Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

How and how much $ to get a proper PC?Follow

#152 Jul 09 2010 at 7:50 AM Rating: Decent
*
58 posts
Nice rig you're going to have there man.
#153 Jul 09 2010 at 7:56 AM Rating: Decent
Guru
***
1,673 posts
Thanks. The good thing is that my wife can have the old computer so she can spend hours on facebook.
#154 Jul 09 2010 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
742 posts
Quote:
Threx wrote:
Right now I'd really like to know how a Phenom II x4 965 + HD 4870 combination would score. I'm also curious whether the CPU will hold back two crossfired 4870.

I hear the 4870 and 4890 run pretty hot (temperature), though.


For what it's worth, passmark rates 4870x2 between the performance of a 5750 and a 5770. Based on my rig (Ph2x4 925 & 5770) I'd say you can expect to see 3900-4300ish with Ph2x4 965 & 4870x2.

I don't know about the temperatures though; you'd have to run furmark for that. Or look in CCC I guess.


I have a Phenom II X4 965 and a 5850 and I get ~4000 on high and ~4500 on low on the benchmark.
____________________________
Drake Wulfric - Selbina Server
#155 Jul 09 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Rysa wrote:
I have a Phenom II X4 965 and a 5850 and I get ~4000 on high and ~4500 on low on the benchmark.



I've noticed that the difference between the results in low res and high res is quite large when using i7 CPUs, while the difference is much smaller when using C2Q and Phenom CPUs. Check it out:

http://ffxiv-fan.rulez.jp/benchmarkrank.php?mode=0&score=0&sort=0&limit=0#datatable

I wonder why this is. Anyone got any ideas?
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#156 Jul 09 2010 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
Threx wrote:
Rysa wrote:
I have a Phenom II X4 965 and a 5850 and I get ~4000 on high and ~4500 on low on the benchmark.



I've noticed that the difference between the results in low res and high res is quite large when using i7 CPUs, while the difference is much smaller when using C2Q and Phenom CPUs. Check it out:

http://ffxiv-fan.rulez.jp/benchmarkrank.php?mode=0&score=0&sort=0&limit=0#datatable

I wonder why this is. Anyone got any ideas?


Most likely it shows that the high end graphics cards are bottlenecked by the CPU. What that means is that the graphics card is not able to operate at its full capacity because it is waiting for the CPU to finish processing data.

By increasing processor speed and efficiency (IPC), the GPU is able to stretch its legs and the score increases.

This really highlights the fact that building gaming PCs is an exercise on balance. The goal should be to pair your components so that none of them present a significant bottleneck to the rest.
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#157 Jul 09 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
742 posts
Quote:
Most likely it shows that the high end graphics cards are bottlenecked by the CPU. What that means is that the graphics card is not able to operate at its full capacity because it is waiting for the CPU to finish processing data.

By increasing processor speed and efficiency (IPC), the GPU is able to stretch its legs and the score increases.

This really highlights the fact that building gaming PCs is an exercise on balance. The goal should be to pair your components so that none of them present a significant bottleneck to the rest.


Yeah, I figured I would end-up bottle necking my graphics card with my CPU, but I couldn't afford an i7. I got that CPU a few months ago at a great price and a "free" AM3 socket mobo in a combo deal at Fry's. I figured, at least I could upgrade my CPU later on down the road since the hex-core AMD chips were going to be AM3 socket, while the next i-Core gen might end up changing sockets.
____________________________
Drake Wulfric - Selbina Server
#158 Jul 09 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Pickins wrote:
Most likely it shows that the high end graphics cards are bottlenecked by the CPU.



I'm not so sure about that, though. Take a look:

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94743

It seems like in high res the GPU is the bottleneck, while in low res the CPU is the bottleneck.

Edit: Pay close attention to Soap's results, as well as the two i5 750s on the top 20.

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 1:45pm by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#159 Jul 09 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
I agree that the GPU is the most stressed component in the high res benchmark, but CPU definitely plays a role.

Take a look at the 5870's in high res exclusively. Notice that the benchmark score continues to scale up with increasing processor performance?

Now, look at #20 and #21. Both have C2d's at nearly the same clock speed. #20 is a 5870, but scores only about 65% as high as the highest ranked 5870. In fact, it scores almost the same as #21, which has a weaker GPU.

To me, this clearly shows that the 5870 is bottlenecked by the CPU all the way into i7 territory.

Edit: I should be clear that this only applies to high-end GPU's. Mid range and lower graphics cards will be the limiting factor for most systems.

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 3:24pm by Pickins
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#160 Jul 09 2010 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Still doesn't explain why the difference between low and high res results is greater with an i7 than with an i5 750 or C2Q though. =/

Systems that score ~4k on high should be scoring ~6k+ on low, not ~4.5k on low. But they are. So does this mean that the C2Qs and i5 750s are bottlenecking the performance on low res but not on high res?

Grr can't think straight. 2:40am here.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#161 Jul 09 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Default
36 posts
Quote:
Ok, i saw all the info about about if its not gtx dont use it. Now im not disagreeing that XIV wont run better on a GTX-whatever but i just bought a GTS 250 to replace my 9500GT which scored like 1000 on the low lol.

