I'm assuming you need Gaming PC.

• Get 4-6GB of RAMs (so far all games are 32bit so they can't use more than 2GB of your memory).
• Dual Core either Quad Core processor, most games already use multi-threading so they can use your 4core at full power. Preferably get one with at least 3 GHz, older games/programs might not support multi-threading, therefore they'll be extremely slow without proper speed.
• Most newer GPUs need 600W of power, so you'll have to get 700-800W power supply.

If there is one or two INDIE games that doesn't count, all professional games such as Crysis, Assassin's Creed etc are 32bit. If really, I'm referring particularly to Bulletstorm, it lags badly with max texture size because of memory shortage in 32bit application.

I haven't seen 64bit versions of those games, even though I played all of them.

Clock speed is not a particularly good indicator of core through-put, as noted by us doubling per-core through-put in the last year on both Intel and AMD lines, but only pushing clock speed up by about 200 MHz, compared to previous year gains of 500 Mhz+. This is per-core, incidentally, so that's before we consider the benefits of multi-core CPUs.

Where on earth are you getting this all from?

I already listed Crysis as having 64bit capability

EDIT
@Zaoshi
Performance-wise, a 64bit game doesn't play much smoother than a 32bit game since there aren't really any games out that require such high standards. So the difference is kind of negligible.

I specifically listed Crysis, because I knew he was wrong, and to generally contradict him, which is basically the same thing you did.

I made application with C++ that keeps allocating memory in infinite loop. Application crashed at 2,1xx,xxx KB (roughly 2 GB) memory usage (according to Task Manager) while it also reported my total memory usage was 73%.

I won't comment on your second statement, as it'll cause a lot of extra unnecessary posts.

Zaoshi wrote:

Not to mention, individual parts of code still work on single core. Games won't run well on 64-core 1 GHz processor, but they will on 4-core 3 GHz, even though latter one is 5 times weaker.

That's a very poor argument. Something designed(even a game) to run on 64 1-ghz cores would be capable of much greater performance than something designed to run on 4 3-ghz cores. No, the applications out now would run like crap on a 64x1ghz chip, but that's simply because they aren't designed to use that type of chip.

You seem to enjoy making things up as you go along.

I'm afraid your making a terrible misquotation there friend:

"The speedup of a program using multiple processors in parallel computing is limited by the time needed for the sequential fraction of the program. For example, if a program needs 20 hours using a single processor core, and a particular portion of 1 hour cannot be parallelized, while the remaining promising portion of 19 hours (95%) can be parallelized, then regardless of how many processors we devote to a parallelized execution of this program, the minimum execution time cannot be less than that critical 1 hour. Hence the speedup is limited up to 20×, as the diagram illustrates."

Is what your referring to. What this is stating is that the slowest process of the application is the minimum time it can be completed in, not that multi-threaded processing can yield a maximum 20x performance increase; a 20x performance increase in this quote is only based on the example program that was stated. It could be an infinite performance increased given no technological limit(ie: ammount of cores/core processing speed).



Again, it seems your making things up as you go.

I personally built my first pc about a month ago (although I have reassembled a pc before) and I basically did this:

Check tigerdirect for barebone kits (ie. kits including all the essential parts for having a working pc, some even including graphics cards, games). I initially was going to order each part separately, but it is wayyy cheaper in a kit...I recall seeing some kit going for $199 the other day also..This website tends to have a bit more variety than other sites but prices tend to be similar according to my chrome plugin that compares prices across different websites

Lookup the components to get some kind of gauge of their rating and the ability to make certain future upgrades ex. cpu on cpubenchmark.com, youtube reviews and etc on graphics cards, product descriptions...

Also, it pays to do a little bit of further research on each individual part included in the kit if you choose to go that route..While the kit is comprised of compatible parts, I was unable to connect both my dvd drive and harddrive initially because they both required SATA data cables and only the hd came with one...I was expecting to deal with IDE connectors but eventually I ordered a cable and I was fully up and running.

What I bought was similar to this with the main exceptions being cpu and graphics card...The barebones kits tend to move pretty fast to be honest..0_0

I'm mostly pleased with the results at the moment but I do plan on upgrading my gpu in the near future (My GPU is a Radeon HD 4350 at the moment). But even now, I can play MW2, Mercenaries 2, Kane & Lynch, and more with few if any problems. I can also play Crysis though with minimum stuttering (still playable) with 1024x768 resolution I believe.

P.S. I had no intention of writing this much at all haha..But hope it helps.