Upgraded my CPU and am very pleased

[Straegen]

Which PC would you go with for this game?

Rate in order and why.. (yes I'm shopping and need help)

 

Do you hate money or is this strictly for boasting? Very few games will take advantage of this setup including SWToR. Most good games these days are console ports and have no way to take advantage of this rig. You are building a machine to play games 2-3 years from now only then this rig will be out of date.

 

The i5 2500k OC'd is going to return a couple percent less performance than any processor you listed. Few games will see any real benefit from going higher. SLI is a waste here. Some games take advantage of SLI others including the desktop not at all plus buying it out of the box gives your computer little upgrade headroom down the road. More than 8GB is also a waste unless you are a graphics designer, run a lot of VMs, high end developer or similar. Few people will use more than 8GB at least for the foreseeable future.

 

The places to spend money these days is on an i5, single higher end video card, above average MB and a quality SSD. The rest is just for bragging, enthusiast or for people who wipe their rear with 100s.

 

BTW if you are dropping this kind of cash might as well look at the 7970. I am not an ATI fan (I actually avoid them when possible) but that card is showing ridiculously good benchmark numbers. It is also cheaper than two 580s and much faster rivaling even two 590s in some benchmarks.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Straegen

[blackdots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvu699u_6aU&feature=youtu.be

 

could up post a video of this magical experience you have on ilum with your processor?

 

heres mine.

 

I don't feel like making a video and posting it to youtube, I'm just giving my feelings and experience on performance after my upgrade to an i5 with a 560gtx. I have no reason to lie to you.

 

No idea how you're getting 5fps on low settings, sorry. That's as bad as my experience on my previous computer, which was an older quad-core and a 5600 (on this setup, I also ran 5fps on all low settings).

 

I don't know what to tell you man, on my current set up I'm getting 25fps on all low settings in 30v30 size battles. The only tweaks I'm using are ramdisk (http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=154568), which probably wouldn't help you much because of your SSD, and various other common W7 optimization methods.

[origamikitsune]

To put in perspective...

 

i5 2.8ghz

4gb RAM

GTX 460 768mb GDDR5

 

I play this game in 1080p, with forced 32x AA, and all settings on high. If I turn off desktop composition (which I do because I play full screen anyhow), I rarely dip below 30 FPS. I'm usually just over 40. That's on fleet, and on Ilum.

 

No OC (don't get me started on why OC is bad in most - not all, but most - cases), all stock, home brewed, nothing fancy except my UV reactive case and UV lights.

 

Maybe 30fps isn't a beast, but so what? The game is pretty as it can be (granted, not as pretty as the failure that is FF14), and it runs smooth enough that I don't suffer worse in the game play department.

 

Rig cost me just over 1k after I bought a super nice monitor and second keyboard/mouse.

[Mephistofilus]

Well, I was not just buying the PC for THIS game.

I need to clarify that.

 

I mean as far as use for TODAY... for this game.

But I wanted something that will run the games well that come 2yrs down the road as well.

 

The reason I asked which of those for this game is just for the current usage of the PC.

 

So..with that in mind..

Which would you choose?

The PC's are within about 300 dollars of each other.

[origamikitsune]

Go with the first one. Normally I would avoid that brand of video card because of personal preference, however, it has two things going for it.

 

1.) Lots of RAM. RAM is probably the easiest / cheapest way to upgrade computers.

 

2.) It doesn't have two video cards. While SLI and Crossfire are nice, if you are looking at a long-term purchase, you want to stay away from specialized technologies that may be significantly deprecated down the line. Games that are not optimized for SLI will definitely see improvement, however, fit they are, they will see even more.

 

nVidia is constantly putting out driver updates that include specific updates for SLI; in two years if they are using SLI2, or some other new/better technology you are loosing out on what you spent.

 

There is one thing you need to know though!

 

SSD's are not good for heavy use. When you get the new rig, make sure that the operating system is installed on the non SSD hard drive. If you don't, you run the risk of burning the drive out all together. SSD's are getting better, but they are still relatively new.

 

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.

