PC, TV, and console questions

[PraetorianX]

Alright, so I've been thinking of upgrading a few things. Namely my nearly seven year old computer and my eleven year old TV.

I've also thought of picking up a console, since I haven't had one since the old Playstation first came out.

I'll ask the console questions first, since that is what I know the least about.

I'm looking at either a PS3 or Xbox 360, not much interest in the Wii. I was leaning towards a PS3 but when looking around a little, I realized that the only console exclusive that I care much for on PS3 is Grand Turismo 5 (keep in mind, I've not been playing consoles for years and years). Whereas the 360 has Mass Effect and some other games (for example: Halo) that I don't know much about but I've heard are good.

Mainly I play strategy (Paradox games, Civilization) and RPG's (TES, Mass Effect, KotOR, etc.)

On the other hand I wouldn't mind the Blu-Ray player on the PS3, which again has me leaning toward it.

Another question, how important is HD space on a console?


As for the TV, I've been leaning towards a Vizio but I've never had one before, are they good quality? I've heard they are good enough, just wondering what your thoughts are on it. Not too familiar with the brand.


And for the PC, is it worth it to pay a little extra for a 6 core processor over a quadcore? Is there that much of a difference?

I've usually only had Intel processors and nVidia graphics cards, but the several models that I've been looking at all come with AMD and/or Radeon.

Speaking of AMD...is there much of a difference between an AMD Athlon processor and a Phenom processor? Aside from moving to a slightly slower (from 3.0 Ghz to 2.8 Ghz, iirc) Phenom costing about $50 more. They're both quad cores. Is the Phenom HyperThreaded and the Athlon not?

All the questions I can think of right now.

Thanks for any help.

[whomario]

Console :

- I wouldn´t go for the xbox360 "arcade" version (no hard drive or just 4 GB on the slim), simply because then you can´t install games which will make the console run way louder with the console reading everything off the disc (if installed it will only read the disc on startup if i´m not mistaken). Big difference maker in terms of noise. It´s also nice to have for addons and stuff which will get more important in future years. While i´m no expert i´d wager that especially RPG type games have plenty of those.

-As far as "how much do i need" : If i´m not terribly mistaken the standard "slim version" of the XBox360 has the most hard drive available anyway (250 GB), while i´m not even sure if the older standard version (with 20, 60 or 120GB) are even sold still.

-for the PS3 i´d say the 160 GB version is way enough (there is also a 320 GB version), especially since PS3 games aren´t installed or at least most aren´t. Of course, if you plan on like digitalising your music or movie collection and store it there for use or sth like that than it might be a different thing. Although even if you need more space at some point, you can allways connect an external hard drive to it (i do that for my music and some TV shows i´ve got on that)

You really can´t go wrong with either console i suppose, like you said the selling point for the PS3 is definitely the blu ray player (although those aren´t that expensive as stand-alones anymore either)
I originally had a 360 and then bought a PS3 last fall, justifying it with the blu ray player (hey, half the money i spent i would spent for a stand-alone player anyway) and just personally found it much "easier" to use with different media (movies, music, pictures) via an external drive and use the 360 only for gaming now and then.

The streaming of media from the PC to the console does (from what little i know) work more reliable and easier with the 360.

EDIT : as far as exlusive games that´s all preference i´d guess, for most people it will be a handfull of games (that they´d potentially play) at most, a lot of the exclusive are uninteresting for 99% of players. For what it´s worth, i admittedly bought the PS3 partly for the exlusive games "Heavy Rain" and "Little Big Planet" ...

[Atocep]

Mass Effect 2 is on PS3 and 3 will be coming to PS3. If you're building a PC I'd get a PS3 and just play Mass Effect 1 on PC.

And for the PC, is it worth it to pay a little extra for a 6 core processor over a quadcore? Is there that much of a difference?

Depends on the quadcore. The Phenom X6 series generally outperforms the Intel i5 series, but the core i7 series from Intel is simply the best line of processors out there (you really pay for them though).


Speaking of AMD...is there much of a difference between an AMD Athlon processor and a Phenom processor? Aside from moving to a slightly slower (from 3.0 Ghz to 2.8 Ghz, iirc) Phenom costing about $50 more. They're both quad cores. Is the Phenom HyperThreaded and the Athlon not?

All the questions I can think of right now.

