TX_Angel
-
Posts
2,320 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by TX_Angel
-
-
Heck, I've run this game on a Core 2 Duo processor that was supported with 4GB RAM on Win XP. It ran fine and that's a processor that came out in at the beginning of 08 (the E7400 2.8GHz).
How recently?
I just last week did a series of tests on a Core2Quad Q6600 using a ATI 5850 GPU, and found the experience less than useful in any situation. Even running around empty open worlds was painful and not a useful experience.Of course, the game at launch and the game in 2016 are two different games. I suspect it ran much better during the 1.x era on such hardware than the 4.x era.
Gonna disagree with you here. Gaming (heck, computing period) is all about moving things through memory. Part of the reason for the price step in the i series (when comparing the same architecture) is the cache size. That memory is expensive. The i3 = 3-4MB, i5 = 3-6MB and i7 = 4-8MB (the black box i7 goes up to 20MB on the 5960x, but... yeah.) Access time is the big deal. The cpu hits the L3 cache in ~5-12ns. If it has to go to main memory its about 10-60ns. Magnetic hard drives 3-10ms.You can run an i3, i5 and an i7 at 4.2GHz all day long and the i7 will load and spit out number faster every single time because it has more of that faster memory to handle all those repetitive tasks.
While that is all true, the question is: "Does any of that make a difference to actual game play?"
The i5 has 6MB L2 cache, the i7 has 8MB L2 cache. Does the extra 2MB actually show up as a difference in game play.
All the benchmarks and tests that I've personally done and seen, say it does not. Where it does show up is when doing memory intensive things such as video or 3D rendering, etc.
-
I have a standard laptop that runs the game fairly well on decent settings with a 5400rpm 1TB HDD. If I were to buy a 128gb external SSD with ~400MB/s speeds (exact one http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-128GB-External-Solid-TS128GESD400K/dp/B00K75U6G6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456185905&sr=8-1&keywords=128gb+external+ssd) and just put SWTOR on it, would I notice a significant increase in load times for Ops and other instances. Right now if I am on a planet and use a H2 travel to a diff heroic on the same planet I can get there in a few seconds, but it takes close to a minute or more for OPs. Will I be getting $70 worth of decreased load times out of this or not? Thanks.
I would not buy that drive, that is really expensive for 128GB of storage, and it will be slower than an internal drive and you can't boot Windows from it (not easily anyway, you could, but I wouldn't).
Crucial BX200 240GB SSD ($65)
This drive is actually less expensive than the one you linked to, it is twice the size, and it is intenal, so it will be really, really fast.
Crucial provides free drive cloning software that will image your existing drive to this one and allow you to install it as your main C boot drive:
http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Crucial-SSDs/Cloning-using-Acronis-True-Image-HD/ta-p/125596
-
If your thinking of adding an SSD you are better off replacing your internal HDD rather than trying to run anything externally via USB 3.0. You will not maximize the performance of the SSD using the USB connection. Despite published stats that suggest that you can get 5GB/s using USB and 6GB/s from Sata-3 USB 3.0 rarely if ever gets close to that numbers in actual use. Look at some online comparisons and you will see that you are missing out on alot of potential speed using a USB 3.0 connection. Probably still faster than your 5400RPM mechanical drive but you would benefit more from swapping out your internal HDD for an SSD.
^ This, quoted for truth...
Almost every SSD these days comes with free drive cloning software, you can "image" your existing hard drive to the SSD and make it your boot drive. EVERYTHING becomes MUCH faster then.
-
SSD came in, clone went well, up and running from it no issues so far... and...
... wow.
Well, don't make us guess!
Ok, I'll guess... you feel like you have a new computer all of a sudden?
-
Did we ever get more levels of KDY?
There is your answer.
-
The CPU might be a little on the old side, but a 2 core, 2 HT per core should be more than enough. SWTOR runs in 2 processes, from my understanding of this, so each of these processes would essentially take up one of the core. It is largely an unoptimised game for multi-core (this is due to the Hero Engine they are using is a little dated and made in 2008 or so (I am unsure of the specific version))
^ This is the truth... An Intel i3-6100 for $127 would play this game very well, and it is indeed a dual core, hyperthreaded CPU.