Anyway just reran the benchmark. 2625 High 3500 something low.




THANK YOU!! POINT MADE SOMEONE IS A TOTAL IDIOT AND I WONT SAY WHO THAT IS
#162 Jul 09 2010 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
24 posts
Someone is still upset lol.
#163 Jul 09 2010 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default
36 posts
Quote:
I was about to point you to the compliation of benchmark scores I used to refer to to try and help people out when someone else here posted their results with a GTS250. 2625 high res. Bottom bracket for "able to run at default settings". By no means the "very VERY well" you claimed it would produce. You can't point to games a year or two (or more) old like "WOW!! Look at what this card will do" because we're talking about a game that isn't out yet and one where the devs have told us you're going to need a top end rig to run with settings maxed at released. 2xx series cards are one generation from obsolete. They're not top end. They're not high end. Higher model number 2xx series cards are modest. 250/260? Budget cards for budget users happy to get a bit more performance out of their favorite 4 year old games.


well by very VERY nice for how much im spending (less then 800 dollars) on a system. ID say that is nice. Im not debateing that a GTX is going to be awesome im sure it will be. But the GTS 250 is just fine and will run the game and it will be playable and accualy on Higher resoulation the 1gb GPU kicks in to high gear makeing it a good buy. Sence ill be playing this on my 42 LCD 1080p TV. My TV also Upgrades Viodeo quality. SO AS i was saying you can buy a 200+ card if thats all you need if you can afford it. Or you can Spend less then 800$ get a good Gameing PC and be happy. Again this is my PC i builts specs look them over if you can understand them.
This is what it looks like http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/AMD_Quad_Core_Configurator/
you can change it anyway you like it.
And this is its specs.(click on details) http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/cart/showcart.aspx?url=%2fsystem%2fAMD_Quad_Core_Configurator&ref=add (Grand total 786 dollars) Just needs Windows 7 but i have it here

Also to add you can spend less the 800 bucks on a PC run XIV and save money and when prices come down Upgrade the card(s) later on without haveing to buy a whole new rig.
This rig im building is made to upgrade with no problems, Crossfire , AMDP2x4 just as an example. Sorry if im being THRIFTY and SMART at the same time i know thats a hard thing for some people to grasp.

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 6:16pm by vermillionreign

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 6:32pm by vermillionreign
#164 Jul 09 2010 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
vermillionreign wrote:
Quote:
I was about to point you to the compliation of benchmark scores I used to refer to to try and help people out when someone else here posted their results with a GTS250. 2625 high res. Bottom bracket for "able to run at default settings". By no means the "very VERY well" you claimed it would produce. You can't point to games a year or two (or more) old like "WOW!! Look at what this card will do" because we're talking about a game that isn't out yet and one where the devs have told us you're going to need a top end rig to run with settings maxed at released. 2xx series cards are one generation from obsolete. They're not top end. They're not high end. Higher model number 2xx series cards are modest. 250/260? Budget cards for budget users happy to get a bit more performance out of their favorite 4 year old games.


well by very VERY nice for how much im spending (less then 800 dollars) on a system. ID say that is nice. Im not debateing that a GTX is going to be awesome im sure it will be. But the GTS 250 is just fine and will run the game and it will be playable and accualy on Higher resoulation the 1gb GPU kicks in to high gear makeing it a good buy. Sence ill be playing this on my 42 LCD 1080p TV. My TV also Upgrades Viodeo quality. SO AS i was saying you can buy a 200+ card if thats all you need if you can afford it. Or you can Spend less then 800$ get a good Gameing PC and be happy. Again this is my PC i builts specs look them over if you can understand them.
This is what it looks like http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/AMD_Quad_Core_Configurator/
you can change it anyway you like it.
And this is its specs.(click on details) http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/cart/showcart.aspx?url=%2fsystem%2fAMD_Quad_Core_Configurator&ref=add (Grand total 786 dollars) Just needs Windows 7 but i have it here


Your opinion on the matter isn't exactly congruent with the results people are getting. A high res score just over 2500 is not good. It's barely (and I mean BARELY) okay. Please don't backpeddle. You were wrong before and you're still being misleading. You're buying a budget rig for a cutting edge game and if you're okay with that, I'm okay with that. Just don't confuse the issue by making your rig's capabilities out to be more than they actually are.
#165 Jul 09 2010 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Threx wrote:
Pickins wrote:
Most likely it shows that the high end graphics cards are bottlenecked by the CPU.



I'm not so sure about that, though. Take a look:

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94743

It seems like in high res the GPU is the bottleneck, while in low res the CPU is the bottleneck.

Edit: Pay close attention to Soap's results, as well as the two i5 750s on the top 20.


I can confirm what you're saying (Celeras won't update the scores because I tweaked and fiddled with my OC until I had a higher score than everyone and he's butthurt). Depending on your processor and GPU, the bottlenecks will show up at different places under different circumstances. But all other things being equal, high res is more GPU intensive and if it's going to choke on anything high end, it's going to be the GPU. When I was messing with the overclocking, I bumped up my CPU by itself and it made no real difference to my high res score, but my low res score always showed a noteworthy improvement. Then when I started OCing my GPU, it was the high res score that showed improvement while the low res score remained largely stagnant.

