No ofc. not, the consoles are constantly destroying my PC gaming experience!

That's the poll option I voted for. Now while piracy is a big problem on the PC.

I do believe that even if piracy wasn't a problem on PC. Developers will still favour the consoles simply because consoles earn them more revenue. PC does not earn them much money. More like a bonus.

However despite piracy problems, PC still dominates in first person shooters, real time strategies and role playing games. Until the next-gen consoles don't arrive with keyboard and mouse. PC will always have an advantage over the consoles!

Because certain games will sell more.

Plus most online games require a valid serial number. The developers could at least pay some attention in the online aspect for PC. But there's no symptoms even on that.

Well there are, like Star Craft 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2. But majority of the games don't even have a dedicated multiplayer effort that's put in.

While other games such as Just Cause 2, Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings, Metro 2033, Assassins Creed Brotherhood, Tomb Raider Underworld, Amnesia the Dark Descent are soley focused on the single player aspect. These games, with the exception of ACB do not have any multiplayer at all.

Yet we have some ridiculous stories such as Major League Baseball 2K11 available on PCwhen that sport it only popular in North America. But Top Spin 4 aTennis that is popular worldwide, is not available on PC. What a great joke, isn't it?

So then what is the real use of the Hard Disk Enclosure if it doesn't really do much, apart from adding some additional ports or cooling the hard drive?:?

It's good I am now clearer about this and I am glad I didn't rush to order that £15 Hard Disk Enclosure.

I might go for the Western Digital 1 TB or 1.5 TB hard drive seeing that the 2 TB is a lot more expensive and perhaps I don't really need 2 TB.

1 TB is probably more than sufficient enough for me.

I only have 3.79 GB at the moment remaining out of the 320 GB HD space, lol. And a total of 34 games installed. Will certainly need to add some more hard drive space.:)

I am in need of at least 1 TB or 2 TB External Hard Drive where I can store all of my hard drive from my computer.
I realise I have a lot of games installed and a lot of them consume a lot of hard disk space. Hence I don't have enough space on my PC anymore. I am also in needof backing up myHard Drive so that in case I need to reformat my PC next time if my PC has a problem such as a virus, etc. Then the HD storage should then help me restore back all the data I previously had without having to install every game, software, etc from scratch.

Now I was looking between for example this Extra Value 3.5" USB2.0 & eSATA Hard Drive Enclosure for upto 1.5TB SATA Hard Drives - Retail http://www.ebuyer.com/product/149273 and this Western Digital Elements 1.5TB External Hard Drive Hi Speed USB - Retail http://www.ebuyer.com/product/178198

What is the difference between them? I see a huge price difference between the Enclosure and the normal External Hard Drive. I asked about this on yahoo answers and someone suggested me to get an enclosure one.:?

I am now confused. The Enclosure HD 1.5 TBone costs £15 from ebuyer. But if I was to buy the External HD 1.5 TB Western Digital it would cost more than £50.

I also watched a video about this here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEV5EuNcaVEwhere Tiger Direct are selling an enclosure one where you basically put your existing internal hard drive in it. But I wanna know if I was to buy for example a 1.5 TB enclosure HD and inserted my 320 GB Internal HD will I get 1820 GB Hard Disk space in total?

Could someone clarify me this and the differences between them?

Thanks!:)

I have Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti and Quad Core Q8400 at 2.66 GHz which is only a little more powerful than a stock Q6600. I run all of the games super smooth. I don't experience bottlenecks. Well maybe there are, but I just can't notice them.:?

I run Witcher 2 at 1920x1200 resolution and everything high the only think I have disabled is UberSampling. Make sure you disable that. When I have that on my frame rate drops way down to 15 fps.

When I turn it off I get 35-61 frames per second.:)

Not to mention that in every other game it is very smooth. Playing Metro 2033 with Nvidia Advanced PhysX + DX11 and it's all smooth get over 30+ frames per second, very rarely it dips down and if it does, it won't be any lower than 26 fps.

Crysis works perfect. Battlefield Bad Company 2 runs at 61 frames per second in most of the times with 8x MSAA and everything else all high.

Radeon HD3870 would do. Or something like an 8800GT.

HD 5340.

In essence any of these 30-50 pound cards should be able to handle that resolution.

Avoid 8600GT as that can't handle such resolution without drop in frame rates.

I use to have an 8600GT and wasn't very happy.

I am not sure if you would be satisfied buying a cheap graphics card. Cos to be honest. There's a high likelyhood that you'll regret buying such card as it won't be able to handle the latest games very smoothly.

