i need want to upgrade my current computer but i don't know what i need to do that, i want to play games on it but i tried it and it frames per second is very slow so what do it do.
What is your current PC? Make and model please if you bought it as a unit, specifications if it was custom made.
i want to know should i upgrade my pc or buy a new or try to build one, my pc is three years old, and it Maximum Memory Capacity: 4096MB Currently Installed Memory: 512MB Available Memory Slots: 2 Number of Banks: 4 Dual Channel Support: Yes CPU Manufacturer: AuthenticAMD CPU Family: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3400+ Model 15, Stepping 2 CPU Speed: 1989 MHz it is run slow and it is very dusty inside
A Sempron won't do well with modern games, and seeing as there's a sempron in there instead of the more powerful Athlon CPU, the graphics card is unlikely to be high-spec either. You will be better off buying or building a new PC, this one won't be easily or cheaply upgradeable.
so is there any pc that i can build or buy that won't break the bank and i will still play the games i want to play, if i want to build a pc which parts do you recommend so i don't waste my money and time.
i want to play my ps1,2,and 3 games on my pc like resident evil 4 and 5 i have never played games like halo or call of duty but i can't say i would never play those games but i need to know what equipment i need if i wanted to play games like that.
You will not be able to play PS3 games on any PC. Even if an emulator comes out. It seems like you will need to build to satisfy the requirements for the PS2 emulator. I am not too familiar with it, but I think it has multi-threading support, so Dual Core would be recommended for budget. Maybe: CPU: E7300/7750X2 GPU: HD 4850/9800GTX+ RAM: 2GB This type of setup would probably run the PS2 emulator fine and the overall build price would be cheap: CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103300 RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145214 GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125238 MB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128373 PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139003 Total for the core components is $410. You should have a DVDRW and HDD as well as Peripherals from your old build. If you have Windows XP, you can reuse that, but you need your Windows key from your registry and a Windows XP CD. All that would be left is the Case. That would range from $40 - $90 depending on what you want. Should also play RE5 if it comes to PC... If you you want a better build, I would recommend a Quad build. AMD or Intel is up to you.
A Dual Core Processor would have two cores meaning that it can do two things at once. If something can use both cores, it would mean that the work can be split between the two of them. This can double the performance. So a Dual core at 3GHz is like having two processors at 3GHz each. If a software can utilize both cores, then it will perform as if it were a single 6GHz CPU. If software cannot use both cores, then it will only perform as well as a single core at 3GHz. A Quad will work the same. A Quad at 3GHz is like having four CPUs at 3GHz each and if a software can utilize all 4 cores, then it is like a single core at 12GHz or a Dual core at 6GHz. However, if a software can only use 2 cores, it will perform like a Dual Core at 3GHz. If the software can use only 1 core, it will perform like a single core at 3GHz. So, while a Quad will not outperform a Dual now, it will in the future as more software and games can use all 4 cores. The thing is that games do not require so much from the CPU, so you can clock a Quad Core high enough that it will not lose performance in any game vs. a Dual Core. This makes the Quad Core an overall better CPU since it is more future proof. A Dual Core is great for a budget gaming build. It will not slow you down for games and provide you with an overall excellent performance. Also, in the future, it will not hinder you so much and you could always upgrade your CPU to a Quad Core in the future, so the build should last about 4 years and provide excellent gaming experience with future upgrades (One CPU upgrade and two Video Card Upgrades).
PS1 games are easily emulatable, Some PS2 games work, not all though to my knowledge. Emulating the PS3 is simply hands down impossible. For a start, the programming language of the console is so complex the software for it may never be produced, or if it is, wil not be functional until many many years down the line. Secondly, it generaly takes at least 10x the hardware performance of a console to emulate it successfully. 10x the hardware performance of the PS3, even with a Quad-core supported program, would be more than any PC of today or tomorrow could handle. Call of Duty games are on the PC, Halo and Halo 2 are on the PC too, but Halo 3 will be confined to the Xbox 360 for a considerable period of time, if not forever. Resident Evil 4 is on the PC, but there's no word of a PC version of RE5 yet. Interesting parts list Jaguar. Solid, cheap build certainly.
i have a question i found a 2.4 ghz quadcore intel 2 gig of ram gig video card 8500gt 250 gig hard drive for $500 from a pawn shop do you think that is a good idea.