That's not to say that lower end machines won't bottleneck on the CPU for a high res test or the GPU for the low res. All that means if you get backwards bottlenecking is that either your CPU or GPU is truly underperforming.
#166 Jul 09 2010 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
36 posts
But i dont HAVE to play the game on High res. I can play on low res be just as happy and have a 3,500+ score you failed to point that out also. Also my rig is fully upgradeable. Its about being smart. Will my card play the game YES. will i have a good time playing ummm YES. will I be happy with it...YEAH i think so. Do i HAVE to go and get the best of the best now...NO i dont. So i think your misleading in that your saying i wont be happy playing the game. But dont still wont execpt the FACT that the game WILL run and WILL work AND at 720p on low res is still really nice. Im happy with not haveing the Best of the Best. But im also happy that i can help people who MIGHT not have alot of cash in building a PC that will work and will play XIV. Maybe not on HIGH res. but still beable to function and play. As i said be The OP is HOW MUCH $ to get a Proper PC. Not HOW MUCH $ TO HAVE THE BEST SETTINGS ON HIGH RES. And the PC i made is well Proper.
#167 Jul 09 2010 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
vermillionreign wrote:
But i dont HAVE to play the game on High res. I can play on low res be just as happy and have a 3,500+ score you failed to point that out also. Also my rig is fully upgradeable. Its about being smart. Will my card play the game YES. will i have a good time playing ummm YES. will I be happy with it...YEAH i think so. Do i HAVE to go and get the best of the best now...NO i dont. So i think your misleading in that your saying i wont be happy playing the game. But dont still wont execpt the FACT that the game WILL run and WILL work AND at 720p on low res is still really nice. Im happy with not haveing the Best of the Best. But im also happy that i can help people who MIGHT not have alot of cash in building a PC that will work and will play XIV. Maybe not on HIGH res. but still beable to function and play. As i said be The OP is HOW MUCH $ to get a Proper PC. Not HOW MUCH $ TO HAVE THE BEST SETTINGS ON HIGH RES. And the PC i made is well Proper.


As I've said, if you're happy with it, I'm fine with it. The point is that your previous claims that it would run the game "very VERY well" were inaccurate. It will barely run the game. 3500 low res is nothing to be proud of. It's a slight step above being able to run with all other settings at default (ie low or disabled). You're still going to experience low frames on a frequent basis. That's not "very VERY well" and there are people here who are trying to avoid the spread of misinformation. It's not about telling people to go out and buy the best...it's about NOT misleading them into thinking that the money they DO spend is going to produce results that are beyond the capability of the hardware they're buying.
#168 Jul 09 2010 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
To anyone reading this topic for PC upgrade ideas: Do yourself a huge favor and ignore vermillionreign unless you want a ****** system. He has no idea what he's talking about, is spouting off utter ******** when faced with facts, and is rather insistent that his ****** rig will be fine.

If you WANT to waste your money on a poor system that will run the game poorly on poor settings, then by all means, I won't stop you from taking his advice.

But if you want AT LEAST a decent or heaven forbid a GOOD system that will run the game on something a little better than "terribad, but I guess I can suffer through the ****** performance" then trust someone who has been working in the IT field for years and who has built a myriad of computers: Ignore this guy. You will be throwing your money down the toilet for a computer that performs abysmally if you don't.

For only slightly more money, you can end up with great performance. His ideas will save you a small percentage of money compared to what you could have, and will buy you a PC that will need to be upgraded AGAIN (costing you even more money than it would have if you had done it right the first time) when you decide that you aren't happy with the poor quality that will result from his suggestion.

A GTS 250 will run you about $120-130 and will perform terribly. A Radeon 5770 will run you about $150-160 and will perform SIGNIFICANTLY better. Ask yourself if saving 30 bucks is worth a massive decrease in improvement.

In closing, I'd like to call your attention to this post, it was his first one in this thread:

vermillionreign wrote:
got www.hp.com
you can build a PC or laptop
this is an example of the Laptop and tower im looking to buy under 700$

Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
AMD Phenom(TM) II Dual-Core Mobile Processor N620 (2.8GHz, 2MB L2 Cache)
3GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
FREE Upgraede to 320GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 4250 Graphics and 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader & HDMI
15.6" diagonal High Definition HP LED Brightview Display (1366x768)
SuperMulti 8X DVD+/-R/RW with Double Layer Support
Microphone Only (no webcam) with 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader and HDMI
Wireless-N Card with Bluetooth
Full-size keyboard with One touch launch keys and Action keys
6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery
No Modem
Microsoft(R) Office Starter 2010
HP Home & Home Office Store in-box envelope
price is 668 with tax and shipping



or tower im looking at

Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor E6600 [3.06GHz, 2MB L2, 1066MHz FSB]
FREE UPGRADE! 3GB DDR3-800MHz SDRAM [2 DIMMs] from 2GB
FREE UPGRADE! 500GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive from 320GB
1GB ATI Radeon HD 5450 [DVI, HDMI, VGA]
LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive
Integrated Ethernet port, No wireless LAN
2 USB, front audio ports
No TV Tuner
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio
No speakers
HP USB keyboard and optical mouse
Microsoft Office Starter 2010
No additional security software
HP Home & Home Office Store in-box envelope

price is 672 with tax and shipping

crossrefrenceing with SEs specs this i think should do nicely


Notice all the spam? the bulk of totally useless information, 90% of which has absolutely no bearing on the performance or quality of the rig? Stuff like "No TV Tuner" and "Integrated Ethernet port" which has practically ZILCH to do with performance, but he includes it as part of his bulk copypasta anyway?

