| 8 SEP 2011 at 9:19am |
Mr Innocent.Journeyman
Posts : 1316
Joined: 15 JAN 2008
Location: GR
Status : Offline |
Originally Posted By walsh (8 SEP 2011 4:44am)
If I get a new MB will it go out of date in 3 years too?
Well, the simplest answer to that is yes, but we need to agree on what "out of date" means.
If you mean, will it support all the new specs, standards and upgrades that become available, then you are lucky if it lasts more than a year. It is particulary bad for Intel fans, since Intel almost always requires a new socket, and therefore a new motherboard, for each generation of CPUs.
If you mean, will it be unable to support a perfectly capable gaming system, then no. No one needs 6-core CPUs, 16GB of Ram and a Quad-SLI GPU setup to play any game in existance.
Add to that, that not all new specs are really all that useful. To take your SATA3 HDD for example, they aren't really any faster than SATA2 or even SATA1 drives. And of course you can use a SATA3 HDD connected to a SATA2 or SATA1 motherboard port, they are backwards compatible and the difference in performance is less than 1-2%. SATA3 is only really needed to take advantage of the speed of the latest generation of SSD drives.
And your GPU doesn't support DX11? Did I miss the avalanche of DX11 games, that you can't play :? The only game that comes to mind that flat out requires anything more than DX9 is Just Cause 2, and that will work fine with DX10. As for DX11, the few games that do support it (Aliens vs Predator, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Priyat, Crysis 2, couple of others) all have DX9 modes too, and the visual differences aren't anything to write home about.
Still, the GPU is the one component a PC gamer should upgrade once every couple of years, to be able to play the latest and greatest games with those nice effects and filters to the max .
My advice to you, get an Nvidia GTX560 TI or an ATI HD6950 1GB RAM, and forget about upgrading the rest of your system for at least another year.
|
| 8 SEP 2011 at 9:50am |
walshSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 384
Joined: 15 DEC 2010
Status : Offline | Excellent info, thanks. I was juggling video cards trying to find the best one, and the 6950 was one of the top ones.
Another question - how many CPU cores do i need? I've got three right now, and there are 7 core ones on the market. This is if I want to play the new games with high settings.
Honestly my compy handles new games pretty well if I don't use max settings. Hell, Crysis 2 was playable on the second highest setting. But I don't play many shooters. The main thing that bugs me is Civ 5 when I'm in the late stages of the game it gets really slow between turns and scrolling.
|
| 8 SEP 2011 at 1:51pm |
Mr Innocent.Journeyman
Posts : 1316
Joined: 15 JAN 2008
Location: GR
Status : Offline | It would be easier to make an upgrade recommendation if I knew exactly your motherboard and CPU models. There are no 7 core CPUs out, 6 cores is the maximum currently available for normal desktops.
I see you are a fan of perhaps the only game that makes heavy use of DX11 when it is available, Civ 5. It is also one of the few games that can really tax a fairly modern system at any resolution above 1680x1050.
And it is perhaps the only game where Nvidia GPUs have an enormous advantage over AMD/ATI ones. Have a look here.
Edit: Is your avatar from Death Gate?
|
| 8 SEP 2011 at 4:07pm |
HalcyonSchattenjger
Posts : 1652
Joined: 17 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | I built my own machine nearly three years ago with a 2.8 ghz Dual Core mb, ATI 4870 card, 4 gig of RAM, pretty hot at the time. I just tested it on PCPitstop, and it ranks in the top 19% of PCs based on their online tests.
I think there are reasons for that, such as: I have next to nothing running in the background, I refuse all automatic updates of anything, I run a clean desktop with no animations and often in classic mod, I'm a stickler about keeping a clean cache and defragmented machine, and I'm always checking my internet settings at broadbandreports.com (great forums for troubleshooting, too).
So I do think you can stretch the life of a machine, incrementally upgrading components. For instance, I just upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7 and am adding 4 more gigs of RAM. After that, will be a new video card--which will be a turning point, because I can upgrade a little and keep the rig I have, or heavily invest in a monster card and build a new system around it.
