Discussion in 'System Builder's Advice' started by Alcpone, Jan 29, 2013.
I am just trying to keep costs down, I have picked a different case now, 550 watts should be ample for me. A SSD from what I have read is good for bootup times but real world gaming wont make a massive difference so I can't justify the cost tbh.
A game that keeps dynamically loading the map and related textures (like FSX does) actually IS going to benefit from being run off an SSD... Maybe it won't be a whole world of difference, but you'd certainly notice. And having an overall agile system can't hurt either. Plus it helps with keeping the noise/vibrations down.
I hear what your saying, a SSD can be added easily at a later date so I will probably add one when prices get abit cheaper. I am trying to keep the wife happy so the less I have to pay the better.
Oh, I'm not trying to convince you or even presume to push you into a decision... Wouldn't want to incur the wife's wrath
I was simply pointing out the logic (or perhaps justification) behind claiming that an SSD is a good investment on multiple levels. If not for you directly, then for those reading this thread, having a similar dilemma.
that last setup you had a shot of looks pretty good. I can definitely vouch for Gigabyte windforce cards, if the 2 fan version is anything like the three fan on my 670 (which never has gone beyond 50c, even OC'ed to 1400mhz) You should never have cooling issues with the card.
What case did you pick?
I'm going to go with this one, don't want something too flash http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/cooler-master-case-rc361kkn1
You can always just use a fast hard drive like velociraptor now and add an SSD later to use as cache. It'll work on z77 intel chipset and up. It'lll also work on mountain lion OSX for macs.
I recommend you try to buy everything from one place to save on postage. You may say certain shops have things cheaper, but you will likely find if you give them a call, they will do their best to price match everything you have referenced from other shops.
All my parts should be here tomorrow Can't wait to get building again, has been along time since I last built a rig.
Ended up getting a SSD 240Gb so that will do nicely for the OS and FSX and some room left over. I opted for the GTX 650ti OC 2 Gb GFX card aswel, that should work nicely and it was well priced, so fingers crossed I should have it all up and running tomorrow night.
Thanks all for the help.
I'm puzzled why you picked 650ti 2GB. You could've saved money with the 1GB. That GPU is just too slow with res above 1080p for you to need 2 GB.
No need to go above 1080p to use more than 1 GB of VRAM. Almost every new game overshoots 1 GB VRAM at max settings for textures.
I did ask the question if I should get a 1Gb card or a 2Gb and was told to go for the 2Gb, so that's what I did, too late now i'm building it as we speak The whole system has cost me £700 so I am happy with that, as I have been out of the home built game for alot of years I am pretty much needing alot of input and I just went off what I was told.
Again, this is a 650. He won't be able to go ultra settings at 1080p. I play SC2 on ultra with my 7850 1 GB and it's smooth unless there's like 2000 units on screen battling each other.
here is the general performance overview of differences between 1gb and 2gb.
The 2 GB version of this is actually and that explains most of the difference in performance numbers. The 2 GB advantage doesn't actually show itself until 1200p or higher. But since the GPU itself is too slow to take advantage of that then that difference is a mere 3-4%. I can't imagine you playing at that resolution with that card unless you're on low settings. If that's the case, you might as well play at 768p on high lol.
Is it possible to return it for a slightly hgher model with just 1 GB of VRAM? I would say 7850 1GB should cost about the same as a 650ti 2GB.
He won't be able to max out everything at 1080p, but he will enjoy high resolution textures with medium shading and post processing settings.
Then he doesn't need anymore than 1 GB for that. Any game that requires more than 1 GB of VRAM on medium/high settings at 1080p, that GPU will not be able run the game smoothly. Look at the reviews and stop trying to prove something that's not there.
He can play most new titles with that on medium to high at 1080p without 4xMSAA. You won't reach 1GB requirement. As stated in the tpu review, the performance drop at when you go past 1 GB for that GPU is not much of a difference because it's more bandwidth and gpu limited than memory limited. A quick analysis of the review data will tell you that.
So you argue that some games are not 1 GB VRAM limited? Good, nothing to add there.
Here are some that are: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18255161
Mind you these are all at least year and a half old games.
those guys are talking about games like metro 2033 and bf3 and they had trouble running with high end cards. The 650ti will run out of gpu horsepower and memory bandwidth before it runs out of VRAM.
Take a look at the charts.
By the time you see a significant advantage of 2GB over 1GB, the performance is already in the gutter 2 settings before that.
same for BF3. And this is a NVIDIA advantage title
I should be shocked that 650 Ti can't play Metro 2033 on 1080p with everything on very high?
No one sane would suggest anyone to buy 650 Ti for Metro 2033 no matter how much VRAM it has. But hey, if someone already owns one with 2 GB of VRAM, I hope they are aware that they can play Metro with maxed out textures, and other settings on medium.
Low memory bandwidth is horrible for antialiasing and higher screen resolutions, but it has much lesser effect to performance when using high res. textures over medium res. textures.
It's the open world games where I see VRAM limitations the most - stuttering after sudden change of view direction caused by RAM to VRAM transfer over PCI-E. It's the mother of all stutters. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I envy you
Got it all up and running, don't know if I am going to regret going the AMD route, but I have got FSX installed and the FPS are rather sucky, the i5 in the mac was giving me better, I may have to fiddle on with the cfg file alot more to get it even playable, quite disappointed tbh
Whats bottlenecking? CPU or graphics?
Have you checked drivers, overheating, GPU load, etc.?
To check that compare FPS you get with highest and lowest screen resolution. If there is not much change, it's CPU bottleneck.
I think it will be the CPU as it is a CPU orientated game.
I have all the latest drivers installed, the GFX card should be more than enough
I am going to have to clock it some what, I will need better cooling to start with before hand though. I am wishing I never went the AMD route, but hey ho, we live and learn.
Separate names with a comma.