Upgraded my CPU and am very pleased

[Midichlorien]

If you have a monitor that runs at 60hz then your FPS will NOT exceed 60fps. Simply because your monitor cannot draw the frames any faster.

When it tries to you get screen tearing. So the frames you think you are getting are being lost. it's simply that the primary buffer in your GPU is trying to push more frames on screen per second than your monitor can handle.

 

So all these people saying they get 60+ fps are lying. It may still show in a fps counter that you are getting more because that is possibly what your rig is capable of.

But you are not getting those frames, they are lost as your monitor cannot draw them quickly enough.

So unless you have a monitor that supports above that refresh rate you will not get those frame rates.

If you don't believe me I can link an article about it.

Just a heads up for people.

 

Damned I hypocritically asked in a former post what hz frequency the TO runs on his monitor, you should have been silent and we would have had a good laugh :-)

 

Btw I am pretty sure that the fps tool in this game does show the real values. My monitor is capped with 60 hz and my max frame rate displayed by the tool is 60 fps.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Midichlorien

[Marmerus]

That is what screen tearing is. Your GPU trying to push more frames than your monitor can handle.

That is not what it is.

 

It does not matter if your computer is pushing more or less frames than your monitor can handle. What matters is if your computer is pushing out frames in sync with your monitor.

 

What V-Sync does is that it waits for your screen to empty its display memory (pushing out complete frame) before it starts sending next frame to your screen. This is why you can't get more FPS with v-sync on than the refresh rate on the screen. But this also increases the input lag of the monitor.

[Malastare]

SSD's are not good for heavy use.

 

Wrong.

 

SSD's are fine for heavy use. They can handle many GB of writes per day. I think on the order of 10GB (that's gigabytes, not bits) per hour. And even with that, they will last five or more years. This idea that SSDs won't last more than a couple years if you write to them often is a myth which was held over from days of non-TRIM, non-wear-leveling drives.

 

Technology changes and you need to keep educating yourself. Wisdom from five years ago is today's stupidity.

 

When you get the new rig, make sure that the operating system is installed on the non SSD hard drive.

 

Wrong.

 

When you get the new rig, put the operating system on the SSD. That is the way to give yourself the greatest speed improvement in all situations.

 

If you don't, you run the risk of burning the drive out all together.

 

Wrong.

 

In normal use, a current generation SSD will last a decade when used as a system drive. Maybe even longer. And you can even use them for your pagefile, though at the cost of an SSD, you're better off spending $50 for an extra 4-8GB of RAM.

 

If the operating system comes pre-installed on the SSD, I strongly, strongly, reccomend wiping your hard drives and re-installing on the normal HD.

 

I strongly, strongly, recommend you not take this advice.

[Dokiardo]

Also... I have noticed there are quite a few different versions of the 560 even not as a "ti"

Very odd how there are a vast number of different 560's out there AND different 560 "ti"'s.

 

Hopefully mine is as good or as close to yours lol.

Wanna check out the specs for me and tell me how you rate them side by side?

I'd REALLY appreciate it...

Here is the EXACT one I have:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/EVGA+-+GeForce+GTX+560+2GB+GDDR5+PCI+Express+2.0+Graphics+Card/3628108.p?id=1218421870828&skuId=3628108&st=evga&cp=1&lp=3

 

Specs tab at the bottom of the page.

 

Also... about that overclocking question I had just now.

What do you think?

 

 

Don't but hardware from BestBuy, you're getting jipped out of your cash. Get it from newegg or alike. You will save on tax and cheaper from the get go.

[Marmerus]

Wrong.

 

In normal use, a current generation SSD will last a decade when used as a system drive. Maybe even longer. And you can even use them for your pagefile, though at the cost of an SSD, you're better off spending $50 for an extra 4-8GB of RAM.

 

Wrong.

 

Only in theory. In practice the life span of a SSD is shorter than that of a normal HDD. And the more you use it the faster it becomes slower. If possible you should put your pagefile on your RAMDISK or turn it off completely if you have no applications or games that uses it.

[Malastare]

Wrong.

 

Only in theory. In practice the life span of a SSD is shorter than that of a normal HDD.

 

Sure. Under some conditions.

 

However, the lifespan of an SSD, at its shortest, is longer than the majority of people's PCs. In normal use, they can easily last ten years.

 

Considering a normal HDD can't sustain the write speeds required to "kill" an SSD in five years, it seems like an unfair comparison.

 

And the more you use it the faster it becomes slower. If possible you should put your pagefile on your RAMDISK or turn it off completely if you have no applications or games that uses it.

 

This was the case for drives that did not use TRIM. In modern times, TRIM has almost entirely eliminated the slowdown over time. Slowdown still occurs as more sectors are filled, but the same effect happens on spindle drives.