Also, it depends what you need the computer for, of course. Also, it depends on the demands of the games you play. I don't play games that demand a 6-core cpu. My 2 core is getting along just fine, so I focus memory and graphics.
Anyway, I guess the point is that you don't have to get the best to play the best games or have the best experience.
_________________
Exercise your vision.
|
| 8 SEP 2011 at 9:07pm |
| Deleted User | As you might recall Halcyon, thats nearly the same PC that I bought at the time, although I spent a few extra bucks for the E8400 CPU. The only upgrade that I have given it so far is an inexpensive DX11 compatible GPU. I held off on a RAM upgrade since I had planned on a CPU mobo upgrade this summer but unfortunately some unexpected vet bills nixed that plan. Still I don't suppose it would hurt to start looking at some options, at least get a feel for the price range and whether or not I could salvage my old memory with a new mobo... :-/
|
| 8 SEP 2011 at 9:58pm |
HalcyonSchattenjger
Posts : 1652
Joined: 17 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | Of course I recall, and I'm so grateful for the advice. One reason I'm not upgrading my GPU right now, apart from money, is that the DX11 cards are out of my price range--even the lower-level ATI 5850 is rocking $250-$300. And when I do get a new one, I want to take a big leap. Then I"ll have it all, except a new mobo. I'm snooping around already! Hmm, I might also go for a 650W power supply, come to think of it.
I'm really liking W7. I'm not as bothered by incompatibilities as some folks, mostly because I'd rather focus forward than worry about whether I can maintain the past. If the old games don't work, then I can finally let go and prepare for the monster games to come.
_________________
Exercise your vision.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 12:45am |
| Deleted User | I can imagine that anyone who updates from XP to 7 will experience more 'shock factor' than those of us who are already used to Vista. 8-) What I seem to appreciate most is how well organized it seems to be which in itself is quite a good thing for me. You can still explore, but most times it isn't necessary.
Have you tried running Windows Experience Index? At 5.7 my processor ranks lowest on the totem and in at least one case regarding my games it barely meets the recommended requirement. I hate to say it but the i5-480M in my notebook would probably run circles around it.
Yeah, I love snooping too.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 1:29am |
HalcyonSchattenjger
Posts : 1652
Joined: 17 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | No "shock" for me from XP to W7, just some questions. I wish I had an expert at my elbow.
I did run Windows Experience and my processor is 6.4 and everything else 6.4 - 7.3, except my hard drives, which is 5.9. I think it is lumping in my fast internal and sloooow external, since it gives the total space as 950 gig (I have on internal 500 gig and one external 500 gig).
Anyway, it doesn't take much research to see how far behind I am the monster rigs of today. Still, it is fun playing catch-up and seeing incremental improvements. Unlike the console crowd, who are locked in time into what they get.
_________________
Exercise your vision.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 1:49am |
tincup2Journeyman
Posts : 817
Joined: 8 MAR 2011
Location: US, NYC
Status : Offline | The road to PC upgrading - the eternal question...
I got a whopping 6-1/2 years out of my last box. I was tired of never-ending upgrades and so it was based on a pair of nVidia 7800GT/256mb in SLI which at the time was the fastest setup around. GPUs alone were 1/3 of the total cost. I went 2 notches down on the CPU since there is always an insane premium for the top dog, and the money saved justified the GPUs. The rest on the system was filled in with simple lean parts. Over the years I added ram, storage and after prices had fallen dramatically, upgraded the CPU to the fastest the mobo could take.
Even when I retired it last winter it was still a servicable machine though any demanding game of the last year or two needed to run at lower settings.
The point is that $ can = longevity, assuming you sink it into the most critical parts: GPU, CPU, a mobo that allows for ram and CPU upgrades. It also assumes that you can tollerate the inevitable decline of the machine over time. I you can't, then PC longevity is a dream.
For my last build I went in a much different direction because dough was tighter:
First I established just how much "power" I needed. In this case it was 6x the framerates I was getting in rFactor [racing simulation] at the beginning of some races with a full field, max settings and running 1900x1200, which at about 10fps was way way too low, and I needed at least 60, so a 6x boost was the design criterion.