I would not however drop back to the G4400. There are cases where the extra "cores" of hyperthreading does make a difference, it allows Windows to run smoother overall, since there are 4 process schedulers (even if only 2 execution cores), it enables better overall use of system resources.
The i5-6500 I suggested above is in some ways better, some ways worse. It has a lower total clock speed and doesn't boost quite as high. The i3-6100 is fixed at 3.7GHz, vs the base 3.2GHz and turbo 3.6GHz of the i5-6500. That being said, ultimately having 4 true cores wins in the end in my opinion. The $75 or so price difference between the two CPUs isn't large, if you can swing it, I'd take the i5 all day long.
But the i3 is a fine choice as well.
For the record, an i7 is a complete waste for gaming. I have yet to see a case where it makes any difference at all. The only time you could say it does is when the i7 comes with a higher clockspeed than the same version of i5, and you don't overclock (a i7-6700k is base 4.0, turbo 4.4, vs i5-6600k is base 3.5, turbo 3.9 for example).
But both of those CPUs will run at 4.2 all day long if you set them there, so the choice is yours.
-
This is happening to me aswell
i7 2600, 4g 960, 16 gb 1000mhz ram
Win 10 performance is B-A-D still
Patch kplzthx
If you're having problems in Windows 10, but were not in Windows 7 or 8, then the problem is somewhere on your end. Windows 10 is working fine for millions of people, so it isn't broken on that end.
The end game would be a clean install of Windows 10, but before you do that, it may well be worth making sure you have updated drivers for everything installed, make sure Windows Update is fully run, and run CCleaner to make sure your temp files and other old junk is gone.
Side note, 1000MHz RAM isn't a speed that would be used on a i7-2600. It is more likely to be 1333 MHZ, or even 1600 MHz, but it could be 1066 MHz.
-
Any advices on what is holding me back the most guys?
CPU: i5 650 4MB Cache, LGA1156, 3.2ghz-3.6ghz "safe" OC..
^ This is the problem... That CPU is now "old", at least when it comes to single core performance.
Your GPU is fine, you can keep that, no need to replace it, but you'll need a new motherboard and a new CPU.
My personal suggestion:
ASUS H170 D3 motherboard ($90)
Intel i5-6500 Skylake CPU ($205)
The above motherboard will take DDR3 RAM (most Skylake systems need DDR4), so you may be able to reuse your existing memory.
You'll get a nearly 100% performance jump moving from your existing CPU to the new one. You can likely keep your existing case, power supply, GPU, etc. and just change the motherboard and CPU. The above CPU comes with a heatsink and fan that will work just fine, no need to spend more money than that.
-
I've got a Corsair Hydro H60 I believe, which was the best one I could buy at the time (and still fit). It also has dual 120mm ultra-quiet fans in the front of the case. I just realized that there's an option in the BIOS called "Asus Optimal" which supposedly boosts performance, but not sure if it overclocks on its own or not. i've been seeing different opinions on different forums.
Edit: So, after checking through the BIOS, my target turbo mode speed is over 4.0 without me even touching anything. I can adjust the ratio manually, so I went in and adjusted the CPU core speed to 42 and now I'm running at 4.2... Voltage and heat seem fine, but I'll keep an eye on them. On the bright side, I can max out shadow maps without slowdown now!
Thanks for all the help!
You bet, happy to help.
The jump from a base of 3.3GHz on a Haswell era chip to 4.2GHz is actually a huge jump. Voltage and heat shouldn't be an issue, unless you really start to use all 6 cores.
Might I suggest you watch it if you DO decide to run something (like video encoding or 3D rendering) that will max out all 6 cores (and 12 threads), you might end up pushing it a bit in such a situation. Since SWTOR only uses 2 cores really, you are not likely at a lot of risk playing this game.
The Corsair H60 is a great unit, it is the 120mm version, the H90 in my main desktop is the 140mm version, but basically the same thing as far as I can recall, other than radiator and fan size.