 

Here, this article seems to be well written, and unlike many people's knowledge, up-to-date.

[Marmerus]

Sure. Under some conditions.

 

However, the lifespan of an SSD, at its shortest, is longer than the majority of people's PCs. In normal use, they can easily last ten years.

 

Considering a normal HDD can't sustain the write speeds required to "kill" an SSD in five years, it seems like an unfair comparison.

 

 

 

This was the case for drives that did not use TRIM. In modern times, TRIM has almost entirely eliminated the slowdown over time. Slowdown still occurs as more sectors are filled, but the same effect happens on spindle drives.

 

Here, this article seems to be well written, and unlike many people's knowledge, up-to-date.

You just posted a link to a guy who goes after the theory and not practice at all.

 

A normal HDD can have really fast write speeds and more than often faster than most second generation SSDs when writing large files.

Like my Intel x25-m g2 could write at 80mb/s when it was new. Now it writes at 60mb/s while my WD Blacks at raid-0 writes at 270mb/s.

 

The point in getting a SSD is not the read or write speed, it is the access time. Accessing small files fast and efficient is what makes them great. This way your OS and programs loads much faster than with a normal HDDs.

 

 

Another problem is the limited storage. When the size of the transistors shrinks the storage increases but the performance goes down at the same time. So it will not be until we can move over to nano tubes we should be seeing reliable, big and fast SSDs.

[Malastare]

You just posted a link to a guy who goes after the theory and not practice at all.

 

No, I posted a link to a guy talking about current generation SSDs not old technology and irrelevant comparisons.

 

Yeah, your x25-m slowed down a bit. It's old. It was the first drive from Intel that included TRIM. Intel and other controller manufacturers have drastically improved since then. Giving people advice based on out-of-date information is not helpful.

 

A normal HDD can have really fast write speeds and more than often faster than most second generation SSDs when writing large files.

 

That's fantastic. How many people are buying second generation SSDs now?

 

Let's look at some relevant data. One of the middle-of-the-road SSDs from a couple years ago, the Crucial C300, has full native TRIM support, a modern wear-leveling algorithm, and supports write speeds just shy of 200MB/s.

 

Yeah, a RAID array can match that write performance... on clean disks with sequential writes. The moment you start talking about actual real-world applications, not even a RAID array can match a modern SSD.

 

Of the two... I'd much rather take the SSD: less heat, less noise, less power, and much less chance of having the whole thing corrupt.

 

The point in getting a SSD is not the read or write speed, it is the access time. Accessing small files fast and efficient is what makes them great. This way your OS and programs loads much faster than with a normal HDDs.

 

Face it: modern SSDs beat spindle drives in every metric except drive size: better read speed, better write speed, better random I/O performance, drastically lower latency.

 

Talking about how SSDs were four years ago is pointless when you're trying to explain things to people who are looking at them now.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Malastare

[SirRobin]

i also have a phenom , and altough it runs very playable to me , i need an upgrade soon....

 

 

i was thinking one of those new bulldozer amds , i hate intels (amazing proccessors i just simply refuse to pay their overpriced **** cuz they feel like manipulating the market)

 

Upgraded to the AMD FX-Series FX-4100(3.6GHz) and I am very happy with it so far.

[hegyitaho]

it's funny how you have to have a top notch rig to run an mmo

scalability? good performance with modest hardware? that's for the weak...

i have fps issues and the problem is my phenom II x4. this game likes intel only.

[Marmerus]

No, I posted a link to a guy talking about current generation SSDs not old technology and irrelevant comparisons.

 

Yeah, your x25-m slowed down a bit. It's old. It was the first drive from Intel that included TRIM. Intel and other controller manufacturers have drastically improved since then. Giving people advice based on out-of-date information is not helpful.

 

 

 

That's fantastic. How many people are buying second generation SSDs now?

 

Let's look at some relevant data. One of the middle-of-the-road SSDs from a couple years ago, the Crucial C300, has full native TRIM support, a modern wear-leveling algorithm, and supports write speeds just shy of 200MB/s.

 

Yeah, a RAID array can match that write performance... on clean disks with sequential writes. The moment you start talking about actual real-world applications, not even a RAID array can match a modern SSD.

 

Of the two... I'd much rather take the SSD: less heat, less noise, less power, and much less chance of having the whole thing corrupt.

 

 

 

Face it: modern SSDs beat spindle drives in every metric except drive size: better read speed, better write speed, better random I/O performance, drastically lower latency.

 

Talking about how SSDs were four years ago is pointless when you're trying to explain things to people who are looking at them now.

Actually Im talking about SSDs now and 3 years into the future. And that guy is only talking about theory and not about actual use of the drives.

