, the NVIDIA GT240 has a version with GDDR5 memory and another with DDR3.
Great, stupid fake numbers that only "pad" market value. Guess I'll have to take your word for it, and the word of reviewers too.
singularity Wrote:5) You don't compare specs side-by-side to compare NVIDIA vs. ATI/AMD graphics cards. Consult some benchmarks. For example, you can use AnandTech's GPU Bench: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU/88 (According to AnandTech's data, the GTX 460 (1 GB) stomps all over the 4870.)
I suppose Nvidia vs. ATI comparison is a fallacy, but if it's Nvidia vs. Nvidia with similar specs, would you do a side-by-side comparison then?
And the benchmark tests I've seen say that the GTX 460 steamrolls the ATI 4870. Being a detail-oriented person, I'm warry that said tests could be biased in one way or another (actually all of them are), but I guess there's nothing else to go by.
Other than connectors and monitor support, is there any reason to choose the ATI 4870 over the GTX 460?
singularity Wrote:6) I think this was answered in a previous post. Reiterating.. Intel currently has the performance crown. They can charge what they want for their top of the line stuff. I can recall AMD doing the same thing for top end stuff when their Athlon 64 trounced Intel's Netburst processors (Northwood / Prescott cores) in 2003-06.
Lulz economics
singularity Wrote:7) Your CPU socket must be supported by the motherboard. Your RAM must be supported by the motherboard (this one is easy because DDR2/DDR3 are not compatible - the notch is in a different location). If you want SLI/Crossfire, that must be supported by the motherboard and then you need NVIDIA cards (SLI) or ATI/AMD cards (Crossfire).
I'm going to assume you meant "the latter option"... =/