On NewEgg, there's a whole bunch of 8800GTS video cards. I assume the only difference between them is the manufacturer?

I decided to choose the one with the most reviews and lowest price (after a $30 mail-in rebate). This is the one I chose:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143119

Windows Vista Home Premium

Microsoft Office Home and Student

Intel 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz Processor

EVGA NVIDIA nForce 750i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard

OCZ Reaper 4GB DDR2 SDRAM 1066

GeForce 9800GTX 512MB 256-bit Video Card

SAMSUNG 500GB Hard Drive

Western Digital Raptor 150GB Hard Drive

ASUS 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-ROM Drive

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Sound Card

CORSAIR 550W Power Supply

Thermaltake Armor Full Tower Computer Case

Just in case people don't wanna check you blog.

All in all it looks ok.

Unless you want SLI, I would get a non-Nvidia motherboard, a P35, X38, X48, or something.

The 9800GTX is really a waste of money, especially with the new cards coming out. The 9800GTX is just a 8800GTS 512 overclocked basically. For the money the 8800GTS 512 would be better.

I wouldn't get a raptor, but thats me.

opamando

Okay I'll downgrade the video card to 8800 then. I'm trying to save as much money as I can.

I really don't know that much at all about motherboards. What is the difference between the P35, X38 and X48? Which one would you suggest I get?

Cause... yeah... I don't know anything about motherboards - at all. I'm actually getting a friend of mine to help me build the computer.

Greetings,

I was wondering if you (very wonderful) people could comment on this new PC that I'm getting. To save money, I'm ordering everything from NewEgg. I'm putting it on the order on June 10th. I would like to finalize everything. Please see my blog for a list of what I'm getting.

I'm hoping that this new PC will be able to run every game currently on the market (except Crysis) on the maximum possible settings with absolutely no lag. Do you think a computer such as this one is capable of doing so? Or am I asking for too much?

Thanks for any assistance you can give me.

lol

all the fan boys are up in arms but frankly I gave the game an 8, it was a good try but does nothing new

and for the noobs who state its more mature because it has blood???? blood and big boobs dont' make a game mature; they make it bloody and silly. You guys have done nothing for two months but state how much better AoC is then every other MMO but every reviewer out there has stated the same thing, its not. It's good but far from great like WoW and GW. So enjoy your game, glad you like it, but your revolutionary game-play praise is nothing but fan boy cries.

ct1615

Stop comparing a four-year-old MMO with an MMO that hasn't been out for even a month.

In a FREE-FOR-ALL match involving only Medieval weapons, which fighter do you believe would emerge victorious?

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Sot7thD"]

I'm going to give it a 4/10 when I can review and I've been playing mmorpgs since UO in the late 90's and thought it was such a horrible game which didn't even feel like a mmorpg and the game just has soooo many problems... maybe it will fix them all some point down the line but ATM it's a complete mess and shouldn't expect people to pay for a beta.

Theres one thing they can never fix which breaks any mmorpg IMO and that's zoning, EQ2 proved it doens't work but AOC devs didn't look and learn.

OoSuperMarioO

Whatever, "Open Streaming World" is overated, all you do in WoW towns is standa round like idionts, mayswell be isntanced since THERE IS NO LONGER ANY REAL FACTION PVP.

Anything worth doing, PvP , Raiding is all instanced, even 5 man dungeons, ontop of that, there is only a few grind spots in the game worth mentioning, "Elemental Platue", and various gather quests.

WoW's world is lifeless, fully streamed or not, its pointless, an illusion of "something better"

It is completely fallicious to say such a thing. The developers have nearly full control over what kinds of activities the millions of players partake in through the kind of content they release. The players will participate in whatever activity they believe progresses their characters, even if they do not find the particular activity enjoyable.

To bring fourth World PvP in World of Warcraft, all the developers need to do is give the players a progression-based reason to do so. The fun factor is almost completely insignificant.

Unfortunately, it became extremely clear that the developers did not support World PvP when they released Burning Crusade. There is ample evidence to show that the developers want the majority of any content that "matters" to take place in instanced areas to keep the game as simple and stress-free as possible. If large amounts of World PvP were to suddenly exist and continuously occur, there would be an endless amount of complaining and whining - and Blizzard does not want that.

That is why I think it's completely foolish to claim that World of Warcraft is so superior and special primarily because of its vast game world. This is also why it's completely foolish to claim its grandeur by throwing around its 9.5 rating. The "review" does not mention anything about end-game content, and in World of Warcraft, end-game content is all that "matters."

Davor,

You're being too paranoid!