-
Update:
When I run this site:
It says my local ping is 7ms and my jitter is 1ms, connecting to a local server in Dallas.
http://www.pingtest.net/result/140273616.png
If I pick a server out in Los Angeles I get a ping of 35ms and jitter of 1ms:
http://www.pingtest.net/result/140273653.png
If I pick a server out of Orlando, FL, I get a ping of 39ms and jitter of 1ms:
http://www.pingtest.net/result/140273688.png
Just for fun, I tried Brisbane, Australia, where I get a ping of 203ms and jitter of 1ms:
http://www.pingtest.net/result/140273723.png
Not bad considering a distance of 8,250 miles.
-
Well that's why I said Pingplotter, since it's far better at tracing than tracert and pathping.
You can even use it while you are playing, although it will cause some latency when it runs while you are playing.
PS. Hops 8, 9, and 10 could be an issue since they are timing out. Generally that happens when the routers are overloaded and ping requests are dropped in favor of actual data packets.
I just downloaded and ran that program, thanks for the suggestion.
Hop 8, 9, and 10 are Level3, they won't generally return pings for whatever reason. 4.69.152.89 is the IP address to that router which is in San Jose, CA.
What is interesting is that almost all the hops are out in CA. According to both TraceRT and PingPlotter, the jump from the Dallas, TX area to Los Angeles, CA happens at hop 3, so it appears that my local router connects directly to the main backbone between Dallas and Los Angeles, there is no hop between them.
It ALSO appears that all of the delay is at Level3, since the jump out to Los Angeles is actually really quick, it shows just 5ms for that, which seems REALLY low given the nearly 2k mile distance.
The first jump over 10ms shows up at hop 9 at Level3 out in San Jose, CA.
---
Now that being said, as I watch this, it is interesting... My local IP connection doesn't appear very clean. It is in the 2-4ms range "most of the time", but it does jump up higher from time to time.
It appears that the issue is "jitter", which I've heard of before but never looked at before.
-
That's actually a pretty good ping for your distance, I get roughly that with Tera given their servers are in Chicago but I still occasionally get packet loss at times (especially prime time since internet usage in my area goes up dramatically once everyone gets home). When that happens you can really tell in Tera because you'll desync with your attacks and pass through your target when you shouldn't, or your inputs will feel less responsive. It's frustrating as hell but it's largely beyond yours or the developer's control since it's depending on the internet infrastructure between you and the server. In my case I can safely blame Level3 since their equipment is where the packet loss or packet delay occurs nearly all the time. Unless you run something like pingplotter though, it'll be very hard to actually see where it's happening.
When I ping the west coast servers:
Pinging 159.153.68.252 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 159.153.68.252: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=242
Reply from 159.153.68.252: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=242
Reply from 159.153.68.252: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=242
Reply from 159.153.68.252: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=242
Ping statistics for 159.153.68.252:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 47ms, Maximum = 48ms, Average = 47ms
I don't know that I can do much better, being that I'm nearly 2,000 miles from the server (who knows the actual distance the wires take of course).
I ran a TraceRT and I'm exactly 12 hops to the server from my router:
Tracing route to 159.153.68.252 over a maximum of 30 hops (some IPs edited out)
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms dsldevice.attlocal.net [192.]
2 6 ms 7 ms 106 ms 104-lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net [104.
3 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 71.
4 6 ms 5 ms 5 ms 70.143.
5 7 ms 5 ms 5 ms 70.143.
6 9 ms 7 ms 7 ms 12.83.
7 9 ms 7 ms 7 ms gar26.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.85]
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 47 ms 47 ms 47 ms 4.28.172.102
12 48 ms 47 ms 47 ms 159.153.68.252
I don't think I can improve that much...
-
So what should they be selling other than Cartel packs to make money?
A working game worth paying for?
-
do bots check the forums lol
Yes, there is bot software that scans forums for codes...
-
Thanks. I'll make a note of that for the next time I'm willing to spend money on it.
I've found that it's not easy to keep up with this stuff if you're not engaged with it every day (it was a lot easier when it was my job to know how different things compared, what was compatible with what, and the various moving price points).
You bet!
Side note: In case you're wondering why I'm suggesting a dual core CPU to replace your existing quad core...
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/891/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_925_(rev._C3)_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html
In single threaded performance, the i3-6100 is 2.14 times faster than your current chip. For something like SWTOR, it is more than DOUBLE your current speed.
In multithreaded performance, it is STILL faster, by 34%. Between hyperthreading (which makes the CPU appear to have 4 cores when it really doesn't) and the vastly superior per core speed, it is all around superior to what you're using now.
