PC Advice

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
What part of me being more demanding than the average consumer don't you understand?

I have a 6990 card, and I still have games that don't perform as well as I'd like - even when they work great on ATI drivers.

I'm saying it's possible to be a lot more demanding than the average gamer (e.g. buying a PC with a HD7770 or HD6850 instead of a 360/PS3) without being so demanding as to obsess over having to run Crysis at 4xAA instead of 8xAA.
I don't mean that as an insult, my primary gaming PC has a HD6970 and I do infact obsess over not being able to run Crysis with 8xAA.

Originally Posted by SirJames
Question there is is it worth the extra 100$ for 2mb extra cashe 3820?

Definitely no. The CPU -as compared to the GPU- is not that important anymore and 2MB cache isn't going to make a difference. Ye olde times when the amount of cache on a CPU mattered have long passed .

Also, is it worth adding an extra 300 for 2 more cpu cores?

That would be the biggest waste of money ever. Multithreading support in games is still pretty poor. Most games don't even take full advantage of quad cores, let alone six cores or more. Software, not just games, needs to be specifically made to work well with multiple cores. More cores do not automatically mean more performance.

Another 300 for extra high end video?

Way too much in my opinion. I would not spend more than $/€ 400/350 on a GPU. I would always favor a faster upgrade cycle like buying a new GPU every 12 - 18 months and eBaying the old card over buying one really expensive card and hanging onto that for several generations. You will often times not just get better performance with a new gen but also new features like support of a higher DirectX version, new AA modes or other image quality improvements. I wouldn't want to miss out on such new features just so I could justify my big investment from a couple of years ago.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I'm saying it's possible to be a lot more demanding than the average gamer (e.g. buying a PC with a HD7770 or HD6850) without being so demanding as to obsess over having to run Crysis at 4xAA instead of 8xAA.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course.

Personally, I limit myself to 4xAA - as I honestly don't see the visual gain of going beyond that.

My primary obsession is a reliably smooth frame rate - and it's my experience that when you play on high settings (I always do) - most games manage to NOT have that to my complete satisfaction, even with the latest hardware. That said, most games DO come close enough with my current rig.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
My primary obsession is a reliably smooth frame rate - and it's my experience that when you play on high settings (I always do) - most games manage to NOT have that to my complete satisfaction, even with the latest hardware.

Some of the new Ivy Bridge motherboards have a technology called "LucidLogix Virtu MVP" which enables the input device "framerate" to be higher than the actual rendered framerate. Apparently this can do wonders for how responsive games feel. I'm rather tempted to try it out.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
Some of the new Ivy Bridge motherboards have a new technology called "LucidLogix Virtu MVP" which enables the input device "framerate" to be higher than the actual rendered framerate. Apparently this can do wonders for how responsive games feel. I'm rather tempted to try it out.

As usual, all the goodies come out just after I've upgraded

I'm suffering a lot of issues because of my CF card (6990) - and words can't express how much I regret going with this one. But it was too expensive to replace so soon, so I'll have to wait a while with upgrading.

I just got myself a new mobo and a 2600K - so I can hardly go and upgrade again.

A lot of games have issues with CF/SLI (possibly other fast cards as well) - because of sync issues. I'm using a frame limiter myself in several games - to get rid of the extreme stuttering. I also have to disable CF outright in certain games - or they just don't run right.

It's easy to blame ATI for these issues, but I've come to understand that Nvidia SLI has similar issues on several games.

I suspect it's simply the dual+ GPU setup that isn't working as intended. I've never had anything but poor experiences with this - and I should have learned my lesson back with my Nvidia 7950 setup.

I was stupid enough to assume the technology/drivers were mature enough today.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yup, stay away from AMD CPUs - and I'd recommend an Nvidia GPU as well.

Too generalized.

Stay away from AMD for now, because they're not competitive at the moment.

I don't see a reason to recommend nVidia over AMD or vice versa. Both have attractive offers.

Yeah, I would stay away from AMD CPUs for now. They aren't currently competitive with Intel.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You're welcome to your opinion, of course.

Personally, I limit myself to 4xAA - as I honestly don't see the visual gain of going beyond that.

My primary obsession is a reliably smooth frame rate - and it's my experience that when you play on high settings (I always do) - most games manage to NOT have that to my complete satisfaction, even with the latest hardware. That said, most games DO come close enough with my current rig.