It'll probably use cheap quality parts and be liable to failure some point down the line. Also the 8500GT is a very weak graphics card for playing games.
The Pawn Shop PC has a better CPU, but the Dual Core build I suggested will be better for gaming. Reason is that the HD 4850 is much better than the 8500GT, plus, some games require you having more than 2GB of RAM. Also, like sammorris said, it will probably have cheap parts that are likely to fail. If you want a Quad Core Build, you can still build it for under $500 if you have an HDD, Mouse, Keyboard, DVDRW, and OS. You don't need a huge HDD. Even 80GB is fine. You can use the one from your old PC. I was able to do lots of video work and store movies and such on 160GB. As long as you have some DVDR media (35 cents per disc), you don't need a massive HDD. For the build I suggested, you can change the GPU to a sapphire HD 4850 and save an extra $15 with the combo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.150484 There are also combos for Quad core AMD cpus with that card and other HD 4000 series cards. PSX emulation is not too heavy on resources. I was able to emulate the PSX with my old Duron 700 PC about 8 years ago. The only thing is, that ePSXe has a lot of graphics enhancements, which do require some good hardware. If you turn up the eye candy to max, the 8500GT may not cut it. My HD 4850 is at 90% - 95% load with graphical enhancements.
ok since that idea was shot down i would like for some one to suggest each part that i would need to build a gaming pc from the case to monitor. i would like to hook it up to a tv so s-video or composite out or both if possible. please help i am racking my brain trying to figure this out.
S-Video or composite? You realise those aren't high definition outputs? You're throwing away graphics if you're using a standard def TV with your PC.
Yikes! I had my old x700 pro hooked up to a TV for a week or so until I got a new monitor and it was horrid!!! Tube TVs have only 320 x 240 resolution. A Super Tube will have 640 x 480. Non High Def LCDs will have 640 x 480 resolution as well. S-Video and composite will only be 640 x 480 resolution or lower. I use an HDTV for my monitor and it works very well. I connect it using the included DVI => VGA connector since my TV takes VGA. It also comes with a DVI => HDMI adapter. The video card has an S-Video input/output as well as S-Video => Composite and S-Video => Component. If you have an HDTV, you do not need a monitor. I don't know how monitors compare to TVs in terms of quality. I would bet a monitor is better than a cheap HDTV, but I don't know how it would compare to a Pioneer/Panasonic or High End Sony or Samsung LCD. As for parts, if you could include a budget (or budget range) we can definitely provide you with the best build for the money.
Actually, TVs have always been 640x480 (US) to my knowledge, as far as I'm aware 320x240 was designed solely for portable devices. UK TVs use a lower refresh rate of 50Hz instead of 60 (due to the power frequency) but a higher resolution of 768x576 - so we were almost at high def to begin with... lol Standard HDTVs are still poor compared to monitors as most of them (certainly almost all of them up to 32") have a resolution scarcely higher than an old 15" monitor, 1366x768. Larger TVs have 1080p, which is much better, but a 24" monitor is still slightly higher, and a 30" monitor vastly higher - difference is though, a 30" monitor costs a lot more than a 40" TV for that very reason.
Now, I am confused about what SuperTube is... I remember it being a big deal in the 1990s and if I remember correctly, one of the features was 640 x 480 resolution. Maybe SuperTube TVs are progressive? As far as I know, Tube TVs can only display 240 vertical lines at a time. This would make them 640 x 240 (capable of 240p which would be 320 x 240) even though they have 480 vertical lines total. Maybe a PC can display 480 lines on a CRT TV, but I would assume there would be some type of flicker or something. My TV always displayed at 320 x 240 on the PC. It was terrible! I had an LCD, so I used that which is 480p, so it can display all 480 vertical lines and that was fine until I got the new monitor.
