I am currently dreaming of getting a new computer, and if I get a decent bonus this year, it may actually happen! My question: which is a better graphics card, the ATI Radeon HD2400 XT, or the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT? The former is in the current line of iMacs, the latter is in the brand new MacBook Pros.

While most of my computer use/gaming is done at the desktop, I really like the mobility of the laptop, so I'm considering the laptop option with a monitor and keyboard at home to plug it into.

The 8600M GT is the better card. But if you can hold out longer, Apple should be upgrading those, as they've been using them for a while now.

Guess it depends if you already have a laptop or not.

Desktops normally end up being more powerful and cheaper than laptops.

Though in the case of Mac the Mac Pro is a fair bit more expensive then the Macbook Pro.

If you don't have a laptop and could use it a couple of times a month then I say get it. But if it is more a nice to have just in case I say get the desktop.

FWIW, MacPro + WoW = so full of win, it hurts

If you want a laptop, most of 'em come with the 8600M GT theses days, Mac or not.

If I could justify getting a MacPro, I would! But that's just not going to happen :-(

Not sure what I'm going to do, probably just wait a bit for new iMacs and see what they're like

I wanted to refresh this post as I now have video card questions.

I've had it up to here (imagine my hand slicing across the top of my head) with my laptop going technicolor after a short amount of game time. I'm starting to gather a list of all the components I want to purchase for a new desktop.

The motherboard I'm looking at has a PCI Expresss 2.0 port for graphics. The video card I'm looking at is the BFG GeForce 8800 GTS. Is the 8800 the way to go today, or is there something else?

Also... is BFG a good manufacturer to go with or does someone have another suggestion such as XFX, EVGA, or Asus. I only went with the BFG model due to the double wide form factor to allow for direct air porting (though they are not alone in that design), and the fact their office is half a block from mine and I can walk into their manufacturing center personally and bitch if it sucks.

Examples from the above linked site would be great as I plan on purchasing all the components from them.

Read this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3234
and this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3235

And spend the extra cash elsewhere. More memory, perhaps.

I have a BFG Overclocked 8800 GTS. I have had no problems with it and it performs well. Coming up to 1 year now.

You might want to check out the GeForce 9600 GT as well. Which is listed as performing well and costing less.

Beam, for a pie eating nelf furrie, you provided me a wealth of information (bloody good site) in regards to the 9x series of nvidia cards.

I have been gimping along with a 8xAGP 7800gs for a couple years now maybe and have been desiring to build a new phallic rig.

Mmkay techie types, I understand that PCIExpress2.0 is backwards compatible with older flavour cards; so the 2.0 is a not a physical change to the slot, but doubles the transfer rate to 5Gbps and allows different speeds (older cards) to use the same slot, eh?

I was going to go with 2x8800GT's; but methinks that I will choose the 9600GT instead, in an SLI configuration.

/em Puts on asbestos suit

Does anyone use 64-bit Vista? I am planning on having a go with it.

Read this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3234
and this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3235

And spend the extra cash elsewhere. More memory, perhaps.

Interesting articles... thanks for the link.

The 8800 and 9600 do seem to perform very well. The differences would be subtle enough that I probably wouldn't notice.

I've already planned on 4GB of system RAM. If I'm going to put the $60 or so dollars difference into something I don't think more RAM would be it. I'd probably put it into the processor. I was planning on getting the AMD Phenom 9600 Processor Quad Core @ 2.30GHz. That could be upgraded to a faster speed or something.

Couple of warnings here.

If you want to actually -use- 4GB of RAM, you'll need Vista64. Otherwise, 1GB (or 2GB, depending on config) will go to waste. That said (and to answer cakeboy's question), I'm not yet sold on Vista64. I still hear plenty of people having problems with drivers. Not to mention the fact that WoW is still a 32 bit app, and won't directly benefit from the additional RAM, anyways (in my world, the only reason to have a Windows box is as a life support system for WoW).

As for the 9600, I'd buy it over the 8800. I don't think you'll notice the difference (what resolution are you planning to run at, by the way?) and you will save cash.

And as for the CPU, while I have traditionally bought AMD's, my next desktop would be Intel. I just think AMD is still playing catch up, here. I'd put more money into a higher clocked dual core than a lower clocked quad core. WoW ain't SMP aware, last time I checked, so additional cores aren't going to help as much as higher clock.

If you want to actually -use- 4GB of RAM, you'll need Vista64. Otherwise, 1GB (or 2GB, depending on config) will go to waste.

