Just look at it ... Don't worry about the price [:p]
Just look at it ... Don't worry about the price [:p]
No game will utilize all 4 GPUs. That is just a silly waste of money
Quad-SLI is nothing new anyways, Dell had one at a gaming confrence in December. Dell. Wow.
This link is not even to a quad-sli system by the way. Look at the pic of "how it works." There are only 2 PCI-Ex16 slots; the system is a standard 32x SLI with both cards running dual SLI... BUT HOW ARE THERE 4 CARDS?
But yet if you click the actual pics, there are clearly 4 cards in there. Here is the link on the page to the pic in question: http://image.alienware.com/images/intro_page_images/sli_quad/quadsli_gallery3_big.jpg
Now notice the 4 cards. Now look up, to the left of the RAM slots. The model of the mobo is Asus A8N32-SLI.
For refrence, here is the mobo on the Egg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131568
Now notice how there is not a quad-sli bridge. Also, notice how the mobo is only 2x16SLI. So this system must somehow utilize the
PCI SLOTS! for SLI. This means the BUS speed is extremely low on the GPUs, and thus, the system will suck balls. But not really, because it is running 2 7900s in active 16x SLI.
Even look at their mobo link under their site (if you click buy now, scroll down, press configure at bottom, then go to the mobo) is clearly the same mobo I just said.
Therefore, something fishy is going on. I need to look into this more.
In addition to this graphics card anomaly, the base system comes with 1Gb ram (WAY TOO LOW FOR THIS SYSTEM) and INTEGRATED SOUND? WTF? I mean, sure the A8n32-SLI's onboard is good, but using onboard on a "gaming" system is a complete no-no. I personally would never buy this system; there is no true quad (with 16x) SLI in existence on the open market today.
if anyone is serious about performance, they wouldnt by a premade computer....
i made my own, matchin specs to an alienware (cant remember the model) and it was
1) less expensive
2) much cooler
Looks kinda cool. It's still a PC though...
It is overpriced but being a PC has nothing to do with it. They make overpriced MACs too
Not technically. Games could utalize all the use of the spec of this thing. Just not in the way your thinking. Most gamers buy a Dual core cpu for that reason you think wth is the point of that games don't even take advantage of the 2 core. The game will just run on one core and the thing is a waste of money.
Well your right the game will not take advantage of the 2 cores but the OS will. You can have it set up so one core does the os and the other does the Game increasing your game FPS. I beat you could do the same for this using the graphics card. One graphics card does polys the other can do shading ext.
I hate people like you that dis macintosh because you think their prices are high so lets go though this again.
Mac Mini: Great computer Intel Core Solo or Duo 800-900 dollars price good price for your average comptuer.
iMac: A Apple 17in display ($600). Core Duo 512mbs of ram dvd/cd-rw drive(your average computer $900-1000 mainly because of the kick ass cpu) about $1600+20+60 keyboard and mighty mouse $1680 yours for only $1300
PowerMac: 2 cpu 2ghz G5. Top of the line graphics card. 1gig of ram. dvd superdrive keyboard and mighty mouse. 2000 dollars. This is a little overpriced today because intel now outproforms the G5. But when this deal first come out it was a heck of a buy. Now you can get 4 cores in one powermac and those proform so well it is crazy. I wish I could aford one because I only buy powermacs unless a really good imac or laptop comes my way.
He makes alot of good points their. This could be a prototype brag or somthing. Alienware is known to dangerously push the standards and they even sell overclocked cpus. I don't know if they do this anymore but they use to offer a 4.2ghz Pentium 4 extreme edition. which was odd to me because they only offer 3.73 ghz p4 ee even today. O well it is a fact that pentium 4s don't profrom as well or keep as cool as a AMD. No wonder the p4 went under about 4 revisions in it's life time and the prescott was the biggest mistake ever.
Final line is. If you want a high proformance computer then build your own. It's cheaper and you can pick the case you like. and if that doesn't work Build your own it isn't that hard a little sheet metal work and if your really into it get fiber glass.
I fully agree with your closing statement.
I was not trying to bash Mac, I was just pointing out that, in comparison to non-premade computers, Macs are still overpriced. Nothing beats the pricing of a DIY job.