On top of all that, it consumes far less power. The Thermal Design Power of your CPU is 95W, the TDP of the new Intel chip is 51W, but in reality I expect they are further apart than that. The modern Intel chips are very good at entering sleep states, so I would expect the power consumption to fall by 2/3 if you made this upgrade.
You also gain the benefits of a more modern platform, including USB3, QuickSync, SSE3/4, and so on.
----
Finally, if it bothers you to have a dual core, no worries... for $70 more, get the i5-6500...
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/899/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_925_(rev._C3)_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-6500.html
All the benefits of above, but now multi threaded performance is nearly double that of what you have now, still using 1/3 less power, etc. etc...
Intel should pay me for this!
-
@TX_Angel:
I haven't done any over clocking with it. I've always been afraid to blow something up. Lol. Its kind of fun that my dad actually tinkers with it, but I haven't yet. I'll have to look up some tutorials on it and see if I can push it a little further. I may need to look at a new power source. I currently have an 850w gold.
You have plenty of power, no worries on that front.
In terms of cooling, what do you have installed? I personally suggest water cooling if your case has room, the price and ease of installation has made it reasonable and mainstream these days, not like a few years ago when water was "out there".
For a first read, might I suggest AnandTech's guide to Haswell-E overclocking:
Second place to read:
Third:
----
TL;DR - Many people get up into the 4.5 GHz range, but personally I think that is pushing it unless you consider overclocking to be a hobby.
4.0 is a fine place to start and should be pretty easy to reach without doing anything extreme. Going to 4.2 is nice, keep in mind each step up from that point takes more and more voltage and tweaking, increases the risk, and provides less and less gain.
This is why my i7-4770k desktop is overclocked to 4.2GHz and not 4.5GHz, which since I have water cooling installed and a very good case, it should do. But I'm not willing to increase core voltage, so I'm happy at 4.2GHz.
This is the water cooler on my CPU:
Corsair Hydro Series H90 140mm - $90
On other systems, I have used this one:
Corsair Hydro Series H55 Quiet 120mm - $60
My main machine is installed in this case, which is expensive, but a joy to work in and has piles of room to install almost anything you want, along with lots of fans, hard drives, SSDs, and more:
Corsair Obsidian Series 750D Full Tower - $160
-
Unfortunately, finding CPUs in AM3 (as opposed to AM3+) is getting harder every day.
Fair enough...
So take my suggestion, $200 (ish) and you've got double the performance and a modern platform!
Intel i3-6100 3.7GHz - $124
ASUS H170M-E D3 - $90
You might be able to reuse your existing DDR3, that motherboard will take 1.5v memory (even if it is out of spec for Skylake).
The above CPU would likely be close to double the performance of what you have now, unless you're already overclocked. It really would be night and day.
-
Thanks for the input!
You bet, hope it was helpful.
I've got an Asus X-99 Deluxe 6 core motherboard, i7 5280k with 16 GB DDR4 Ripjaws. Figured 16 would be enough to get me through for a while, but I actually turned shadows up to max at one point and was a pretty big drop in framerate on my tv. The tv is 4K, though I play in 1080p because fonts and menus are rendered so small if I don't.Do you have that CPU overclocked? It is a great chip, but running at the default 3.3GHz it'll be slower than the mainstream parts due to lack of clock speed. It should go to 4.0 easily and 4.2-4.4 if you work at it.
Regarding the font sizes in the game, you can fix that. I've played SWTOR at 4k, you can make the global go above 1.25 if you edit the INI files in C:/USERS/YourName/APPDATA/LOCAL/SWTOR/SWTOR/SETTINGS/GUIPROFILES
Go in there, open those up, you'll find "GlobalScale" by doing a search, edit it to 1.75 and go from there. Problem solved.
I actually just ordered my new monitor after doing some more research:https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00PXYRMPE/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1
34" inch Dell Ultrawide 21:9 with a curved screen. It was on sale for about $800 and I've actually heard a lot of good things about Dell's monitors. I don't mind having the lower pixel density than 4K-- I feel the 21:9 will give better performance.
Nice monitor, I'm sure you'll be happy with it. 4K is nice, but ultrawide gaming is nice too, and frankly you'll probably be happy either way. Nice to have choices!