I wasn't aware there was such a waste of higher RAM amounts. The reason I speced out 4GB is because of the performance of my laptop. My laptop (3GHz P4) has a gig on it now... and my memory usage is 100% with about an additional 200MB of swap (or pagefile... i forget what windows calls it). Alt tabbing or even closing wow is a 15-20 second operation. I've already pared down my startup list. Usually the only things running when I'm on WoW is AVG, Vent, and normal system processes.

I wish I knew why my laptop does this... but Shadowhart's desktop (with lower "on paper" specs) seems to keep WoW RAM usage down to a reasonable level. Could be one of the dozens of addon's I'm using... hmmmmm.

As for the 9600, I'd buy it over the 8800. I don't think you'll notice the difference (what resolution are you planning to run at, by the way?) and you will save cash.

I'd at least want 1680x1050 (both desktop and WoW). That's what I use on both my desktop at work and my laptop. I would not want to go any lower then that. Higher would be better.

I'd put more money into a higher clocked dual core than a lower clocked quad core.

So your suggestion is the Intel Core 2 Duo?

I wasn't aware there was such a waste of higher RAM amounts. The reason I speced out 4GB is because of the performance of my laptop. My laptop (3GHz P4) has a gig on it now... and my memory usage is 100% with about an additional 200MB of swap (or pagefile... i forget what windows calls it). Alt tabbing or even closing wow is a 15-20 second operation. I've already pared down my startup list. Usually the only things running when I'm on WoW is AVG, Vent, and normal system processes.

Yup. If you're going with 32 bit windows, 2GB is a good amount. I think that'll keep you comfy. You could look into 3GB, but there's some tweaks you have to do to Windows to make it use that. And you'll still have at most 2GB available to WoW.

I wish I knew why my laptop does this... but Shadowhart's desktop (with lower "on paper" specs) seems to keep WoW RAM usage down to a reasonable level. Could be one of the dozens of addon's I'm using... hmmmmm.

The single biggest thing I did for my WoW performance was to clean up my addons. This made a significant and noticeable difference in my performance. While I can't have all the knobs tweaked for purdyness, it has enabled me to put off upgrades and still run decent FPS.

I'd at least want 1680x1050 (both desktop and WoW). That's what I use on both my desktop at work and my laptop. I would not want to go any lower then that. Higher would be better.

That's doable, but does depend on your display. I try run at the native resolution of my LCD (1280x1024) and that's generally best to avoid potential fuzziness.

So your suggestion is the Intel Core 2 Duo?

Yes. And an inexpensive P35 based motherboard. Look at the guides on the Anandtech site (look for the Midrange gaming guides).

Beam,
I'm looking to build a super stable WoW machine...I've come up with the following:
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4 rev 2.0 MOBO
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz
Patriot Extreme Performance 2GB DDR2 1066

XP-pro 64

What do you think?

Looks good, but avoid XP64 like the plague. All sorts of driver problems and no gain. With only 2GB of RAM (which is all you should need for a WoW box), there is zero advantage and a world of hurt.

Which 64bit OS would you suggest then? Vista64 doesn't seem ready for prime time yet... and you're saying XP-Pro64 isn't worth it either.

Or have all the 64bit issues not been worked out yet and it is best to stick with a 32bit OS for now? If so... which? Stay with XP-Pro, try Vista Ultimate, or should I go back to a linux base running vmware or wine to play WoW?

Don't run a 64bit Windows OS yet.

Really, the problem isn't in the OS, it's with the drivers. They're just not all there. This will come with time, however I bet a lot of people will be tossing old peripherals.

64bit Linux + wine will not be without its issues either, and you do not want to think about running WoW inside VMWare.

If you can swing it, your best bet may be dual booting. Boot into XP (32bit) to play WoW, then Vista64 to do everything else (assuming you have no peripheral issues).

Well I just ordered my new rig from newegg.

Coolermaster Stacker 830
MSI P7N Diamond
(2) EVGA 9600GT's
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
4GB Patriot Viper
Soundblaster X-Fi (bundled w/MB)
Vista Ultimate XX-bit

I am doing this solely to help the economy recover and to solve global warming.

Yes...thats it.

Nice.

XX-bit. It's the bestist.

(BTW, it seems that 2.4 fixed some of the problems people were having with 64-bit Vista and WoW. I'm still weary of driver support, though.)

I am about to give up on my desktop and throw the whole thing out and start from scratch. None of this grab this piece or that piece to put in my new machine to save some money. Also I'm going back to XP. When I get back from Vacation I'm going to start checking out what is out now.