I'm looking into a new computer and I'm wondering if the GameDev community can help me out with some suggestions. - What is the best CPU for programming/multitasking/etc? (Core2 Quad vs i7 vs Phenom II? etc). Higher frequency or more Cores? - I'm not much of a gamer. Should I bother with the best vid cards or should I get some mediocre card (ie. Geforce 9800). I just want DX10 or DX11 (when it comes out) for dev work. - Is Ram above 1600Mhz worth getting? DDR3 prefered. Any comments welcome. Thanks!

You'll want a big LCD monitor and a comfortable keyboard. Beyond that, it depends on what you're coding and so far only you know that.

I have two LCD monitors on back order. I'm more concerned about the computer itself.

Quote:
- What is the best CPU for programming/multitasking/etc? (Core2 Quad vs i7 vs Phenom II? etc). Higher frequency or more Cores?

It depends on what you're coding and what tools you're using. Some programming tools can use the extra cores for things like compiling. Some can't.

Quote:
- I'm not much of a gamer. Should I bother with the best vid cards or should I get some mediocre card (ie. Geforce 9800). I just want DX10 or DX11 (when it comes out) for dev work.

It depends on what you're writing. If you want to write the next Crysis in DX11, then you'll need a top of the line DX11 card. If you're focusing on casual games, then you'd be fine with a low-powered card.

Quote:
- Is Ram above 1600Mhz worth getting? DDR3 prefered.

I'm not sure. Take a look at benchmarks. For most tasks, programming included, DDR2 1066 is fast enough. Given that DDR3 1600 is very-high-end, I'm assuming that anything above that is going to have a terrible price/performance ratio.

Programming itself doesn't take a lot of CPU power (outside of compiling). As AndreTheGiant pointed out, a big monitor and comfortable keyboard are more important. Computer specs come in to play when you're testing what you wrote, and that depends on what you're writing.

For example, if I'm writing server software, I'd want at least a dual-core CPU with virtualization optimizations and a lot (4+ GB) of RAM, so that I can run virtual machines as test-beds for my code. If I'm writing casual games, then all I'd need was a low-end computer with an integrated graphics card.

If you're using Visual Studio it will make use of multiple cores to compile multiple projects in parallel but there are still limitations on scaling with multiple cores so you still want fast cores. The newest Core i5/i7s have turbo mode where the clock speed for individual cores is ramped up for apps that don't scale well with multiple cores so they're a good choice. They're also the fastest sensibly priced processors around at the moment.

You also want lots of RAM (8GB is probably the sweet spot at the moment, 12GB for triple channel chipsets), a 64 bit OS so you can make use of it, and the fastest hard drive you can afford. If you can afford to pick up one of the Intel SSD drives then they're probably your best bet. You'll probably need a large HD as well as SSD drives are still limited capacity but you can opt for a low power 1TB drive and not worry so much about speed if your main drive is an SSD. Another option is the Velociraptor 10k drives if SSD prices are beyond your budget.

Your only choice for DX11 (which is already out btw) at the moment is the new ATI cards, the 5850/5870. The 5850 seems to be better value but the 5870 is the fastest single GPU card available right now. You have a lot more choice for DX10 support.

The reason I ask about the CPU is because I compile things constantly. Sometimes compilation takes a long LONG time. I'm waiting for the next version of Visual Studio to come out so that I can take advantage of Multi-CPU compilation. VS 2008 has it but it's somewhat broken.

- I'm thinking (at least) 8GB. I also do a ton of testing and I also run at least 2 Virtual Machines. Those take up a TON of memory.
- Good call on the SSD. Though I don't need a TON of space, only enough for my tools. I have a server at home for all my data storage needs. Are SSDs at the point where they are far superior to regular drives? I heard they are at par with high performance mechanical drives.
- Hmm, I might wait until the DX11 cards are decently priced. I'm not writing the next Crysis though I would like my engine to support DX11 eventually. Dual monitor support is a must.

(Intel) SSDs destroy mechanical drives performance wise. They're still pretty costly on a $s per GB basis though.

Quote: Original post by mattnewport
(Intel) SSDs destroy mechanical drives performance wise. They're still pretty costly on a $s per GB basis though.

Yes, an SSD is the #1 upgrade I want for my computer. Sadly, the abysmal price/GB ratio makes the WAF way too low. Hopefully, prices will drop on the 160-250GB drives by the time my MSDN subscription runs out next year (at which point I'll have to get a "legit" copy of Windows 7 and re-install).

Quote: Original post by RealMarkP
The reason I ask about the CPU is because I compile things constantly. Sometimes compilation takes a long LONG time.

That might be more due to how your project is organized than your computer's fault.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by RealMarkP
The reason I ask about the CPU is because I compile things constantly. Sometimes compilation takes a long LONG time.

That might be more due to how your project is organized than your computer's fault.

I agree. In the case of work, I don't have much say in this :(