What games do you play ?
I haven't bought any new games since GIII, but that's shit software, so I haven't been able to really test my graphics card on anything newer than SW:TOR. And then again, that's an MMO, so probably not a good thin to benchmark with either.

However, I can get 35f/s on highest settings with my rig. Have you tried SWTOR ?

Also, just for information. My opinion is that gameplay trumps graphics, but the graphics should look somewhat nice too. I can easily play Mount and Blade for example and while newer games are fancy, I don't NEED all of that fanciness, so highest settings are not all that important for me.

On top of that I'm a mobile gamer, so you gaming enthusiasts are going want to kill me for playing on a laptop :O

I have an i5-540 dualcore. 4GB RAM. and a 1GB GT 330M.

Originally Posted by Pladio
What games do you play ?
I haven't bought any new games since GIII, but that's shit software, so I haven't been able to really test my graphics card on anything newer than SW:TOR. And then again, that's an MMO, so probably not a good thin to benchmark with either.

However, I can get 35f/s on highest settings with my rig. Have you tried SWTOR ?

Also, just for information. My opinion is that gameplay trumps graphics, but the graphics should look somewhat nice too. I can easily play Mount and Blade for example and while newer games are fancy, I don't NEED all of that fanciness, so highest settings are not all that important for me.

On top of that I'm a mobile gamer, so you gaming enthusiasts are going want to kill me for playing on a laptop :O

I have an i5-540 dualcore. 4GB RAM. and a 1GB GT 330M.

I tried SWtOR, yeah. It didn't run very well with a lot of people nearby - especially not when PvP'ing.

It was smooth at max settings when questing on the planets.

But the engine is a total disaster and no rig in the world can run it well in large scale PvP - regardless of low or high settings.

Ok, thanks once again for all your knowledgeable and enthusiastic contributions gents.

All the best
Badger

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I tried SWtOR, yeah. It didn't run very well with a lot of people nearby - especially not when PvP'ing.

It was smooth at max settings when questing on the planets.

But the engine is a total disaster and no rig in the world can run it well in large scale PvP - regardless of low or high settings.

I had another question. Why is framerate so important to you ? All the info I've read about it seems to indicate that most people don't notice a difference after the f/s rate goes higher than 35.

Originally Posted by Badger
Ok, thanks once again for all your knowledgeable and enthusiastic contributions gents.

All the best
Badger

Badger, what are your plans then ?

Originally Posted by Pladio
I had another question. Why is framerate so important to you ? All the info I've read about it seems to indicate that most people don't notice a difference after the f/s rate goes higher than 35.

I was always under the impression the myth had it pegged somewhere around 60fps… I can definitely notice the difference in 30 -> 60 -> 120. I prefer a smooth experience, the higher the minimum frame rate the better. Think about an object in game moving across a set distance in a set amount of time. The more frames the less distance the object jumps in between frames, thus smoother gameplay…

Movies and other low fps media use motion blurring to pull off their lower frame rates. I don't want inaccurate post process motion blurring to compensate for low fps in games… Personally I don't understand why some people are so vocal when it comes to those of us who can see/benefit from higher FPS. Assuming 30-35fps is good enough for everyone because it is for you is rather silly, imo.

Action, shooter and/or twitch driven games benefit massively from higher fps. Also higher fps across both a system and display combo capable of say 120fps/hz results in functionally reduced input lag compared to a system and display combo of 60fps/hz.

Here's an interesting site/article:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame…humans_see.htm

-EDIT-

@ OP are you considering pre-built or building your own?

Oh. I'm not sure then. Maybe the idea was that anything above 35f/s plays the same (maybe doesn't look the same ?)

Thanks for the link was informative.

Originally Posted by hishadow
..[*]Get a great LCD monitor. Beware! There are a lot of crappy LCD monitors in the market now. Good image and color quality can be just as important as the framerate in your games.

This is worth mentioning again and again.
I usually keep my monitors for 2-3 PC generations, around 6 years.

Buying/building a new rig is a pain, fun but painful
I usually spend 2-3 months researching before I buy the parts and assembly, but Im rather anal about it ;-)
For some Crossfie/SLI is a good idea.
I started with a 6850 when I built my latest rig then bought another second hand.