Thanks for any help.

If we're talking highest end Athlon versus lowest end Phenom then there's not much difference. The difference between the highest Phenom versus the highest Athlon is quite noticeable though.

[terpkristin]

Problem with getting an XBox 250 version these days is that they all come with Kinect (interesting tech but unless you have friends over all the time and want to play those types of games; it's completely lame). You can get the 4 GB version and then get the hard drive add-on. Microsoft really knows how to rape people for that hard drive.

I have a PS3 and a 360. My PS3 is used almost exclusively for Netflix and DVDs. I can't think of a game I've wanted to play on PS3, the PSN (or Qiricity? or something they're changing it to) is ridiculous, and the number of times they push updated user agreements or console updates is just disgusting and takes FOREVER.

Can't speak much to the TV or computer questions. I have a 52" Sony Bravia LCD that I got a few years ago and love but I haven't looked for a new TV lately. I'm sure you can get much more than I have for a fraction of what I paid these days.

/tk

[RainMaker]

Don't waste the money on 6-cores. I don't think any games out there use it (only a couple use 4) and benchmarks have shown that the better quad cores outperform the hex cores. Put the money toward a graphics card which is much more important.

TomsHardware.com has a nice hierarchy here to help you out.

Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart : Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: January 2011 (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-2500k-amd-e350,2843-6.html)

It depends on which Athlon II and which Phenom II we're talking about. If it's in the same tier, you're better off just buying the cheaper one. And if you're on a budget, maybe get one below that level and put more into your graphics card.

As for ATI (Raedon) or Nvidia, they both make top of the line products so I wouldn't have a preference on brand. Just go with the one that has the best value and stacks up in the benchmarks.

[Atocep]

Don't waste the money on 6-cores. I don't think any games out there use it (only a couple use 4) and benchmarks have shown that the better quad cores outperform the hex cores. Put the money toward a graphics card which is much more important.


Good advice right now, but how long you plan on going without buying a new computer or upgrading should be taken into account. 2 and a half years ago the advice was to not bother with a quad core over a dual core because nothing used the extra 2 cores (GTA 4 was one of the first games to actually make significant use of all 4 cores).

[Izulde]

Can only really comment on the consoles. I have both a 360 and a PS3 and I use the PS3 a lot more. Heavy Rain, by the way (PS3 exclusive mentioned earlier) is one of the emotionally intense games I've ever played. There's lots of endings on it, I believe, but so far I've only been able to play through it once.

[RainMaker]

Good advice right now, but how long you plan on going without buying a new computer or upgrading should be taken into account. 2 and a half years ago the advice was to not bother with a quad core over a dual core because nothing used the extra 2 cores (GTA 4 was one of the first games to actually make significant use of all 4 cores).
You can't really future-proof computers though. Almost everything he buys, even a hex-core will be outdated in 2.5 years. There will be better, faster processors. It would likely be cheaper to buy a quad core right now and upgrade in 2.5 years when/if he needs a better one. There is just such a huge jump in price right now between the two that I don't think it's worth it.

[DaddyTorgo]

PS3 also has the only baseball game worth playing (if sports games are your thing).

[RainMaker]

The PS3 would only be my choice if Blu-Ray is something you care about or playing The Show. I prefer the 360 because I like their online system more, have more friends who use it, and it seems more games are made primarily for that (then ported over). I've also found that the used game market is a little better too (more games sold, more used games available).

Regardless, both systems are good and I don't think you can go wrong with either.

[Atocep]

You can't really future-proof computers though. Almost everything he buys, even a hex-core will be outdated in 2.5 years. There will be better, faster processors. It would likely be cheaper to buy a quad core right now and upgrade in 2.5 years when/if he needs a better one. There is just such a huge jump in price right now between the two that I don't think it's worth it.

There's not a huge price difference between the X4 series and the X6 series from AMD and the first engines that take advantage of 6+ processors are coming out very soon (cryengine 3 will use up to 8).

It's a decision Praetorian will have to make himself. The point is 2.5 years ago people were saying the same things about dual cores and quad cores and 6 months later quad core engines were out and now everything makes use of 4 cores.

6 cores do help right now if you run a dual monitor setup and run applications on the 2nd monitor while you game.