Your statement about dual cores is true, but SLI works completely differently. One GPU does not specialize, but both share the load evenly. Therefore, quad-SLI is really unnecessary unless you want 1000000fps in a developer mode (most first person shooters will not display at over 60fps unless you tell them to. Normal SLI or even a single 7900GT will play any game at 60fps, usually much higher).
The card that utilizes the quad-SLI is the GeForce 7900GTX. It is in fact 2 7800GTs strapped together. You link the 1st card with the 3rd and the 2nd with the 4th to unlcok all 4 GPUs.
You guys are stuck in the present.. whilst maybe dual or quad graphics setups are not utilised. Who's to say that they won't be in the future? Games are obviously going to be best played with full texture and graphics detail. And if you have the budget why not go all out?
DIY is truely very cheap. Apple could make a lot of money selling seperate parts as well as computers. You know one day look on newegg and start seeing different motherboard with the apple brand on them so people could build their own macs. The only major difference between a intel mac and a intel windows is their motherboards. One uses bios the other uses firmware.
Accually games will run as high as the computer can put out. My friend (rich basterd) has a Dell XPS when it first came out (was great when it first came out but know it is worthless and I built the same comptuer for half the price) He used software to overclock his GPU card the game was running at 103 FPS. (Battlefeild 2) Great game just isn't for mac .
off topic: I'm a PC gamer and a Mac user. It is a great combo. Use your PC for gaming only you won't get viruses or spyware just from surfing the net, and using your mac which does lack games for everything else but you can surf the web download as much as you like word process powerpoint itune etc and still never get a virus.
You have to understand. That the more doesn't always mean the better. For example a AMD Althlon 64 FX-57 only has 2.8ghz and 1mb cache. While the Intel Pentium 4 EM64T has 3.8ghz with 2mbs cache. But even with 1 more ghz and 1mb more cache the AMD still proforms better. And in some tests agenst the FX-55 it would take a Pentium 4 at 5.2ghz to match the AMD.
This shows in the playstation 3. Currently the Playstation 3 is the most inpressive graphics I have ever seen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it also only has 1 Graphic card.
You maybe right. Dual CPU's never took off at first. Look at the Sega Saturn it used 3 CPU's to try to provide ultiment power but it never took off because it was too early. (not trying to dis sega because I'm a huge sega fan but) the Sega saturn had many issues and most people couldn't get the full power out of it. And look at it today the Xbox 360 it has 3 Cores. (technically the same as 3 cpus) and look at the playstation 3 it uses 7 core cell chip accually 8 but one is disabled.
Uh, no it is not. A 7900GTX has 1 7900 GPU, not 2 7800 GPUs
Why not go all-out? Because all-out is incredibly dumb economically. I compare it to buying a new Ferrari, only worse. You get a computer for $10000 and it instantly is worth half that the second you buy it, because it is used. Then, by a year later, all the components are "obsolete" and no longer top of the top of the line. In some cases, they may even be standard, average parts. The value has dropped even more, probably to around $2000 or less... IN ONE YEAR.
This is why I NEVER buy parts that are top of the line. I mean, look at the Raptor 10k hdd... Thousands of gamers have it; it is only $100. Less than a year ago when it came out, it cost $600! The price HALVED in two weeks. Also, like most parts, the first buyers get unrevised versions that are always flawed. Even I am a victim of the first-buyer curse. I was one of the first people in North America to order Ultra's Micro Fly, and it came with the audio headers reversed for mic and headphones. Because of this, the resistors on the PCB cause a barely-audible, high-pitched squeak that I can never get to go away on the front panel connectors. I am therefore, unable to use them because I rely on sound more than sight in Counter Strike. I am sure the next revision will be fixed, and Ultra even offered to replace it. But still, I paid the marked up price for it, and will get no refund when I get a fixed one...
Yeap, You got it right on psycosquirrel. Never buy the top dogs, way too much money for what 10-15% at the most better proformance, You can easy put together a system for $800 to $1500 that will do all the same stuff as the highend $4000 systems and Guess what it will last you just as long. Alienware is just a lot of hot air. The best system is one you put together yourself. It doesn't take much knowhow, and very little work just cash. If you want High Performance check this cpu out for only $130 at 4Ghz Dual Core!!!http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/index.html
And as far as SLi goes I really thing it is a waste of money, you have to get the sofeware to support it, and you really don't need the power. as long as you can get 30-60FPS and it still looks good. Hey the older 6600GT can play most games full out and still get okay FPS and we are talking for only $80, not a $1800 for Quad SLI....