About building, if you are uncomfortable with it, get it built by a shop.

There are however several good guides about it and it is very satisfying when you have done it the first time.

C

Originally Posted by Pladio
Oh. I'm not sure then. Maybe the idea was that anything above 35f/s plays the same (maybe doesn't look the same ?)

Thanks for the link was informative.

Performance is important to me because of responsiveness. SWtOR ran at around 10-25 FPS during PvP with 16+ people - which is way too low. It runs poorly on ALL rigs and it's an engine problem.

I need around ~45+ FPS as a constant to achieve the sensation of full responsiveness. Very few games provide this ideal, sadly, but an example is WoW - which was perfect in terms of responsiveness most of the time. I'm also quite the "twitch" gamer and I'm (in all modesty) rather fast in my ways. So, I'm very demanding.

Naturally, some games are less sensitive to this - most obviously turn-based games or similarly slow-paced games.

But competitive real-time games like an MMO need a smooth framerate more than most. Well, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Gorath
1000£ (hold "ALT" and press 0163 on the numbers pad) is more money than you need. Honestly I wouldn't know where to spend that much. You can easily save a few 100 bucks if you have to find money for a TFT.

Thank you! Now I just hope I can remember that for future reference. I agree than if you are putting your own build together £1,000 is an awful lot more than needed, but with all the fancy liquid cooling that you can do now days, I'm sure I could find a way to spend it!

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
But competitive real-time games like an MMO need a smooth framerate more than most. Well, if you ask me.

I'd say ping/lag is more of an issue than framerate here. An MMO engine (at least the rpg ones) aren't really build for twitch gameplay (I think; at least makes sense to me).

Sure it needs to be smooth enough, but it is in a totally different league than let say quake 3/ET(F) and more modern online shooters…

OT,
Did some research, it seems for a high-end gaming pc, an intel 2500k + Geforce 560Ti seems to be the best that you can get (anything higher is not cost-effective). On the other hand, I have seen some tests were AMD's LLano platform can play most modern games just fine (e.g., skyrim) albeit not on the highest settings with 16xAF etc.

In sum, if you can't wait, buy an intel 2500k + geforce 560Ti. Should cost much less than your budget too. Otherwise wait another month for the new trinity and ivy bridge platforms reviews

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Performance is important to me because of responsiveness. SWtOR ran at around 10-25 FPS during PvP with 16+ people - which is way too low. It runs poorly on ALL rigs and it's an engine problem.

I need around ~45+ FPS as a constant to achieve the sensation of full responsiveness. Very few games provide this ideal, sadly, but an example is WoW - which was perfect in terms of responsiveness most of the time. I'm also quite the "twitch" gamer and I'm (in all modesty) rather fast in my ways. So, I'm very demanding.

Naturally, some games are less sensitive to this - most obviously turn-based games or similarly slow-paced games.

But competitive real-time games like an MMO need a smooth framerate more than most. Well, if you ask me.

For me, I notice obvious unresponsiveness at anything below 25f/s. This is for any type of RT-game. Like you said TB-games don't usually have this problems, but I did play the latest Civ games on other people's machines and they did have some stutter due to bad graphics cards, so I guess it does matter nowadays too.

I don't usually play MMOs though. SWTOR was on a trial account and the onl other MMO I've played recently is DDO, which I have no problems with. Again on highest settings.

I'm a very bad twitch gamer though, too many buttons confuse my fingers and then I usually press the wrong button. These games - with 500 skills on 30 toolbars, which you can access via 15 shortcuts, which then have cooldowns and limits and some are targeted while others are just press the button fast - are not for me.

I'm just not good with them.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen
Thank you! Now I just hope I can remember that for future reference. I agree than if you are putting your own build together £1,000 is an awful lot more than needed, but with all the fancy liquid cooling that you can do now days, I'm sure I could find a way to spend it!

ALT and 0128 is €

I've had good experiences buying from Falcon Northwest. I don't know if they deliver internationally. But regardless if you buy from them or not, they have a great tool for configuring a PC. You don't have to buy from them to use the tool.

Obviously they don't have every possible make and model of a part you can buy. But I often visit their configuration tool as an easy way to find out what's the 'latest and greatest.'