 

Go ahead and put your game installs on the SSD, and if you need more performance tweaks, ask in here about moving your App Data to the SSD, or moving your virtual memory to your SSD. BUt make sure you reasearch the brand/model of your SSD to see how it holds up over time, and make sure you understand the risks.

 

EDIT: If it were -my- computer, I would go with the last one you listed, with the ASUS mother board and nVidia video card. As a personal preference, those are two brands I trust (especially ASUS) in general. But it is also a computer I would expect to upgrade later - especially in the RAM department.

Edited March 2, 2012 by origamikitsune

[Valkirus]

I see two diff numbers.

Is the left the live and the right the avg. or what?

 

I am not sure the one in game is accurate. I have Vsnyc on and refresh rate set on my monitor to 60 hz...so it should'nt exceed 60 fps. Which is what it shows consistently in WoW. Never exceeds 60. In TOR however...it runs between 72 - 78 FPS.

[Valkirus]

To put in perspective...

 

i5 2.8ghz

4gb RAM

GTX 460 768mb GDDR5

 

I play this game in 1080p, with forced 32x AA, and all settings on high. If I turn off desktop composition (which I do because I play full screen anyhow), I rarely dip below 30 FPS. I'm usually just over 40. That's on fleet, and on Ilum.

 

No OC (don't get me started on why OC is bad in most - not all, but most - cases), all stock, home brewed, nothing fancy except my UV reactive case and UV lights.

 

Maybe 30fps isn't a beast, but so what? The game is pretty as it can be (granted, not as pretty as the failure that is FF14), and it runs smooth enough that I don't suffer worse in the game play department.

 

Rig cost me just over 1k after I bought a super nice monitor and second keyboard/mouse.

 

You are right, 30 fps is perfectly fine for any game. Those who are concerned about thier fps when they dip below 60 fps are too FPS focused. And it seems to be something some like to brag about..." Hey man!, I get 110 fps on my beast!". OC is not good for any system when you want that system to last a long time. Generates a lot more heat and heat will decrease the life of any electronic component.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Valkirus

[Gohlar]

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.

 

I can tell you the frame rate up to the mid 50s. The difference between 30 and 60 is clear as day for me.

 

I have a hard time believing others can't tell the difference at all...

 

You are right, 30 fps is perfectly fine for any game. Those who are concerned about thier fps when they dip below 60 fps are too FPS focused. And it seems to be something some like to brag about..." Hey man!, I get 110 fps on my beast!". OC is not good for any system when you want that system to last a long time. Generates a lot more heat and heat will decrease the life of any electronic component.

 

30 FPS isn't very smooth. I guess people with weak eyes like to make excuses?

 

Crazy....

Edited March 2, 2012 by Gohlar

[Vulgarr]

Go with the first one. Normally I would avoid that brand of video card because of personal preference, however, it has two things going for it.

 

1.) Lots of RAM. RAM is probably the easiest / cheapest way to upgrade computers.

 

2.) It doesn't have two video cards. While SLI and Crossfire are nice, if you are looking at a long-term purchase, you want to stay away from specialized technologies that may be significantly deprecated down the line. Games that are not optimized for SLI will definitely see improvement, however, fit they are, they will see even more.

 

nVidia is constantly putting out driver updates that include specific updates for SLI; in two years if they are using SLI2, or some other new/better technology you are loosing out on what you spent.

 

There is one thing you need to know though!

 

SSD's are not good for heavy use. When you get the new rig, make sure that the operating system is installed on the non SSD hard drive. If you don't, you run the risk of burning the drive out all together. SSD's are getting better, but they are still relatively new.

 

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.

 

Go ahead and put your game installs on the SSD, and if you need more performance tweaks, ask in here about moving your App Data to the SSD, or moving your virtual memory to your SSD. BUt make sure you reasearch the brand/model of your SSD to see how it holds up over time, and make sure you understand the risks.

 

EDIT: If it were -my- computer, I would go with the last one you listed, with the ASUS mother board and nVidia video card. As a personal preference, those are two brands I trust (especially ASUS) in general. But it is also a computer I would expect to upgrade later - especially in the RAM department.

i think you mean make sure your operating system is on the SSD.

 

because thats what we all do with SSDs. use it as a boot drive and only install aps that we use alot or have long load times on a regular HDD.