This is a guy who probably still refers to his hard drive as "memory" and probably didn't know the difference between the CPU or the GPU...

There's nothing wrong with someone knowing little to nothing about computers, that's what these threads are for; for people who do know a good deal about them to help you make smart purchasing decisions. But ask yourself: would you trust someone who doesn't know how to check their oil or put air in their tires to tell you which car you should buy? Would you trust someone who has no idea what the difference between 720p and 1080p is to tell you which TV is a good buy?

Don't trust someone who has a proven record of showing they have no idea what they **** they are talking about and are clearly just throwing darts at a dartboard to pick a system to tell you which system to buy, unless you just want to throw your money away on an inferior rig that will run the game on low quality.

This is a BRAND NEW game. Do you want a BRAND NEW computer to run your BRAND NEW game on the lowest possible settings? I doubt you do.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#169 Jul 09 2010 at 5:29 PM Rating: Default
36 posts
Well again it will run the game. Bottom line. And Again as in Very VERY i was refrenceing the price and everything that im getting with the PC i.e the processor the MB the memory Liquid cooling temp.readout on PC. I'm sorry you took it in a wrong way. And are twisting it around to fit your debate. But sence I POSTED it i thought i would let you know what i was happy with. Again my card will run it but i was more stoked in the price of the PC. Now you have to give me some props on that PC even if you dont aprove on my GPU.
#170 Jul 09 2010 at 5:45 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,811 posts
Smiley: deadhorse


vermillionreign wrote:
Well again it will run the game. Bottom line. And Again as in Very VERY i was refrenceing the price and everything that im getting with the PC i.e the processor the MB the memory Liquid cooling temp.readout on PC. I'm sorry you took it in a wrong way. And are twisting it around to fit your debate. But sence I POSTED it i thought i would let you know what i was happy with. Again my card will run it but i was more stoked in the price of the PC. Now you have to give me some props on that PC even if you dont aprove on my GPU.



If I say, "nice build for the price, good job man" can we drop this and make room for others. I'm sure by now some people with legitimate questions are becoming wary of posting in this thread.

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 8:07pm by Kyoshindi
____________________________

Quote:
The Path to **** is paved with good intentions.
#171 Jul 09 2010 at 5:54 PM Rating: Decent
12 posts
Quote:

Your opinion on the matter isn't exactly congruent with the results people are getting. A high res score just over 2500 is not good. It's barely (and I mean BARELY) okay. Please don't backpeddle. You were wrong before and you're still being misleading. You're buying a budget rig for a cutting edge game and if you're okay with that, I'm okay with that. Just don't confuse the issue by making your rig's capabilities out to be more than they actually are.


You are wrong dude. 1500 is barely okay. 2500 is fine and dandy.
#172 Jul 09 2010 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
vermillionreign wrote:
Well again it will run the game. Bottom line. And Again as in Very VERY i was refrenceing the price and everything that im getting with the PC i.e the processor the MB the memory Liquid cooling temp.readout on PC. I'm sorry you took it in a wrong way. And are twisting it around to fit your debate. But sence I POSTED it i thought i would let you know what i was happy with. Again my card will run it but i was more stoked in the price of the PC. Now you have to give me some props on that PC even if you dont aprove on my GPU.


We're talking about buying a car to drive 40 miles to work. You're telling people to buy a bicycle. Why?

vermillionreign wrote:
Well again it will get you to work. Bottom line. And Again as in Very VERY i was refrenceing the price and everything that im getting with the transportation i.e the pedals and the brakes and the bike horn they threw in free. I'm sorry you took it in a wrong way. And are twisting it around to fit your debate. But sence I POSTED it i thought i would let you know what i was happy with. Again my bike will get me to work but i was more stoked in the price of the bike, compared to a car. Now you have to give me some props on that bike even if you dont aprove on the fact that your legs will hate you forever.


Yes. I admit your suggested system "runs the game" in the same way that a bike will get you to your job 40 miles away.

We're trying to suggest that most people get something with an engine and four wheels. If you're fine with pedaling, then I'm clearly not going to convince you out of it, but we're trying to help people get a better product than what you're suggesting.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#173 Jul 09 2010 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
9 posts
ive been trying to figure which video card to get... i cant go out and buy a 300+ card right now.. is this one a decent card? found it for only 105$

XFX HD-487A-ZWFC Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video

forgot.. getting the AMD Phenom™ II X4 955 Processor to go with it..



Edited, Jul 9th 2010 10:28pm by llasar
#174 Jul 09 2010 at 8:54 PM Rating: Good
***
3,811 posts
llasar wrote:
ive been trying to figure which video card to get... i cant go out and buy a 300+ card right now.. is this one a decent card? found it for only 105$

XFX HD-487A-ZWFC Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video

forgot.. getting the AMD Phenom™ II X4 955 Processor to go with it..