I've had generally good luck with Dell monitors as well. I don't care for their current 4k choices, but my three 30" panels are Dell screens and they have been working nicely for a few years now without complaint.
-
I built the machine in November of 2009. I've since replaced the 9800 GTX+ with a GTX 960
That is a massive upgrade!
Those 8800GT/9800GTX cards lasted a LONG time in terms of usefulness. I suspect your GTX 960 will as well, it is a wonderful card.Have you looked at what your older motherboard will support in terms of CPUs? AMD has supported their sockets for a long time now, much longer than Intel. You might be able to put something nicer in there
That being said if your needs are modest, may I suggest a H170 motherboard (that takes DDR3 since it is cheaper) and a Intel i3-6100? It would blow the socks of your current CPU and cost $200 total.
and I just ordered an SSD (1TB Samsung) to take the place of the 500GB HDD. The "2 years" comment was more of a friendly dig at my old friends in the hardcore hardware community who regarded anything even close to 2 years old "hopelessly, laughably obsolete".You'll be happy with that!
The SSD is the single biggest "jump" in my opinion in general purpose computing in a very, very long time. It takes even older computers and makes them feel snappy again.I understand what you're saying about the 2 year thing, 15 years ago I used to upgrade every 6 months! But in fairness, when I did that, I always had a use for the older stuff. I remember an upgrade from a Celeron 300A that was overclocked to 450MHz, I replaced it with a Pentium III 550MHz. Was it a big jump? No, not really. But I had a customer for the Celeron 300A so it really didn't cost me much.
Less so today, I try and get some usable benefit out of it. Which is why my main machine is on a i7-4770K and hasn't been replaced with a i7-6700K, that would just be a waste of money. Probably when Cannonlake comes, will be the time to do it. Before the i7-4770K I had a i5-2500K, that motherboard/CPU is now in my file server (before that the file server had a E4600 Core2Duo, so it was realy old!).
Regarding the monitors... I'd need to get a new desk with no "hutch" to go for multiple monitors. Fair enough... for that case the 21:9 monitors might make sense... they just seem expensive to me for what you get, but not having used one, who knows... Triple monitor gaming probably sounds extreme and crazy to anyone who hasn't tried it, but speaking from experience, once you go there you don't wanna go back.Just doing the benchmarks was painful, I was saying to myself, "crap, I can't see anything!".
-
Gonna agree with TX here except to say 16GB is my floor and has been since Windows 7 64 bit was stable.
Well I tend to agree personally, my main machine has 32GB and has for several years.
There have been times I've used most of it as well.But I also try to take into account other people don't use their computer the way I do. If you're talking a $400 entry level machine, going to 16GB might not be the first place to put money into it.
Example:
ASUS M32CD Desktop - $450
That computer has an Intel Quad Core i5-6400 Skylake CPU, 8GB of DDR4 RAM, and a 1 TB hard drive.
If you came to me and said "what is the ONE upgrade that will make the BIGGEST and most NOTICBLE difference", it would not be to upgrade it to 16GB of RAM.
It would be to put a SSD in there, cloning the existing 1TB hard drive to it and making the 1TB drive a data storage drive.
It makes a monster difference in terms of overall system snappiness and performance.
Of course, that machine also needs a video card for gaming, which is a separate issue. A GTX 750 TI actually would work well in that machine, since it doesn't need a PCI-E 6 pin power cable, however a GTX 950 would also work well enough, since the machine has a pair of molex connectors and a EVGA GTX 950 comes with a dual molex to PCI-E 6 pin adapter cable.
EVGA GTX 750 TI - $110
EVGA GTX 950 - $150
DDR4 8GB - $37
DDR4 still costs a premium over DDR3, which is a shame, since it doesn't really matter for most home users. 8GB DDR3 is $20, right now 8GB DDR4 is $37.
I would suggest a 240GB SSD long before a 8GB to 16GB RAM upgrade:
Crucial BX200 240GB SSD - $65
There are slightly cheaper options (by like $5 or so), but I'd pay the extra $5 to get a Crucial drive. I own multiple of the above drive and they work perfectly in every machine I've put them into. That is well worth $5 to me.