[Vulgarr]

I am not sure the one in game is accurate. I have Vsnyc on and refresh rate set on my monitor to 60 hz...so it should'nt exceed 60 fps. Which is what it shows consistently in WoW. Never exceeds 60. In TOR however...it runs between 72 - 78 FPS.

the one on the LEFT is current FPS, the one on the right is the average FPS.

 

the only one you need to worry about is the one on the right.

[Gohlar]

i think you mean make sure your operating system is on the SSD.

 

because thats what we all do with SSDs. use it as a boot drive and only install aps that we use alot or have long load times on a regular HDD.

 

QFT

 

Why in the world would you put your OS on the data drive?

 

lol

[Sheff]

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.

[Valkirus]

I can tell you the frame rate up to the mid 50s. The difference between 30 and 60 is clear as day for me.

 

I have a hard time believing others can't tell the difference at all...

 

 

 

30 FPS isn't very smooth. I guess people with weak eyes like to make excuses?

 

Crazy....

 

And some let thier imaginations exceed reality. The turth is, most cannot tell any difference between 30 and 60 fps when conducted in a non bias condition. Not saying this applies to all, but to most it does.

[Vulgarr]

You are right, 30 fps is perfectly fine for any game. Those who are concerned about thier fps when they dip below 60 fps are too FPS focused. And it seems to be something some like to brag about..." Hey man!, I get 110 fps on my beast!". OC is not good for any system when you want that system to last a long time. Generates a lot more heat and heat will decrease the life of any electronic component.

this is not true. it is subjective to taste.

 

i know people that cant play games that dip below 30 fps because it makes the physically ill with motion sickness. they cant play consoles because of this.

 

no one that plays games on pc settles for less than 60fps. especially in pvp or first person shooters.

[Mephistofilus]

Go with the first one. Normally I would avoid that brand of video card because of personal preference, however, it has two things going for it.

 

1.) Lots of RAM. RAM is probably the easiest / cheapest way to upgrade computers.

 

2.) It doesn't have two video cards. While SLI and Crossfire are nice, if you are looking at a long-term purchase, you want to stay away from specialized technologies that may be significantly deprecated down the line. Games that are not optimized for SLI will definitely see improvement, however, fit they are, they will see even more.

 

nVidia is constantly putting out driver updates that include specific updates for SLI; in two years if they are using SLI2, or some other new/better technology you are loosing out on what you spent.

 

There is one thing you need to know though!

 

SSD's are not good for heavy use. When you get the new rig, make sure that the operating system is installed on the non SSD hard drive. If you don't, you run the risk of burning the drive out all together. SSD's are getting better, but they are still relatively new.

 

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.

 

Go ahead and put your game installs on the SSD, and if you need more performance tweaks, ask in here about moving your App Data to the SSD, or moving your virtual memory to your SSD. BUt make sure you reasearch the brand/model of your SSD to see how it holds up over time, and make sure you understand the risks.

 

EDIT: If it were -my- computer, I would go with the last one you listed, with the ASUS mother board and nVidia video card. As a personal preference, those are two brands I trust (especially ASUS) in general. But it is also a computer I would expect to upgrade later - especially in the RAM department.

 

Question... what if i went with the last one like you said...

• Intel® Core™ i7-2600K Processor

• 8GB PC1600 Corsair Vengeance

• 2 x NVIDIA GTX580 1.5GB Video

• Asus Z68 USB3 & SATA3 MB

• OCZ 120GB SATA3 SSD

• 2TB SATA3 7200 RPM HD

• LG 12X Blu-Ray Rewriter

 

Then changed the processor to the i7-3930K when I was customizing it.

Would there be any other changes I would need to make because of upgrading the processor? Then in the future I could upgrade the ram.

Also.. how does that GTX 580 compare to the video cards in the other PC's i listed?

[Elladan]

Like someone else in this thread, I'm still running on a 4-year old home-built system, Q6600, 4GB Ram, and a GTX 460 (upgraded from busted 8800GT) and the gaming is running acceptable for now (I'm about to hit 50 so I'll have to check out Ilum soon). I have however looked around for an upgrade, and everything I put together comes out to around $1600, with all new components, incuding new case, HD, etc.

i5 2500K

8GB Ram

560Ti 448 cores

Asus MB

120 GB SSD primary drive

1TB 7.2k HDD data drive

BluRay DVD/Burner

[Vulgarr]

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.