It's not a bad card, I'm running the Vapor-X 2GB version. You'll need to O/C the card, but It will still be dragging your system down. I'm sure you'll probably score in the 4k range on low though. I have a Core 2 Quad Q9550 @3.4GHz and only managed a 4100 on low. You'll be able to play without a problem though.

Not sure how much your looking to spend, but you could probably find better deal on a 5xx series card with far better performance for a little more money. If your not in a rush just wait another month or two, prices will drop some more. From what I have been reading around here two 4870's are about the same as running one 5870. Food for thought...
____________________________

Quote:
The Path to **** is paved with good intentions.
#175 Jul 09 2010 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
9 posts
so i should just get this one?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161326

the radeon 5830?
#176 Jul 09 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Kyoshindi wrote:
llasar wrote:
ive been trying to figure which video card to get... i cant go out and buy a 300+ card right now.. is this one a decent card? found it for only 105$

XFX HD-487A-ZWFC Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video

forgot.. getting the AMD Phenom™ II X4 955 Processor to go with it..


It's not a bad card, I'm running the Vapor-X 2GB version. You'll need to O/C the card, but It will still be dragging your system down. I'm sure you'll probably score in the 4k range on low though. I have a Core 2 Quad Q9550 @3.4GHz and only managed a 4100 on low. You'll be able to play without a problem though.

Not sure how much your looking to spend, but you could probably find better deal on a 5xx series card with far better performance for a little more money. If your not in a rush just wait another month or two, prices will drop some more. From what I have been reading around here two 4870's are about the same as running one 5870. Food for thought...


4870x2 is a hair less than a 5770.

llasar wrote:
so i should just get this one?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161326

the radeon 5830?


I was going to suggest the 5770, but the 5830 is better than the 5770, so that will be fine.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#177 Jul 09 2010 at 10:24 PM Rating: Good
***
3,811 posts
I stand corrected. My apologies, got my numbers mixed up a bit from what I was thinking about at the time.
____________________________

Quote:
The Path to **** is paved with good intentions.
#178 Jul 09 2010 at 11:20 PM Rating: Decent
*
89 posts
ok, got a Core 2 Quad Q9550 @2.83GHz plus BFG GeForce GTX 260 2x should be good to go.
#179 Jul 09 2010 at 11:21 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Kyoshindi wrote:
I stand corrected. My apologies, got my numbers mixed up a bit from what I was thinking about at the time.


No worries. The difference isn't that huge, anyway.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#180 Jul 10 2010 at 7:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,148 posts
Cazon wrote:
ok, got a Core 2 Quad Q9550 @2.83GHz plus BFG GeForce GTX 260 2x should be good to go.


Assuming the rest of the system is up to snuff, you should have little difficulty overclocking that processor to at least 3.4ghz

If you mean 2x GTX 260's, the current benchmark doesn't make use of SLI/CrossFire so you'll be better off returning those cards and just getting one stronger one.

---

And in general when building a gaming pc, you sort of need to budget a bit more than your basic "browse the internet" pc. Current generation middle of the road graphics cards are in the 250-300$ price range by themselves and the high end cards are 350 and up to 1,000 for a single card.

What is nice is if you decide to upgrade them (video cards) in a year or two you can expect to get back ~30-50% of the cost if you take the time to list them on ebay.
____________________________
Mishana: DRG | THF | RDM | NIN
#181 Jul 10 2010 at 9:19 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Louiscool wrote:


http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/desktop-inspiron-580?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&redirect=1

Processor
Intel® Core™ i5-750 processor(8MB Cache, 2.66GHz)

Memory
4GB2 Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM3 at 1066MHz - 4 DIMMs

Video Card
ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB5 DDR3

Price: 649


So what would be a good match for this set for a video card? I'm reading the whole thread and don't want to go baller on a video card if i cant maximize it's performance with this processor.

Hoping to spend 150-200 if possible and willing to wait for some deals on newegg
____________________________


#182 Jul 10 2010 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
*
139 posts
Never skim on a GPU when you build a gaming PC. It's probably the most expensive piece of hardware you buy for a newly built gaming PC. A large portion gaming performance is directly related to the GPU and/or the CPU. A low-end GPU isn't going to get you anywhere far, a mid-range will probably allow you play at moderate settings with some hiccups or at high settings depending on how 'mid-range' it is. I'd say, if you are really concern about your budget, you should look at how long term is your gaming pc will last and buy accordingly. If it's 3-5 years down the line, a mid-range is probably what you want if you are on a tight budget. If it's 1-2 years until the PS3 release then opting for a low-end is probably ok.

I don't think FFXIV benchmark currently utilize Crossfire or SLI so I can't tell if FFXIV will take the performance boost from using a dual GPU system or not. I tend to build a gaming PC around the GPU because it costs so much that I pretty much have to scale everything else to fit my price budget.

My rating for GPU list:

Low End (probably low settings with hiccups)$50-$150
Nvidia 9800 XT - probably the cheapest one, it should run FFXIV at mini-minimal settings.
Nvidia 250 GTS - might be better or equal to the previous one but more common; I probably wouldn't buy this to play FFXIV with.

