BreakmanX.com

Hey all, I've been out of the pc hardware/software loop for a while and am trying to catch up. I'm been reading up on my MaxPC, Tom's Hardware, etc, but I wanted to throw a couple questions out to you smart forum-dwellers and pick your brains a bit. I'm planning on building a new rig - all new, top of the line in about 6 months. (and of course gaming is a huge factor)

First, and most importantly, XP or Vista? Will Vista SP1 fix the griping I've been hearing? Is XP better for gaming, but in 6 months maybe not? Is Direct X 10 worth the hassle? On top of the line hardware is the Vista performance hit worth it? Is Crysis worth Vista? Orrrrrr, a dual operating-system install - smart or stupid?

Next 32 or 64 bit? (assuming Vista). Any point in switching to 64 bit yet? Doesn't seem like it to me, but I'm curious of your opinions.

Finally, just the usual debates raging right now - Blu-Ray or HDDVD? Solid State hard drive or a pair of shiny Raptors? Intel Dual core or Quad core? (or is AMD going to release anything worth keeping an eye on?) DDR2 or DDR3? Anything else I forgot?

Anyway, if any of you fine people have thoughts, comments, or advice please post.

I can answer the HD or Blu Ray question.

Definitely Blu Ray. I hear HD DVD is waving the white flag.

I've never actually seen anything take advantage of 64 bit stuff, but I'm not a huge PC gamer. Maybe sometime I will be, but not now.

You have not truly lived until you see blu-ray in it's fullest. it's like you're in the movie set!

First, and most importantly, XP or Vista?

I used Vista for about two weeks, and honestly it wasn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. Mind you, I turned off all the odd popups asking me if I was sure I wanted to do anything (UAC), but the thing that got me to move back to XP was a single annoying bug: selecting multiple icons would not work properly. That should be fixed in SP1, but it was incredibly annoying.

Is XP better for gaming, but in 6 months maybe not?

XP is better for gaming because less of your hardware is being used by the OS. Also, XP support is not going anywhere any time soon; it is too big a market for developers to ignore, and Halo 2 is and will for a while be the only Vista-only game.

Is Direct X 10 worth the hassle?

Short answer, no. Long answer, there are only a few things that DX10 has over DX9 that is really worth-while, and the most notable is volumetric fog effects. Almost everything you see claimed as DX10 only is a lot of hot air. Either there is really exaggerated difference (IE Microsoft's website comparing Halo 1 for DX9 vs Crysis for DX10) or DX9 has simply been held back artificially in software (Crysis; a change to one INI file unlocks "DX10 only" effects in XP DX9). If you really care about volumetric fog, then definitely get Vista; otherwise it's up to other things.

On top of the line hardware is the Vista performance hit worth it?

On top of the line hardware you'll hardly notice the performance hit of vista.

Is Crysis worth Vista?

You don't need Vista for Crysis, and with a very small change you can make Crysis on XP look just as good as in Vista. Also, don't let detractors get you down: Crysis is a very good game. It is very much a sandbox game, however, so the amount of fun you have with it is entirely up to your creativity.

Orrrrrr, a dual operating-system install - smart or stupid?

With XP/Vista, not such a good idea. There's very little reason to do this in the first place, but if you did you're just wasting your hard drive space.

Next 32 or 64 bit? (assuming Vista). Any point in switching to 64 bit yet? Doesn't seem like it to me, but I'm curious of your opinions.

If you plan on using XP, do not use the 64-bit version. It is buggy as shit (or say Windows ME) and is not going to get any better. With Vista, 64-bit support is much, much better. There are a few hiccups, so don't expect to run too many older games (Neverwinter Nights doesn't work, for example), but odds are all the applications you use are either supported and/or have 64-bit versions. I only had one app that didn't work with Vista 64, and that turned out to be a deal breaker as it is a VPN client that allows me to access my school's wifi... it's pretty retarded that it doesn't support 64-bit Windows, but that is an extreme rarity.

Finally, just the usual debates raging right now - Blu-Ray or HDDVD? Solid State hard drive or a pair of shiny Raptors? Intel Dual core or Quad core? (or is AMD going to release anything worth keeping an eye on?) DDR2 or DDR3? Anything else I forgot?

Don't bother with high-def video right now... best just to wait the shitstorm out and let prices fall. Solid state drives are pretty pointless on a desktop (I assume you're getting a desktop at least) as they are far more often than not slower than 7200RPM hard drives, cost a hell of a lot more, and offer little storage space. Definitely go with Intel; AMD has their heads stuck up their asses and have real terrible CPUs right now. As for dual core vs quad core, it's hard to say... if you can afford quad core go for it, but I hear that really high number core processors are just around the corner so it may be better to buy a dual core for now and wait it out for 8 core or whatever processors. It seems like at the moment DDR3 isn't worth the extra price; DDR2 is dirt cheap and, on motherboards that support DDR3, DDR2 isn't very far behind at all in terms of performance.

Hope that helps.

Helps a lot, thanks Vamp

aren't they getting sued to hell though Jbizzle?

Who?

Jbizzle wtf?

the ones who made the Blu-ray & HD-dvd combo player.