Xeniczone has some good points too, Macs are great for actual computer Apps, but they just don't make the games for Macs. And it is not just about raw power, but how that power is used; which AMD is a good example of. I think it is interestinghow the hardware is far ahead of the software, Like 64bit cpus, Dual Core CPUs, SLI (CrossFire is a Joke.), and all that, there is little to none OS or App support for these technologies. Mac does a good job supporting the higher end hardware tech with their OS. Thats my two bits...
Accually the best thing you can go that currently is surpasing PC's in qualtiy is the Playstation 3.
Apple for Apps
Playstation 3 for games.
NO... NO... NO..., comparing the Playstation 3 to a Gaming PC tell me ONE way in which the Playstation 3 is any better.
Controllers ---->Full Joystick, Mouse, Keyboard, PLUS any SYSTEM's GAMEPAD YOU CAN FIND FOR THE PC!!! Did you want that most console's games use auto aim guess why the controls sux, end of story.
Sound ----> With the PC you have tons more options, and any type of hook up you want, and the option of a sweet sound card like the SB Creative W-Fi. The P3 use onboard sound, wow.... NOT
CPU ----> yes the P3 has a sweet CPU, but the PC has just as good and Mommy look I can actually use my CPU with my PC to encode and so on. Games are base on the Video card and not the CPU so the CPU doesn't make the P3 any better at game play.
Graphics----> Mr. P3 uses the RSX NVIDIA, wow, not really it is just a slightly faster 7800, I helped build a system the other day for a friend $700 total and using the 7900GT; already the PC video cards are out that easily out perform the P3 and are dirt cheap. And the big thing EVERYONE forgets, you use TVs for console, PCs you can use anything including high res LCD monitors. Most people don't have HDTV’s, so all that P3 Video power is wasted. Do the math 600 x 400 from most TVs max 1080i from HDTV ($2000+). A cheap LCD gets you a nicer 1280 by 1024 at twice the refresh rate, and it goes up at there.
Memory ---> wow the P3 has 256 Mb RAM, to got 2 GB on my system, and all just stop there.
Hard Drive ---> 60 GB on the mighty P3, nice joke, you can even buy Hard Drives that small or old. PC is the champ of Hard Drive Storage, and they have the WD Raptors at 10000RPMs, plus RAID, for super fast load times.
I/O ---> the P3 has just 4 USB whoopee
Optical Drive ----> P3 has a BD/DVD/CD Drive Read Only ---> The PC has 18x DVD burners and will soon have the Blue Ray burners as well for a more reasonable price. (Currently $995 burner and $25 for the media.)
And the list goes on. Most people got PCs already, and even a Dell with a Good video card can easily compete with the P3.
Plus the P3, where is it?, oh yeah it’s not even out yet!!! and the PCs got it beat! Sorry for ranting, but that is how it is...
Playstations do have support for 3rd party devices such as keyboard and mouse for game play and with it's usb this makes it easier.
The PS3 onboard sound is onboard because they had to make the playstation 3 small. You think that when you say onboard it sucks. No. Sorry buddy.
Are you suggesting if I found a way to use a nVidia GeForce 7900 on my pentium 2 I should have the best gaming system ever. . CPU's play a big role in the amount of coding you can do and you think the graphic's card is computing all those geomatries?
Playstation 3 uses the highest form of HDTV. of 1080p it does support i but the highest form is p. An HDTV cost more because of it's massive size compared to your 14in LCD. You can get a LCD 32" HD now for about 800 dollars.
Your computer must support an CPU and MEMORY crunching Operation System. Why do you think your computer needs all that memory and the playstation 3 that currently has better looking games doesn't.
Once again the hard drive is for save games and the linux kit. Your computer must support a not to efficent Operating System.
It has much more then that. It even has a universal Memory bank.
So why do you need a burner for a game computer or system again? are you burning and stealing your games? That the only reason I see you need one for a game system.