I have a laptop with Nvidia 9800M and I barely hit 1557 on the benchmark. The 250 GTS is stronger than the 9800M since it's a desktop card but don't expect a lot of juice out of this one. If you are going to buy this, don't pay for more than $120 for it.

Recommended CPU/RAM/MOBO:
CPU: A dual core CPU will do just fine for these cards; Don't go over $100 for CPU with these cause you probably will just waste out the CPU power for most games.
RAM For ram, don't go high end DDR2 with 800MHz; stick with the cheapest you can get on the market. The performance boost from top-end ram aren't going to make a huge difference here. If you have the money for those expensive ram, put some more into a better GPU instead. Also, don't have to go beyond 3GB and stay with your current 32-bit OS.
MOBO Shouldn't be more expensive than the CPU. Don't go for the fancy settings; older model that goes for less than $100 for a dual core are probably better. No need for sli or crossfire.

Low-Mid range (probably run fine with low settings) $100-$200
Nvidia 260 GTX - a lot better compare to the previous one but also more expensive. However if you can find one for less than $120 then it might be a decent deal.

ATI 5770 - Much better than the Nvidia 260 and probably cheaper too; buy this if you are low on the money. I found this one for around $150 on newegg and I think is the biggest bang for the buck. You also have the option of paying for a 2nd card at a later date (doubles it to $300) for the performance that will probably out match a $300 card.

Don't worry too much about GPU ram such as size (800-ish, 1G, 2G...etc) or DDR3-4-5 if you are looking in this range, the GPU ram matters more when you need to run the games in very high settings and big screens. Even a 512Mb GPU will probably do 'ok' unless you crank up to a high resolution like 1920x1200.

Recommended CPU/RAM/MOBO:
CPU: You might want to look at quad-cores here; Again, no high-end stuff like i5, i7, i8, i9...etc. I'd say something of the Q-series if they less than $130 or just go straight for the AMD 955-965 series which are much better bang for the buck CPUs.
RAM Same as above, you are probably going to still around the DDR2 line so stick with the 667MHz ones since they are decent enough. 4GB is ideal here if you have a 64-bit OS like Win7 64-bit; otherwise 3GB is nice enough.
MOBO You'll want a MOBO that can support Sli or Crossfire here if you plan to keep playing on PC in the future. Otherwise, find a decent MOBO at around $130 or less.

Mid-High range $200-$300
Nvidia 275, 280, 285 - these guys are sometimes better than the ATI 5770 (sometimes worse) in terms of performance but are drastically more expensive.If you can find a used cheap one for less than $150 then go for it. Other wise, pick the one below.

ATI 5830 - This little guy a slight step up from the previous guys; not the cream of the crop but he is decent and probably a good idea if you plan to buy a second one for CrossFire on a later date when you have more money. The CF will probably beat up the high end 5870 ATI card that goes for $400+. I think these are around $250; so anything you can find for less than $210 is probably a good idea.

In this range, GPU ram starts to matter more when you want to run a game in high settings (because you can now) and put in some extra juice with Anti-Aliasing at x2 or x4.

Recommended CPU/RAM/MOBO:
CPU: Either the AMD 955-965 or i3~i5 here. These CPUs are strong enough to match the GPU and won't cause bottle neck in performance even when you jump up with crossfire. Roughly $150-200 for the CPU.
RAM Depending on the CPU, you might need to get the DDR3 ones. If you have a bit of spare cash, go for the 1600MHz but these will need some tuning to work well. If you don't want to mess around then just pick the cheaper 1066MHz for compatibility. You'll want at least 4GB to 8GB here and a 64-bit OS to support it. Roughly $70-100 for the RAM.
MOBO Again, match it with the CPU; Crossfire and Sli are nice if you plan to put in more money in the future.

High range $300+
ATI 5850 - Step up from the 5830 and cost roughly $100-150 more for a moderate increase in performace. I think most people going for a decently good gaming PC for playing several games will pick this. This is also the one I recommend.

Nvidia 470 - Slightly more expensive than the ATI 5850 (roughly $50) and also gives a slight boost in performance. I'd say if you have enough money and want a single strong card instead of using crossfire then buy this.

ATI 5870 - Costs almost 150% of the 5850; over priced in my book but the boost can be somewhat noticeable. I have this card and it can be unstable sometimes and I don't know why. I might not have enough power in my PSU but it's a 750W PSU for a single GPU ~_~;

Nvidia 480 - Better than the 5870 and also costs more. I'd rather stay with a crossfire version of a lower end card.


Recommended CPU/RAM/MOBO:
CPU: Have to be better than the previous ones if you don't want to have a bottle neck issue. However, if you are in this range then you are so high-end that you won't see much of a difference in normal gameplay unless you really want to look for it. $200+ or more for CPU here.
RAM Same as above but I'd go more towards 8GB or 9GB depending on your CPU; However, I don't think there is a huge difference in gaming performance between 4G and 8GB at the moment (might different later on though).
MOBO Shouldn't be more expensive than the CPU. Fancy settings are nice but I'd stay with a single PCIex16 slot instead of multiple since your GPU is so strong that you probably won't need to use 2 of them.