 

they make 120hz monitors.

 

even 240 hz.

[Valkirus]

the one on the LEFT is current FPS, the one on the right is the average FPS.

 

the only one you need to worry about is the one on the right.

 

The fps showing are about the same. Maybe 2 -3 difference between the two. And I am not concerned as I have it shut off now. It should'nt display more than 60 fps in my case which makes me beleave its not giving players accurate information.

[Gohlar]

And some let thier imaginations exceed reality. The turth is, most cannot tell any difference between 30 and 60 fps when conducted in a non bias condition. Not saying this applies to all, but to most it does.

 

I guess you're right, my Girlfriend always told me games were running fine for her when I wanted to make them run better.

 

But like I don't need to see any number, I recognize it right away. I can literally tell you the frame rate, within 5 fps usually, just by looking. It doesn't become silky smooth until like 55 for me.

 

The frame rate in pvp drives me crazy in these games. Both this and Rift seem stuck in the mid 40s.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Gohlar

[Midichlorien]

I understand that you feel your rig should be able to pull off that scenario at the "highest possible graphic settings," but it's important to realize what a petty complaint this is. On my i5 with 560gtx, I tweak my graphics settings to low for huge Ilum battles and only rarely drop to 25fps. It's very playable.

 

The point is: a lot of these threads are giving people the wrong impression (I know this because I had the wrong impression before upgrading) --- i.e. that ToR Ilum is going to be a slideshow no matter what you do with your comp. But now I know that's just not true, and that, in fact, even relatively inexpensive ($700) upgrades can make large open world PvP very viable.

 

These threads need to stop misleading people into thinking ToR WZ and open world are unplayable, when in fact it's just that some people consider anything under 60fps with highest possible settings to be "lag fest".

 

I not only feel it should perform better, I expect and insist on it.

I agree, that you don't need 60 fps for fluent playing, but 15 dps is somewhat at the limit. it's exactly the limit where occasional littel freezes occur, which are a no go for PvPing.

 

I have no problem with hardware crunching engines, if the result is appropriate, I adapt, but if I look on Illum, I wonder about the cost-benefit analysis.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Midichlorien

[Mephistofilus]

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

.

 

 

Is this true?

And let's hear from the people that are having the rates above 60...

are your monitors above 60hz?

 

PS.. i cant even FIND where it says what hz mine is running at.

I checked the web for the specs. maybe I'm overlooking?

I Have a Samsung S27A550H Digital

Edited March 2, 2012 by Mephistofilus

[Sheff]

they make 120hz monitors.

 

even 240 hz.

 

I am aware of that mate I have a 120mhz monitor. if you read the post properly you will notice that I said you won;t get those frames unless you have one that is capable.

[Valkirus]

I not only feel it should perform better, I expect and insist on it.

I agree, that you don't need 60 fps for fluent playing, but 15 dps is somewhat at the limit. it's exactly the limit where occasional littel freezes occur, which are a no go for PvPing.

 

I have no problem with hardware crunching engines, if the result is appropriate, I adapt, but if I look on Illum, I wonder about the cost-benefit analysis.

 

Yes. It is when you drop below 30 fps that you begin to see a real difference and when it drops below 20, it can have serous negative effects on game play.

[Sheff]

Is this true?

And let's hear from the people that are having the rates above 60...

are your monitors above 60hz?

 

Yes it's true. I have a 120mhz monitor btw.

That is what screen tearing is. Your GPU trying to push more frames than your monitor can handle. That's why I always find it hilarious when people claim to have 100+ fps when I am fairly sure most people don't have the monitor to support it.

[Zynellan]

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".

 

Buy a $30-$40 aftermarket cpu cooler for the 2500k and you can hit 4.4 ghz easy.

 

This site is great for pc parts and comparisons:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cooler-heatsink-roundup,2788.html

 

Under full load I hit about 55-60C and idle around 30-33C with speedstep.