SWTOR is a 32 bit application. It will NEVER address more than 2^32 bits (4GB) of memory. If your system is running only 4 GB of memory, you have to account for EVERYTHING that is running then tack on whatever else you want to run. This is assuming you are even running a 64 bit OS (it could happen). I can't say that I've ever seen it running more than 1.5-2GB at any given time that I've looked though. Granted I don't keep a monitor on it all the time.Actually, 32-bit Windows programs generally can't access over 2GB, due to the way 32-bit Windows handles user space. It set aside (a long time ago) 2GB for user programs and 2GB for the system.
SWTOR runs 2 processes to get around this. The first often bumps right up into the 2GB limit, with the second one often using 500MB to 1GB of RAM, give or take.
Still, even at less than 3GB used, there is data that Windows caches from the hard drive, both for the game and for everything else. Then there are the 15 things most users have running in their task bar. And many people like to play in fullscreen (windowed) mode and alt tab over to a web browser, which takes more RAM these days than you'd think.
All that being said, I consider 8GB to be the minimum, but 16GB is my suggested amount for many people who either will play games, or want to have 5+ things left open at once. And if the price of the computer goes north of $600 or so, I see no reason to not have 16GB in there, the percentage of the total system cost vs. the price of the RAM just makes less seem like stepping over dollars to save pennies to me.
-
There's not much you can do about the high frame times except maybe lowering graphics, but with a fps limit you can avoid the low frame times so it doesn't feel so jarring.
Sure there is! Get a better computer!
Keep in mind I was running those tests on a 9 year old machine. SWTOR was released in 2011, but it has been updated many times and the game that existed at launch isn't the game we're playing today.
I see people playing on machines that are older than the launch of the game (someone else in the other thread is running a AMD Phenom II X4 925, that CPU came out 1Q 2009, it is 7 years old. Expecting it to perform well in 2016 in an updated MMO is not very reasonable, IMHO. He appears to be happy with it, so more power to him, however it is what is keeping him from running smoother and faster. He doesn't PvP however so perhaps it doesn't matter to him.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X4%20925%20-%20HDX925WFK4DGI%20(HDX925WFGIBOX).html
As far as position lag goes, there's more to that than just server processing speed, there's also your internet connection and how stable it is. I usually get 25-30 ms ping with the server and fairly consistently and I really don't experience positional lag much unless NYC routers start getting overloaded. My signal has to pass through NYC, or go all the way into Canada to reach the East Coast servers. See if you aren't losing packets or getting ping spikes when you experience the rubberbanding and positional lag.I'm in Dallas, TX sadly, far away from both sets of servers. My ping is pretty solid at around 50ms, give or take 5. I have fiber to the home (AT&T Gigafiber) and office (Verizon FIOS) and the hop time is low, but the distance is not and I can't change the physical distance between Texas and the servers.
Electricity only moves so fast. -
If the GTX-970 is giving you good fps in PvE there's no need to change it. It wouldn't be the limiting factor in PvP, but it would be the limiting factor in PvE at 2560x1440. A GTX-980 (or 980 Ti) or R9 Fury/X would get you better fps in PvE.
I honestly have to disagree here. On a single 1440p monitor, I don't think an upgrade from a GTX 970 will provide any benefit whatsoever.
Disclaimer: I haven't tested it yet, that is my gut feeling after having run benchmarks on multiple machines for this game with a wide variety of hardware. But I haven't yet taken a machine from GTX 970 to GTX 980 TI directly to test it.
4Gigs is "enough" RAM. 8Gigs is comfortable. 16Gigs . . . .I used to think that as well, until I dived into Windows 10 more deeply. While it will run on 4GB of RAM (and even 2GB), it uses memory compression to do it and a lot of swap. I find that Windows 10 uses more RAM, the more you have, to a point at least.
8GB has thus become my default minimum RAM recommendation in 2016 and I no longer think 16GB is "out there" the way I did a year ago.
RAM has also gotten cheap:
8GB Kingston HyperFury X ($38)
16GB Kingston HyperFury X ($70)
So the price difference between 8GB and 16GB is now $32. That does not strike me as a major ask. If you're already putting in a $300 video card and $250 CPU, what is another $32? It buys you a lot of future headroom and there are in fact games out right now that REQUIRE 8GB:
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/fallout-4/12905/?p=r
Fallout 4 lists 8GB as the minimum requirements. Personally, I'd rather have more than the minimum.