Edited, Jul 10th 2010 1:19pm by Oddwaffle
#183 Jul 10 2010 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
*
195 posts
Just OC'd my quad core 9550 to just 3.0GHZ (from 2.83) and to pair that with my "crappy" GTS 250 i scored just below 4000 on the low rez and upped my high to 2800. Plan on OC'ing to atleast 3.2 if not higher but am working slow as to never OC anything before and am not wanting to fry anything.

Again with that said, this setup with this GPU is not going to be all that hot. But im pretty sure it will be more then enough to have an enjoyable time playing this game. Also come launch time i should be getting a 2nd GTS 250 for 25 bucks from a friend to run in sli which hopefully will help as well.

Specs

EVGA nForce 790i SLI FTW mobo
Intel Q9550 quad core @2.83GHZ
EVGA Geforce GTS 250 GPU
Ultra LSP750 750W PSU
Kingston PC10600 1333MHZ 2GB DDR3 RAM x2
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 HD 750GB
Vista 64bit

My question, until next year when i should have the extra cash to build all new. Is there any cheap way to upgrade this? With me getting a 2nd GTS 250 GPU from a friend for cheap i am going to keep that till my next build. I guess better questions for the tech savvy would be. Is my PSU ok? Should i buy another stick or two of 2G RAM (can hold 8g on my mobo)? And lastly the HD.
#184 Jul 10 2010 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
*
126 posts
This PC would only be for ffxiv. I console game and have a laptop for my internet/other needs. How are the specs on this for a start? I would intend to add a mid-range vid card...probably $200-250+/-

[link=http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6327550&csid=_22[/link]
____________________________
Carbuncle
75 Pld/Bst
#185 Jul 10 2010 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
26 posts
Hmm when SE released the FFXI benchmark I remember my old Gateway failed miserably, errors all over. So off I went researching on upgrading my PC. When I was finished I spent prolly about $400 on a very cost effecient rig which I build myself, I was so proud of myself. My rig, which I still use for an office pc, scored very very low on the FFXI bench but it ran the game. With all the setting on its lowest I've played FFXI since its release in 2k3 without any issues and I've had tons and tons of fun and still do.

So I'm in the same little boat that I was in in 2k3, my rig will not run the FFXIV bench. So whats my plan? Well I'm upgrading my ram, putting in the highest CPU I can get for my old mobo, and the best cheap AGP GPU I can find. If it runs the bench no matter what the score I get I know it will run the game.

Unfortunately I base all my purchase decisions on price. I have a mortgage, wife, dogs, school, bills, bills, and more bills, make less then 30k a year and cannot afford to spend more then $100 on any one thing. My advice, from a thrifty savvy shopper, if the bench runs and you know you can upgrade wait till you play the game then decide. Its staggering that people go out and blast cash just to increase a bench score.

This is just my opinion and I so so so cant wait to get FFXIV, I think I'm gonna ask my wife for the collectors edition for our anniversary present to me. I already bought her a cute purse. :P
____________________________

~Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are chrunchy and taste good with ketchup.~

~Exploring Vana'Diel Since Oct. 29th 2003~
#186 Jul 11 2010 at 1:00 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Kadin wrote:
This PC would only be for ffxiv. I console game and have a laptop for my internet/other needs. How are the specs on this for a start? I would intend to add a mid-range vid card...probably $200-250+/-

[link=http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6327550&csid=_22[/link]


Specs look fine. Toss a 57XX+ or a GTX 4XX in there and you should run it really well on semi-high settings.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#187 Jul 11 2010 at 1:58 AM Rating: Decent
*
126 posts
Probably a stupid question, but...

If the vid card has an hdmi out, can I just hook it up to my HDTV or does it not work that way? If I can just use my HDTV as a monitor, that would just be cookies....mmmm...cookies!
____________________________
Carbuncle
75 Pld/Bst
#188 Jul 11 2010 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
26 posts
Kadin wrote:
Probably a stupid question, but...

If the vid card has an hdmi out, can I just hook it up to my HDTV or does it not work that way? If I can just use my HDTV as a monitor, that would just be cookies....mmmm...cookies!


Not a stupid question but a good one indeed. Yeppers you can attach the HDMI to your HDTV as far I know mmm cookies. I've attached an svideo from my card to my 56". Keep in mind though the larger the TV the higher your rez lol at some point youll lose picture quality with a super ginormous tv.
____________________________

~Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are chrunchy and taste good with ketchup.~

~Exploring Vana'Diel Since Oct. 29th 2003~
#189 Jul 11 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,811 posts
Avarclon wrote:
Kadin wrote:
Probably a stupid question, but...

If the vid card has an hdmi out, can I just hook it up to my HDTV or does it not work that way? If I can just use my HDTV as a monitor, that would just be cookies....mmmm...cookies!



Not a stupid question but a good one indeed. Yeppers you can attach the HDMI to your HDTV as far I know mmm cookies. I've attached an svideo from my card to my 56". Keep in mind though the larger the TV the higher your rez lol at some point youll lose picture quality with a super ginormous tv.