Next I compared GPU and CPU performance charts of my old components to new ones [Tom's Hardware site was usefull here], and after figuring out a way of expressing various combinations in terms of brute FPS [don't ask], saw what it would take to raise 10fps to 60fps the most cheaply. And presto this ended up being an AMD Phenom II 555 dual-core [with 2 un-lockable cores to make it a quad and over-clocked to about 4ghz with a big heat sink and fans] teamed up with an ATI Radeon 5770/1gb [now called a 6770]. XP would have to return for an encore, and limited system ram to 4gb, but that was fine. All the other components were new, fast, lean and not too expensive since I skipped bells and whistles. Passed on SSD, USB3, SATA 6mb/sec and dual PCIe slots at 16x, fancy audio, LAN etc..
In-game tests confirmed the predicted "power" increase pretty closely which was gratifying given my unsophisticated mathimatical skills. It also resulted in way higher FPS across the board given rFactor had been the most demanding app. So $500 got the job done. I can add another GPU when the prices fall. I'm really happy with it now but under no illusion that it won't start to lag the field in a year or two.
So if you have $1,800 or so to blow, knock yourself out on a SandyBridge i5-2500k/OC @4ghz, liquid cooler, ATI 6970/2gb, 8+gb/1600mhz ram and a nice little SSD boot drive and you'll cruise for many years. If bucks are an issue try to determine what your bottom line performance requirements are at your gaming resolution [very important as res directly affects performance], and "reverse engineer" the cheapest cpu/gpu duet, add a decent mobo, and vanilla the rest of the way.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 2:00am |
HalcyonSchattenjger
Posts : 1652
Joined: 17 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | Great post. That helped my thinking a lot. I'm just now sneaking up on a solution I'll probably embrace around the new year.
Another question is to buy off the shelf, or build. I built my last and really enjoyed the experience, but I overlooked some things, such as my CPU can't run virtual PC, hence XP mode in Windows 7. It's not a big deal for me, but it is something I overlooked due to my layman experience.
Anyway, I'm good now, with 4 gigs in the mail making it 8 for my system. I'll let you know if I see any difference.
_________________
Exercise your vision.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 2:13am |
walshSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 384
Joined: 15 DEC 2010
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Camaroboy1968 (9 SEP 2011 12:45am)
Have you tried running Windows Experience Index? At 5.7 my processor ranks lowest on the totem and in at least one case regarding my games it barely meets the recommended requirement. I hate to say it but the i5-480M in my notebook would probably run circles around it.
Yeah, I love snooping too.
I'm on 5.9, and the lowest is the hard drive. Processor is 6.3. I have almost exactly the same system as Halcyon. 4870 card, 6gb ram and
AMD Phenom Triple core, which is at 2.3MHz. Which apparently is slow - everyone seems to frown on anything under 3MHz these days.
So Mr. Innocent you would suggest an Nvidia card to appease my Civ 5 addiction?
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 2:30am |
tincup2Journeyman
Posts : 817
Joined: 8 MAR 2011
Location: US, NYC
Status : Offline | Another question is to buy off the shelf, or build
My 2005 box was off the shelf from one of those online 'design it yoursel' PC places dedicated to gaming rigs. For what I wanted they were offering better price savings on high-end components than I could find on my own - so store bought worked that time. It was fun shooting the works.
The recent rig was built from parts all from Newegg. I found all sorts of decent performing "trailing edge" parts at a good discount and also saved considerable shipping costs by going with a single source. It was fun squeezing every ounce of performance for the buck.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 2:32am |
| Deleted User | Interesting that you got a better score with your processor H. :'( After a bit of reading I confirmed that 5.7 is the rated score for the Q8400 and a few suggestion as to how to improve if it's less. Also it seems you won't do better than 5.9 on the HD unless you go SSD. I was suspicious why my other scores were low, 5.9, until I discovered Vista only scores up to 5.9 and I can't seem to find a way to upgrade that.
Walsh, do you mind if I ask what you got for the 4870 as it was my old card before I installed the 6870?