Even the xBox 360 beats the computer when it comes to the look of the game. and the xbox 360 fails to compare to the Playstation 3.
I think the reason they look better even though they don't have quite as much power is because the playstation 3 and the xbox 360 doesn't have to support a large operating system, and they both can be pushed to their limits. If you made a game for computer that pushed a high qualtiy computer like a AMD FX-55 with a nVidia GeForce 7900 then yes it would kick the playstations and xboxes ass, but the truth is they have to make computer games so everyone can play them. Even those with old pentium 3 still are supported by some game companys. Someone bought me that new game The secrets of Davinci the Requirments are still pentium 3 at 800mhz or more. I'm thinking are they lazy to make it a good looking game or are they trying to make it so everyone can play it by suffering quality.
I didn't want to get in a yelling match, but dude an old Playstation can beat an old Intel P2. And I can easily see where you are coming from if you think the old P2 systems are the top in PC gaming. As for all the points you made, I can easily see you have never been under the light of a gaming PC and for that I pity you, it is a simple fact and I totally stand by everything I said. A true gamin PC beats the consoles in every category.
Going back through it all in greater detail:
Controllers ---> Simple fact does the Playstation 3 ship with mouse and key board, NO In using the little gamepads the developers have to cheat big time to make their games even playable, and guess what if you plug a mouse and keyboard in you still have all that crap turn on to mess with your controller. Halo 1 for example seen as an advance controller setup, put it on the PC and the player has 10times the control, no more need for auto-aim, huge kill zones, or spending half your time fighting just to look straight.
Sound ---> It is called the Sound Blaster X-Fi, listen to it once and you will know the different, it is like the difference between the bike and a jet that simple.
CPU ---> $130 for a 4.0 GHz Pentium D (Duel Core) NOT A OLD P2, most Dell ship with At Least 3 GHz P4s, Even though Dells really are the lower end. As long as the CPU is P4 or the AMD equivalent, the CPU has little impact on the performance. Yes my friend the Graphics card is doing most if not all the work… CPU can only hinder, not booster.
Graphics ---> PC have had:
Did you know that when a game is ported to a console that the basic graphic are down graded at least 10%. When I play Call of Duty 2 on my PC vs. on an Xbox 360 the PC looks that 10% better at the same resolution. And I still say the common man doesn’t have HDTV yet, and if he does half of them don’t know how to set it up.
Memory---> Yes my PC has to support more plus 2 GB is more than is needed most of the time for the normal user. However’ higher end games use at least 300-500Mb of ram to run, and I don’t see 256Mb as enough.
Drive--->As far as a burner is useful, right now I’m burning 150 DVDs for a school project for a friend, yes a gamin system doesn’t have as much of a need for a burner, but for the same I would spend on a new Playstation 3 I can actually do something useful and not only just have a gaming platform but also a full computer! Same goes for Hard Drive, it is an important part of a useful computer. Burners are great for back up, projects, family movies, and the list goes on. I make full use of my burners.
I’m not talking about a new FX-55 system, but I’m talking about a system that would cost about the same or a little more with a P4 or equal and good video card; that can easily beat the, still unreleased, Playstation 3. As to the final note, yes through the miracle of programming and patching, many high-end games can be played at lower settings on older systems. Like F.E.A.R. came out with it’s top of the line graphic that tax the latest of hardware, but also shipped with a more standard DirectX 9.0 render, also a DirectX 8, and for the really old guys even a DirectX 7 Render. Meaning that not the graphic system sucks and is way old, but that it can be played by most everyone using different settings and still has high-end graphics for the people with the hardware.
As a side note, as with any market there are budget games ‘The secrets of Davinci’ is one of them that if for the PC, congratulations for finding it, promptly place in the Recycle Bin with the other trash.
A games that recommends 300-500mbs of ram is usally including the windows os as part of that ram.
Playstation 2 only has I think 64mbs of ram or 32mbs or ram. Anyway it is a small number.