Not a stupid question but a good one indeed. Yeppers you can attach the HDMI to your HDTV as far I know mmm cookies. I've attached an svideo from my card to my 56". Keep in mind though the larger the TV the higher your rez lol at some point youll lose picture quality with a super ginormous tv.


You sure can just remember, if you really want good picture quality you'll need to be running at least @ 720. The better your HD set is, (contrast ration, response time, ect) the better your picture will look. HD TV's have come a long way and finally can really start to compete with good HD computer monitors (still not cheap though). You can run it at lower resolutions if you have no other choice, but expect the grainy/pixelation(is that how it's spelled?) look. Most noticeably with text.

Also, the size of your TV doesn't make a difference in picture quality as long as you can run at 720p or 1080p (which most new mid-range & up cards can). Your card will be taxed far more running on these large screens @ HD resolutions though. Don't be surprised if you can no longer max out your game's specs when gaming on a big screen.

Edit: Almost forgot, if you have a 120Hz/240Hz set, disable it. Doesn't not help in the least, stick to TV & Movies with it enabled.

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 5:17pm by Kyoshindi
____________________________

Quote:
The Path to **** is paved with good intentions.
#190 Jul 11 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
*
126 posts
Well, I've got a 60" DLP, it's 1080p. Just figured if I have to wait til PS3 release, maybe I could just use a PC as a "PS3" on the big screen. Guess I'll have to see how it looks, and what setting will have to be messed with. If it's too much of a mess, I'll just pick up a cheaper PC monitor.

Thanks much all! Now bring on a BST job in FFXIV!!
____________________________
Carbuncle
75 Pld/Bst
#191 Jul 11 2010 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
*
93 posts
Hi, I just wanted to post some info here in case anyone is a little confused about the whole T.V./monitor size and resolution issue. For those not interested in the details, just read the bold :)

When dealing with T.V.s and monitors, It's not the physical size of the set that determines how well your PC will perform. It's all about resolution.

I'll give a few examples here:
A 60" T.V. @1080p will perform just the same as a 23" T.V. @1080p. Sure, the 60" may look better, but the PC performance (frame rate) is the same.

A 60" T.V. @720p will offer better performance than a 23" T.V. @1080p. This is because the 23" has a the higher resolution. Regardless of the 60" being bigger, the 23" still has the larger resolution. I'll get into this a bit more further down.

A 60" T.V. @1080p will offer worse performance than a 23" T.V. @720p. The reverse of the situation above.

A 60" T.V. @720p will offer the same performance as a 23" T.V. @720p. Both are using the same resolution, so they have the same performance.

To help understand this a bit, a resolution is basically a pixel count.
1080p (usually 1920x1080) = 2,073,600 pixels.
720p (usually 1280x720) = 921,600 pixels.
1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels.
1024x768 = 786,432 pixels.
You get the idea. Horizontal pixel count * Vertical pixel count.

The larger your resolution, the more your PC has to work to push out an image. Let's get back into the 60" @720p vs the 23" @1080p example from above:

How does the 60" T.V. @720p outperform the 23" T.V. @1080p? Now that we know about pixel count, it's an easy answer. The 23" T.V. @1080p has the PC working harder to push out a 1080p (2,073,600 pixel) image. With the 60" T.V. @720p, the PC only has to push out a 720p (921,600 pixel) image which equals less load on your PC, which equals better performance and frame rates.

Of course this comes at a cost. The 60" T.V. @720p is going to look a little stretched because it has to stretch the smaller pixel count of 720p across the entire screen.

When a T.V. has to do this kind of stretching, it often introduces some milliseconds of input lag, but that really only matters when you play fighting games or rhythm games, such as Street Fighter, Rock Band, etc. However, that's outside the scope of this post :) I can go more into the input delay if you'd like, just PM me.

Hopefully that explains it well enough.

For emphasis: Resolution is everything in terms of how well your PC will run on any given display mechanism!

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 9:03pm by Rhysen
#192 Jul 11 2010 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
*
126 posts
Rhysen wrote:
The larger your resolution, the more your PC has to work to push out an image.


Thanks for the explanation!

What is being pushed to display on the HDTV, the GPU or the CPU? My build will be a Phenom x4 955, and a Radeon 5770.

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 9:30pm by Kadin
____________________________
Carbuncle
75 Pld/Bst
#193 Jul 11 2010 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
93 posts
Kadin wrote:
Rhysen wrote:
The larger your resolution, the more your PC has to work to push out an image.


Thanks for the explanation!

What is being pushed to display on the HDTV, the GPU or the CPU? My build will be a Phenom x4 955, and a Radeon 5770.

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 9:30pm by Kadin


Primarily the video card. However, a weak CPU can bottleneck a good video card, so you do need both up to par!

It's all a big balancing act :)

With those parts I think you're going to be fine. That CPU can certainly handle that particular video card, and then some.
#194 Jul 12 2010 at 1:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Don't forget that running the game on 720p (or other low resolutions) on a 23" TV may even look better than on a 60" TV. The edges will look smoother since it doesn't have to be stretched across a wider area (the colossal 60").

60" isn't always better than 23", even at the same performance. :)
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
1 2 3 4 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)