 

I did a comparison with my Intel SSD because you said that with Trim the slow downs would not be noticeable. Im using a Revodrive 3 as disk for OS but I would not dream of using it for pagefile or similar just because of the slowdowns I got from doing that with my Intel SSD. And since I have 32gb ram I don't see the reason not to use my ramdisk for the pagefile. After all its more than 14 times faster than my Revo.

 

The SSDs uses more power in idle state than normal HDDs. So if your not actively use your HD often you might save power with a normal drive.

Noise is not really a problem unless you are sitting on a sub par chassi.

And you have a MUCH higher risk of your SSD breaking. Only Intels disks is somewhere close to normal HDDs while other brands like OCZ vertex series is more likely to break down.

it's funny how you have to have a top notch rig to run an mmo

scalability? good performance with modest hardware? that's for the weak...

i have fps issues and the problem is my phenom II x4. this game likes intel only.

I have Intel 3930k with dual 6970. Im getting pretty good fps now that CF is supported. But I do get MASSIVE stuttering now and then when close to transparent objects like fog, smoke and random windows.

So something is clearly wrong with the game engine.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Marmerus

[Panasync]

your old phenom 2.2 x4 more than likely suffered from the TLB bug in that line of processors, that killed performance. It was a hardware defect with that CPU, that caused the machine to randomly lock up. Microsoft's software fix for the hardware bug killed its performance.

[Mephistofilus]

Ok so the two PC's I am looking at come with the following HDs:

 

Hard Drive: * 60 GB OCZ Agility 3 SATA III 6.0Gb/s SSD - 525MB/s Read & 475MB/s Write (Single Drive)

Data Hard Drive: 2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD (Single Drive)

 

The other one has the following:

 

Hard Drive: 120 GB Intel 520 Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s - 550 MB/s Read & 520 MB/s Write

(This does not say SSD but it is listed under the SSD drive category when you go the to page that lists the HD choices for this build experiement so I'm assuming it is in fact an SSD drive.

 

Data Hard Drive: 2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD (Single Drive)

 

 

So it seems both of the first Hard Drives, (Not the data HD's for the PC's),

are SSD drives. Could I swap either of those drives for lets say a:

 

2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD,

or a 600GB Gaming Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache WD6000HLHX (Single Drive)....

WITHOUT having to do anything else to the PC's?

 

Like I said I have never done this before so I dont know if you have to have an SSD with the other drives on these PC's to match something or it does not matter.

Also... would upgrading those HD's make a need for a different power supply or more fans?

 

Thanks

[MuNieK]

Most people won't notice until the frame-rate drops under 30. The "under 60 is terrible" folks fall into one of two categories:

 

- Experienceing a placebo effect from knowing the frame-rate, likely due to a conversation with someone from the second group.

- A certain small portion of the population is actually able to notice frame-to-frame lag before 60 frames. After that, it's pretty much impossible.

 

You are mistaken. 25fps is the lowest limit before you see actuall slideshow. That doesnt mean you cant see the difference in smoothness if it goes up, especially if the fps is closely related to your ability of controlling the motion on screen (like turning camera), lead cursor and interact with motion. I know each time im dropping under 50fps. I could say i know difference between 50 and 60, but of that im not that sure.

------

@OP

btw. i have i5 2500K myself and sometimes he is still hammered heavily on fleet on peak hours and its always hammered on alderaan warzone, so no... i5 2500K doesnt rotflstomp swtor. Even overclocked i7 cant do that - this engine simply disallows that.

Edited March 2, 2012 by MuNieK

[commiewithagun]

I had a 2.2GHz amd phenom x4 and upgraded to a i5 2500k. The i5 rofl stomps this game. I also have an msi 560ti twinfrozer2/oc. I have all graphics settings maxed out besides aa is on low and get 100+ fps besides in illums major battles I bog down to about 40fps which is completely payable. That is due to the servers not the "bad code".

 

 

You have no idea how computers work. Stop talking before you embarrass yourself further.

[mhuntly]

You have no idea how computers work. Stop talking before you embarrass yourself further.

 

Whys that? I built my own... Lol

Edited March 2, 2012 by mhuntly

[mhuntly]

your old phenom 2.2 x4 more than likely suffered from the TLB bug in that line of processors, that killed performance. It was a hardware defect with that CPU, that caused the machine to randomly lock up. Microsoft's software fix for the hardware bug killed its performance.

 

I used a pogram to disable tlb back in wow days. Helped immensely

Edited March 2, 2012 by mhuntly

[Mephistofilus]

Hey everyone...

 

Is there any need to Overclock a Intel® Core™ i7-3930K Six-Core 3.20 GHz 12MB Intel Smart Cache LGA2011?

 

The place I am buying my PC from has an option where they will overclock it 30% from the factory as long as you make sure all other parts are OC Certified by them.