Playstation 2 can play battlefeild 2 and for pc that requires 512mbs.
well i think everyone is getting off topic here
anyway, there is no such thing as the best pc money can buy. trust me, the list is endless. each other day, new stuff keeps coming. and it is tough to really generalize what a best pc is. it can be your typical gaming pc, a number crunching pc, a dual core rig, a 4x4 cpu etc...
i guess alienware does come close to be the best pc in the gaming segment...and obviously it doesnt come cheap
And with Alienware you have the "I AM TEH BEST!!111!" markup...
But even still, the specs of my old P4 machine that I am selling for $350 blow the playstation3 out of the water.
@Xeniczone - you are a Mac user. I doubt you have ever played games on a high-end gaming PC, or probably even really gamed on a PC from the sound of it.
Every game and specification for any hardware or software takes into consideration the OS and the other hardware a user will be running. You CAN run a 7900GT off of a 250w PSU if it is high end and you run a LOW wattage PSU with no cards and one laptop harddrive. But that is off of this off-topic conversation, because it is irrelevant if it is taken into consideration...
Finally, just because the PS2 can run BF2 with its measly RAM does not mean it can play BF2 near computer quality. There is no comparison.
Back on topic though, the Alienware shown uses a graphics card that has 2 onboard GPUs, so it is really SLI with 2 dual-GPU cards.... Therefore, it is unstable, overkill, etc.
Let me tell you something about Alienware... in 2004 I got a PC that was as good as their newest flashy cool thing with way too much power for its own good (this was the same specs and everything). From a different small UK based company it cost me about 40% less for the same specs. Admittedly it doesnt look quite as cool but thats a hell of a lot cheaper... Alienware is over-expensive... even if you do want a l33t machine don't go there.
Anyway just my advise...
But it's one hell of a good braging right.
I <3 alienware. I wish i was rich enough to buy one, but im not. That's why i build my own computers.
You just summoned the beast. That is so not true. Get a G5 powermac, highest graphics card and then we'll talk again you inexecrable pc user. What you are saying is ridiculous, pay a visit to the nearest apple store and you'll see. The macintosh gaming experience is just amazing, just like the computers and the os.[/i]
First conisder they make very few games for mac. And Macs just don't have the Graphic cards like PC. When people say all this crap do they know what they are talking about?!?! Look I have played them all PC, XBox 360, old Playstation 2, and Mac. There is no HalfLife 2 for Mac, No Counter-Strike, and no F.E.A.R. Which makes sence, why make a game for 5% of the computer market, inplace of 95%.
Which still goes to prove that you have little knowledge of what you speak. Find some one with a sweet PC gaming rig, and try it out. I have tried the others platforms and found them wanting.[/quote]
I know I'm going to sound like the bad guy when I say this...
Alienware sucks balls. They just do. Yes they have high-end specs, but buying a alienware your spending 2x-3x as much as you would if you made the computer yourself. Making the computer on your own is a art. You are allowed to select everything to the finest detail. You can overclock on your own terms instead of alienware overclocking for you. It also allows you to pick or make your own case. So your getting a one of a kind computer. People think O, if I was only rich enough to buy a alienware but I only have 1000 dollars. Alienwares are 3000. You can build a computer just as good.
Yeh, I heard a quote once.
When you think about it, it's a good quote.
Your right I really shouldn't compare the Playstation 2 to todays computers. For 2 major reasons. The Tech is 5 years old. The Emotion engine was a big screw up.
When playstation 2 came out it was a big deal for saying it was comparing with comptuers at that time. Now it just falls behind that is a major thing you lose in gamesystems you can't upgrade.
Lets look at the game Halo. This game looks the same on xbox as it does on PC or Mac. The only real difference is the resolution. Other then that it is very similar. and the resolution problem is gotten rid of if you play the game on a HDTV instead of a standard TV.
On the PC it requires 128mbs of ram. (128 for pc)
The xbox only has 64mbs of ram. wow they almost doubled it for computer.
I want \o/
Actually, I'd rather have a Macbook Pro
O noes, the mac beast. They will throw viruses at my "inferior" PC while they talk to their japanese camera that I apparently don't have drivers for (BUT I really do, BWAHAHA).
I agree the G5 is a powerful beast. But it is not a gaming beast. They are two COMPLETELY different things here... You CANNOT properly game on Mac, you have to use Windows to play any mainstream game.
Mac OS is amazing, and their games are amazing too. Too bad no one plays them.