On my notebook I get:
Processor 6.8
Ram 6.8 (8GB)
Graphics 6.7
Gaming Graphics 6.7
HD 5.9
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 2:48am |
walshSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 384
Joined: 15 DEC 2010
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Camaroboy1968 (9 SEP 2011 2:31am)
Walsh, do you mind if I ask what you got for the 4870 as it was my old card before I installed the 6870?
7.3
Originally Posted By nik2008ofs (8 SEP 2011 1:51pm)
Edit: Is your avatar from Death Gate?
Yes
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 6:29am |
Mr Innocent.Journeyman
Posts : 1316
Joined: 15 JAN 2008
Location: GR
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By TAS (8 SEP 2011 9:57pm)
is that the DX11 cards are out of my price range--even the lower-level ATI 5850 is rocking $250-$300.
You seem a bit behind the times re DX11 GPUs and their prices .
The 6870, a bit faster than the 5850, goes for 175$.
The 6770, just a rebranded 5770, costs 120$.
Originally Posted By walsh (9 SEP 2011 2:13am)
So Mr. Innocent you would suggest an Nvidia card to appease my Civ 5 addiction?
If Civ5 is really that important to you, then yes, go for the GTX 560 TI, and be careful, because the GTX 560 (without the TI) is a different GPU, less expensive but also quite less powerful.
Here's a good one.
If you feel you can splurge, you can get a GTX 570, a very powerful GPU, but it will be bottlenecked by your quite low-clocked CPU.
For better or for worse, Civ5 is one of the most demanding games currently available, in both CPU and GPU power.
Your best choice if you want better overall performance right now, is to get the GTX 560TI, and upgrade your CPU to this one.
Edit: But your case and your PSU are also important factors. You should have at least 600W from a reputable vendor for the PSU, and if you consider the 570GTX at all, you must make sure it fits your case, as it is rather long.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 12:33pm |
tincup2Journeyman
Posts : 817
Joined: 8 MAR 2011
Location: US, NYC
Status : Offline | MrI - yes the little details you point out are important things to consider. The innocent letter suffix may sometimes mask a stignificant performce difference between seemingly similar parts, and checking the length of a gpu before you buy may save you finding it doesn't fit your case!
I'll add that matching sensible cpu/gpu combos, as you touch on, can take a bit of research into the game performance benchmarks and is not an exact science, but worth the effort since you will have a better shot of not grossly over or under specifying/paying for one or the other part. It will also give you a keener sense of when to jump at a discounted item.
BTW the 6770 [aka 5770] is floating under $100 with rebates for certain brands at Newegg these days. If cost is a real issue it's a decent option, and paired they are no sloutch - on par with a 5870 or 6950.
@ Walsh - here's link to a handy GPU chart over at Tom's Hardware that I mentioned earlier - very broad stroke but good for exactly that reason. They also have one for gaming cpus:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2964-7.html
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 3:35pm |
HalcyonSchattenjger
Posts : 1652
Joined: 17 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | Well, I'm not so much behind the times as I am under-researched. The price ranges I gave were from Amazon.com, and your prices for the other cards nearly match up there, too. Why would the 5850 be more than the 6870?
(BTW, I think Newegg is getting a bit pricey. I just got better deals on Amazon for Windows 7 and 4 gigs of RAM -- both from Amazon, not a third-party ad)
Thanks, I'll look into them!
_________________
Exercise your vision.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 4:18pm |
tincup2Journeyman
Posts : 817
Joined: 8 MAR 2011
Location: US, NYC
Status : Offline | I think I read that the 68 series was a slight step down from the 58 series and this lead to some marketing confusion.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 4:40pm |
HalcyonSchattenjger
Posts : 1652
Joined: 17 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | Hence the lower price. I read that, too. I also want to take at least a big step up to a better card, not just a baby step. I'll do some comparison snooping online this weekend. How do people who don't research know what to buy?
_________________
Exercise your vision.
|
| 9 SEP 2011 at 5:06pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By mgonneau (9 SEP 2011 4:18pm)
I think I read that the 68 series was a slight step down from the 58 series and this lead to some marketing confusion.
You'd think it would be the other way around right? :
If you compare the 5850 with the 6870 you'll see that the 5850 is more powerful but the 6870 is faster. Doesn't that make it easier?
5850
6870
|