It really comes down to what you plan on doing with the PC and if you plan on upgrading within the next 2 and half years or so. I think saying there's no reason to get a 6 core is a bit misleading right now considering we're late in the lifecycle for quad cores and within a yea most games released will be using 6+ cores. Quad core might be the right call in this instance but there's more to think about than just get quad because there's no reason to get a 6 core.

[DanGarion]

Forza is defiantly a very good replacement for Gran Turismo if you get a 360...

[PraetorianX]

I think I'll go with the PS3 for the console. I'd like the Blu-Ray player plus it can stream Netflix AND Hulu+ (I don't believe the Xbox can do that yet), so I won't have to bother getting a blu-ray player as well. Less devices to mess around with and such.

Plus I played the heck out of my original Playstation. Never played a Xbox and I'm not overly sold on the Kinect.


As for the computer I'm looking at, right now I'm leaning towards one of two HP's.

The HP Elite 500z, slightly customized to around $700 is one choice. In that I'm debating if it's worth it to pay $50 more to upgrade from an AMD Athlon X4 640 processor to an AMD Phenom X4 840T. The Athlon is a little faster, as far as GHz are concerned, but I'm assuming that the Phenom is slightly new and better technology that makes up for that?

The other one is an HP Elite 560z which is a little over eight hundred and comes with an AMD Phenom II X6 1045T processor.

Of course, for only a little bit more than that I could go with the 580T which has an Intel Core i7-950 quadcore processor. iirc, i7's are hyperthreaded are they not? So then it could operate as if it's 8 cores and compete with or surpass a non HT'd 6 core processor, yeah?


Everything else with regards to the PC I'm pretty good with.

I'd like something that's still going to be able to run top games in a few years time. I don't like replacing things every few years.

[RainMaker]

There's not a huge price difference between the X4 series and the X6 series from AMD and the first engines that take advantage of 6+ processors are coming out very soon (cryengine 3 will use up to 8).

It's a decision Praetorian will have to make himself. The point is 2.5 years ago people were saying the same things about dual cores and quad cores and 6 months later quad core engines were out and now everything makes use of 4 cores.

6 cores do help right now if you run a dual monitor setup and run applications on the 2nd monitor while you game.

It really comes down to what you plan on doing with the PC and if you plan on upgrading within the next 2 and half years or so. I think saying there's no reason to get a 6 core is a bit misleading right now considering we're late in the lifecycle for quad cores and within a yea most games released will be using 6+ cores. Quad core might be the right call in this instance but there's more to think about than just get quad because there's no reason to get a 6 core.

Yeah, it's up to him. I'm personally in the camp of getting value right now and upgrading down the road if necessary when it comes to technology. I feel like you pay a premium for top-of-the-line and it becomes outdated so quickly. But if the 6-core processors aren't too high priced and fit his budget, go for it. Just think there are other things where the money should go into.

I still don't think there will be a ton of stuff pushing 6 cores anytime soon and he will likely never need that kind of power. And any game that does come out that uses it will likely also run well on a quad core. When the time comes to upgrade, the current batch of 6-core processors will be just as outdated as a top of the line quad.

[gstelmack]

Based on your gaming preferences, you'll do most of your gaming on a PC. Spend your money on a really sweet gaming PC, then buy a Blu-Ray player. Really good ones are under $150 these days, and if you don't care about 3D TV you can get the Sony BDP-S370 for around $100 (and sometimes less) if you pay attention to deals.

The six-cores tend to be overly expensive these days. Buy the fastest quad-core you can (probably in the $275 - $300 range), and spend in the $250 range for you video card (higher is for the top-of-the-line geeks, less will do reasonably well but this is replacing your console so don't cheap out here).

I remain a big fan of Intel and Nvidia for a variety of personal experience reasons. I love AMD/ATI's hardware these days, but I've had too many run-ins with basic driver things not working to buy them, so I stick with the hotter power-hungry NVidia cards. The SandyBridge fiasco notwithstanding (which has been dealt with quickly I might add), they tend to be rock-solid stable and nice and fast these days. That isn't to say folks don't get along fine with the AMD processors and save themselves some dough, that's just my personal leaning.

Check out techreport.com, they do a pretty good job with their system buyer's guide.

[stevew]

Agree with Greg. Especially if the PC is going in the same room as the TV. You could add a Blu Ray drive to the PC. It's fairly easy to run an HDMI to the TV and set up dual monitors.