Actually, they trade shots hardware-wise. Where nVidia trumps ATI is with the drivers, though, from what I've heard, ATI's drivers have improved dramatically since they were acquired by AMD. People still bitch about the CCC being a PITA, but there are ways of getting around having to use or even install it. NVidia cards are also at least twice as fast with F@H because of CUDA and F@H's ability to take advantage of it. NVidia's GPUs are usually big, bad, complex and expensive while ATI's are leaner and more cost-effective. I also think that it's worth pointing out that ATI has had their next-gen DX11 GPU on the market since late September while nVidia's won't be launched until sometime in March, putting them close to 6 months behind ATI. At present, ATI has the fastest single-GPU card on the market, though that could change come March.
Originally Posted by Negative Sun
I'm using Cyberpower (an online PC building company, with an insane amount of custom features for your build) for my next build
Yeah, that PC from Newegg that stingerhs linked to was also a Cyberpower build. After browsing their site, I saw that they offer good name-brand components and, if you're careful, you can piece together a powerful build for not a whole lot more scratch than what it would cost for you to build it yourself. The three-year warranty is also nice.
Just a couple of basic hardware recommendations:
Intel has had a substantial lead over AMD in IPC performance since mid-2006. Right now, the latest Intel CPUs (Core i7, i5, i3) are (rule of thumb) >25% faster than a comparable AMD CPU (Phenom II) at the same clockspeed. A Core i5 750 @2.66GHz is roughly equivalent to (and in most areas is faster than) a Phenom II 965 BE @3.4GHz.
Games are becoming more and more multi-threaded (utilizing more than 2 cores) and anyone building a gaming PC nowadays should have a quad-core CPU. The newest Intel dual-cores have hyperthreading and can simulate a quad-core, but testing has already shown that there really is no substitute for actual, physical cores. So, of the Intel quad-cores, the most bang for the buck is the Core i5 750. The only thing that it lacks when compared to its Core i7 brethren is hyperthreading, which allows Core i7 to run 8 simultaneous threads. Do you need to run 8 simultaneous threads? My guess would be "no", so you don't need a Core i7. The Core i5 750 has everything you need and nothing you don't.
It's usually a toss-up between ASUS and Gigabyte. One is just as good as the other, and there are just a couple of recommendations that I would add. You'll be needing a P55 chipset, and I'll point out that the higher-end P55 boards can support both SLI and Crossfire, so you won't have to commit to a single brand of video card if you want to go multi-GPU. This is important, as at times you can find the mid- to lower-end video cards for ridiculously cheap and 2 of them can be as powerful as a single higher-end card for a fraction of the cost. For example, my 2 9600GSO 768MB cards were $40.00 apiece, so I ended up with the GPU power of a GTX 260 for half the cost. The only other thing that I'll point out is that some of the Gigabyte motherboards are now featuring a couple of SATA 3.0 and USB 3.0 ports for a little extra future-proofing.
"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."