For most games at 1280x1024 with a budget card will require you to decrease a few of the details down.

It's not a waste of money to buy a slightly more expensive card. Because in the long term it will last you for a lot longer than say going for a cheaper card. Plus more frames per second, the better.You also won't see the nice shiny graphics. This might at first sound like, "who cares about the graphics?" But it does matter. You will soon understand.

I personally would recommend you buy a PS3 or an Xbox 360 instead if gaming is what you have in mind. Cos honestly, I don't personally think you would be satisfied playing at lower resolution and constantly having to worry about what frames per second you get.

I ama 100% PC Gamer and I know from my past experience how I regreted when I bought the 8600GT 3 years ago. As a PC gamer I recommend either a strong graphics card like a GTX 560 Ti, GTX 570, HD 6950, etcor forget about PC Gaming altogether. As most of these cards are really mainly designed for HD videos, movies, etc. They are not really designed for gaming. If you are able to play any of the latestgames very smoothly I'd be very surprised.

Even at 1280x1024 you'll still need to at least spend £100 on a card and you might regret still...

I could recommend you an ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro, it costs £14.99 but will you be satisifed? Squeezing too much of your cash when it comes to PC gaming is risky business, I tell ya!

The first one is a better choice cos the Core i7 2600 is a much more powerful cpu.

Not worth paying the extra for a weaker processor an 2 TB HD. 1 TB is enough.

You can buy an Xbox 360 controller console edition and it will work on PC!;)

I recommend the 360 controller instead of the PS2 controller. It's more advanced and supports all latest GFWL.

The PS2 controller will work. But it has compatibility problems with some games. You need to buy an adapter for it.

I have a Black Xbox 360 controller and it is designed for the 360 console. But works perfectly on the PC. I play using it on PC. I am a PC gamer only.

Just connect and download latest drivers from the Windows Update and from then on your controller will work perfectly with all games. It's virtually plug and play. Since the download drivers will be offered automatically to you without having to search for them.:D Works with both Vista and 7.

No point in a new CPU. The current one is more than perfect for any game!

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=288

Here's the benchmark comparison between

I would be very wary of the PC considering that it doesn't specifically say what kind of graphics card it has.

It says only PCI-EXPRESS VIDEO CARD HDPCI-Express 1080p 1GB Video Card. That's a very bad overview of the product. This would immediately put me off from buying it!

Okay I see Nvidia 8400 at the bottom. THat's a very bad graphics card. £20 card could hardly play games higher than 800x600 resolution.

As for the guy who called me a fanboy.

Well I used my Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 4890 Overclocked Edition 1 GB DDR5 for 2 years. I was very happy with the card.

However, there are some serious problems with ATI at the moment.

Their drivers are poor. I was having black flicker screen on my 24 inch during Battlefield Bad Company 2 for 6 months! Every month the drivers never fixed it.

Finally with ATI/AMD drivers 11.2 the flicker screen was fixed. But nevertheless I was not happy that it took them that long for that flicker screen to be fixed. Then only recently my card's fan got faulty causing the card to overheat. It damaged my motherboard.

So I decided to get rid of the HD 4890 despite working well still. The fan was ruined, so I thought fair enough lets get rid of it for good.

I went for a GTX 560 Ti and I was impressed. I am getting an average 15-20 fps more with that card+physics and DX 11 does make a considerabledifference, believe it or not. I thought they were only gimmicks. But that wasn't true. Have yet to try 3D though. I need a 3D TV or a 3D monitor.

But so far I've been happy, neither drivers have caused me problems. Plus at idle temps the GTX 560 Ti sits at 28 degrees celcius, compared with 52 degrees celcius with my old HD 4890 at idle! So it makes a substantial difference. Also takes 20 watts less thanmy previous card and has 2 larger fans.

Am I a fanboy now? Well if you go through the issues I've had, you might wanna think again.

Perhaps getting a weaker Nvidia card certainly won't do you good for CUDA, PhysiX or DX 11.

However, you will still be benefited with their drivers. What I mentioned was more of an overall overview of both Ati and Nvidia.

Drivers are bad enough. Don't be fooled by how cheap the ATI cards are in comparison. You may regret at the end of the day when one game crashes you and the other doesn't. Next driver sorts out that game but crashes your other game that you previously didn't have problems with their previous drivers. Settling for a cheaper ATI card is like going for a cheap(unpopular) power supply brand they may soon give you nightmares.