There is no reason to go with only 4GB, the price difference isn't worth it. If you already have 4GB and need to add 4GB more:
4GB Kingston HyperFury X ($20)
$20 gets you a quality stick of 4GB of RAM.
-
Intel stock coolers are brutally minimal, in my experience.
They are, but they work fine if you run at stock speeds. But even Intel agrees with you, they no longer include a stock cooler with their K series CPUs, understanding that anyone buying a K CPU likely is (or should be) overclocking, and thus using better cooling.
Corsair Hydro Series H55 Quiet Edition Liquid CPU Cooler - $60
I have used that, it is quiet, works well, and keeps the CPU cool. I'm not a hard core overclocker, but my i7-4770k runs cool and quiet at 4.2GHz (base 3.5GHz to start with) at default voltage settings.
-
I've got two GTX980s in SLI and the game runs great on my 52" 1080p tv unles I turn shadows up too high, which seems to cause issues.
I actually want to pick up a 21:9 monitor myself, but not sure on the size or if I want curved or flat. I'll only be a couple feet away from the monitor at my desk, so 34" might be overkill.
What is your CPU? That is really the question. Even one of those GTX 980 cards is fine for SWTOR, overkill for 1080p. Keep in mind the size of your display doesn't matter, only the resolution. The game doesn't know if it is a 20" monitor or a 52" TV.
If shadows are an issue at 1080p, I suspect you have a thousand bucks worth of GPUs attached to way too little CPU. It would be like putting a little 3 speed automatic transmission on a Corvette engine.
---
As for the 21:9 monitors, I have considered picking one up to review, however the main issue I keep coming back to is price. The 29" and 34" monitors that are 1080p cost a decent amount more than 16:9 screens, without actually offering much more screen space. The 29" and 34" monitors that are 1440p cost as much as 4k 16:9 panels.
If you really want to wide screen game, I personally suggest three monitors, the price is more reasonable and you end up with a lot more space.
Example:
3x ASUS 27" 1080p monitors ($170 each, $510 total):
$170 each, that has HDMI and DVI inputs, you can run 3 of them off one of your GTX 980 cards and play SWTOR in ultrawide screen for close to the cost of a 34" 1080p monitor.
LG 34" 1080p monitor ($440):
---
If you want to go up in quality (which I would think you would, having spent so much on dual GTX 980 video cards:
27" 1440p monitor ($350):
While more expensive, it has nearly double the resolution of a 1080p display. Three of them would be just over $1k, right around the cost of your video cards.
The 34" 1440 option ($800):
Nice monitor, you really wouldn't go wrong with it. I think it has a nice resolution for the size, and no bezels to get in your way. However, the real flaw in my opinion with that monitor is not the monitor itself. It is this one:
Acer 32" 4k IPS monitor ($900):
I own 5 of that monitor, 2 each on 2 different machines at the office and my wife has one at home. One of the nicer consumer level monitors I've seen in some time. It really is beautiful and it gives you the standard 16:9 format while having massive resolution. And you have the GPU power to use it.
Worth considering:
The above 34" 1440p display has a total of 4,953,600 pixels on it. The above 32" 4k display has 8,294,400 pixels on it. The 4k is a MUCH higher resolution screen, the pixels are smaller and you won't need to use AA on it the way you might on the 34" 1440p display.
I just last week did a series of tests on a Core2Quad Q6600 using a ATI 5850 GPU, and found the experience less than useful in any situation. Even running around empty open worlds was painful and not a useful experience.
SSD vs HDD Impact
in General Discussion
Posted
They have, and the Samsung 850 EVO drive is one of the best on the market, I own several of them, love it...
That being said, if price/perofmrance, then this is the drive to buy:
SanDisk Ultra II - 960GB - $239
http://amzn.to/1RYiJIm
Ok, so it is 40GB short of 1TB, but for the price, it is hard to beat. I have 2 of them and can attest to this drive being darn close to the Samsung in terms of performance. Price being equal (or closer), I'd buy the Samsung every day of the week, but for $60 less, I'll take the Ultra II.