 

I was just wondering if you guys think there would be any need to overclock this CPU within the next couple of years.

 

Also... could them overclocking it 30% make it's life shorter or mess it up?

 

I guess what I am asking is should i order it overclocked or not?

I know I could take it to a shop in the future if i needed it overclocked but if it would be wise to get it out of the way and go ahead and do it then i will.

 

And they do this for free.

Opinions?

[mhuntly]

For the person who asked, I use a hyper 212+ cooler and am clocked at 4.5 on my i5

[mhuntly]

Hey everyone...

 

Is there any need to Overclock a Intel® Core™ i7-3930K Six-Core 3.20 GHz 12MB Intel Smart Cache LGA2011?

 

The place I am buying my PC from has an option where they will overclock it 30% from the factory as long as you make sure all other parts are OC Certified by them.

 

I was just wondering if you guys think there would be any need to overclock this CPU within the next couple of years.

 

Also... could them overclocking it 30% make it's life shorter or mess it up?

 

I guess what I am asking is should i order it overclocked or not?

I know I could take it to a shop in the future if i needed it overclocked but if it would be wise to get it out of the way and go ahead and do it then i will.

 

And they do this for free.

Opinions?

 

Yes oc but I wouldn't say you need to but id take it while you can get it. just make sure they don't make it go over 70c on a stress test and stable

Edited March 2, 2012 by mhuntly

[Malastare]

So it seems both of the first Hard Drives, (Not the data HD's for the PC's),

are SSD drives. Could I swap either of those drives for lets say a:

 

No.

 

You should use the SSD as your OS drive.

 

There is a reason they are selling it this way. Ignore the other poster. The vast majority of system builders will tell you without hesitating that putting the OS on an SSD is perfectly normal and even recommended. Don't expect it to have any huge impact on gameplay. It simply won't, no matter how you use the SSD. However, the most common use of an SSD is as an OS drive.

 

If you don't want to trust some guy on the SWTOR forum, just check any of those links, or post the question yourself on places like AnandTech or [H]ardforum. Even the people at Tom's Hardware will tell you the same thing.

[Mephistofilus]

No.

 

You should use the SSD as your OS drive.

 

There is a reason they are selling it this way. Ignore the other poster. The vast majority of system builders will tell you without hesitating that putting the OS on an SSD is perfectly normal and even recommended. Don't expect it to have any huge impact on gameplay. It simply won't, no matter how you use the SSD. However, the most common use of an SSD is as an OS drive.

 

If you don't want to trust some guy on the SWTOR forum, just check any of those links, or post the question yourself on places like AnandTech or [H]ardforum. Even the people at Tom's Hardware will tell you the same thing.

 

 

That's weird. I called the place selling these and they said it would be fine to swap the first hard drive from a SSD drive to one that is not SSD, and have them both as non SSD drives with one used as the OS drive. Why could I not do this?

I was not asking if I should use the SSD for games and the Regular HD for the OS.

I was asking about getting rid of having the SSD all together and having TWO regular HD's instead of one SDD and one regular HD.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mephistofilus

[Mephistofilus]

No.

 

If you don't want to trust some guy on the SWTOR forum, just check any of those links, or post the question yourself on places like AnandTech or [H]ardforum. Even the people at Tom's Hardware will tell you the same thing.

 

I went to Tom's Hardware and it seems they think SSD's are NOT the best drives right now, and that they have much higher failure rates and do not last as long.

And that as time goes on after 2yrs.. the failure rates go much higher.

Also from what I am reading the SSD's do NOT make your games run any faster or better, they just make load times a little shorter in between action.

 

Look at this article by them:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html

 

I'd still like to know...

Why can't I replace that first HD with a regular HD and not use a SSD?

Thus having a regular HD for the HD and a different regular HD as the Data Hard drive?

(Two regular HDD's and not a SDD)

Is there some reason why this cannot be done?

 

I was wanting to use a 600GB Gaming Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache WD6000HLHX for the OS HD and also use it to put this game on perhaps... or should I use this HD as the Data HD,

and make the 2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD the OS Hard drive (Running only the OS on it), and run the games on the 600GB Gaming Western Digital?

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mephistofilus

[Romiz]

Unless you game on a CRT still, yes refresh rate will be 60Hz...

 

And no need for it to be higher (sans 3D) human eyes are not that sensitive, which is why movies are generally 24-30FPS .

 

You are well behind the times. Old HDTVs stopped at 60Hz now 240Hz + is easy to find.

[Xorto]

Intel > AMD on most games performance wise, take a look at various benchmarks. So clearly most people here complaining about low fps bla or performance issues are the AMD owners.

 

Congrats with your i5 processor. I got i7 myself and no performance issues.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Xorto