Upgraded my CPU and am very pleased

[Mephistofilus]

So much different info you come across on the web.

 

Ok so the definite is that everyone says if you use a SSD for one drive and a HDD drive for the other... use the SSD for the OS and the HD for hard files, pics, media.

 

But on this forum I heard a couple of people say not to put this game on the SSD drive.

I believe someone went as far to say that it could even kill the SSD.

I am reading that on MOST games the SSD will only speed up load times.

HOWEVER...I am reading on MMOG it is different.. with the environment changing so much and other things that most other games do not have... the games like this one WILL run faster on a SSD.

 

What I am concerned about... and why I was going to get TWO HDD's instead of one HDD and one SSD, was because of the lifespan concerns of the SSD.

Now... if the SSD would NOT improve the performance of this game... I really do not think it would be worth trading the lifespan of the SSD for the speedup on Windows, and the load time only of a game.

 

I'm really at a crossroads here.

P.S.

Believe it or not.. one of the HDD's I was going to put in the PC:

600GB Gaming Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache WD6000HLHX ,

 

costs ONE dollar MORE than this SSD drive:

120 GB Intel 510 Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s SSD - 450MB/s Read & 210MB/s Write

 

and 114 dollars MORE than THIS SSD drive:

120 GB Intel 510 Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s SSD - 450MB/s Read & 210MB/s Write

 

I thought the SSD's were supposed to be much more expensive?

And what about the SSD running THIS game faster than a HDD.. Yes? No?

Running a game on the SSD damaging it or making the life much shorter?

And the lifespan of the SSD being less and failure rates being a good big higher?

 

I REALLY don't know what to do!!!!!!!!

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mephistofilus

[origamikitsune]

QFT

 

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

 

lol

 

Specifically, you do not want your appdatta and your virtual ram on an SSD; that is, unless you research the SSD and make sure its not prone to high-use failures. Of course they will run faster on the SSD - and that is the point - however, about half the SSDs on the market still will crap out really fast under heavy use. Others, are fine. But its enough of them, by far, that without research / knowing the risk, you could shoot yourself in the foot. Another 6-12 months, it probably won't be an issue on new SSDs.

[RightInTwo]

I still see nothing that says anything about windows theme or disabling it...

what tab is it under?

 

Hey man I just built a desktop from scratch, it was insanely fun and I have no regrets, even though I'm a poor student and it was a huge chunk of my student loans.

 

Check out the "how to build a computer" series on Youtube by the newegg.com people, they are really good and taught me a lot.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com is another good site, especially if you take the time to post on their forums

 

Let me know if you have any questions about anything.

 

Cheers,

Mark

[origamikitsune]

Okay, so... Despite people saying I'm wrong...

 

I still say it DEPENDS ON THE BRAND OF THE SSD as to whether or not it will crap out. MMO's do a whole lot of disk caching. MORE than most games. Because of this, there is constant read-write. The key being constant.

 

In this game, there is a very specific file that ranges from 500mb to >1gb that caches a bunch of special effects. This file is placed in the APPDATA folder of the OS. People in these forums have stated that there is a noticeable increase in performance by placing this file on an SSD or RAMDISK (which is a little more involved).

 

However, it is my experience that an SSD will not show SIGNIFICANT increase over a really good HDD. The HDD you listed, the Western Digital, is in the upper range of HDD's in terms of RPM, Cache, etc. I would go so far as to call it really good. I suggest searching these forums for posts about it, to see what people are saying.

 

So. Will you see improvement by having this game on the SSD? Definitely in load times. Probably in high-traffic areas, probably not in low traffic areas, and definitely no in solo play. You will notice increase in performance if your APPDATA and your Virtual RAM are on your SSD, but again, probably not SIGNIFICANT.

 

Yes, you can use multiple HDDs instead of an SSD / HDD combo. It won't break anything.

 

That said, as to the whole controversy over SSDs, obviously it is still a controversy. Google will reveal multiple "reliable" sites that contradict each-other. My suggestion is to hit up websites like amazon that allow customer reviews and judge from there (though keep in mind, more people typically complain than praise). Personally? I would choose the SSD for my machine, but that's just me.

 

What has been said about the 2nd generation SSDs, is pretty spot on. They are MUCH more reliable than they were just a few months ago. They also used to be much more expensive. They have recently been dropping in price as more companies make them for retail purchase, and they become more popular. As to the brand specificly listed on the machines you posted for us, I couldn't say - it isn't one that I am intimately familiar with. This is why I urge you to research the brand specifically. You might find I am right - they crap out - or you might find they are among the most stable, in which case you won't regret getting one. Even so, if you look at price / GB, you will see that dollar for dollar you get more GB on a HDD than an SSD.

 

About the processors: Yes, you can upgrade the processor and/or the ram. However, at that level of processor you might not be gaining too incredibly much, and might consider getting the extra ram instead of the extra processor. the 8GB is definately more than enough, but then again, so is the i7 to begin with. Processors in general tend to be more expensive - so in the long run you might save money by upgrading RAM now, and processor later, when its cheaper.

 

2cents

Edited March 3, 2012 by origamikitsune

[mufutiz]

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 COMPLETELY wrong

 

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

 

it's not about "frame lag", it's all about smoothness. And everyone should be able to notice the difference. If not... I don't know, maybe get yourself checked out

 

also read the little text at the bottom, that is why film runs at ~ 24fps and people don't care.

Playing a game emulates a "real" life like vision from the standpoint of your character though.

 

Real life application of your eyes is not limited at 60 fps (or even less)

 

 

Also the OP is lying BADLY. that system is midrange at best, large scale Ilum battles will have his system crawling into the single digits, 20fps at the very very most. stop lying.

Edited March 3, 2012 by mufutiz

[Dinadan]

So much different info you come across on the web.

 

Ok so the definite is that everyone says if you use a SSD for one drive and a HDD drive for the other... use the SSD for the OS and the HD for hard files, pics, media.

 

But on this forum I heard a couple of people say not to put this game on the SSD drive.

I believe someone went as far to say that it could even kill the SSD.

I am reading that on MOST games the SSD will only speed up load times.

HOWEVER...I am reading on MMOG it is different.. with the environment changing so much and other things that most other games do not have... the games like this one WILL run faster on a SSD.

 

What I am concerned about... and why I was going to get TWO HDD's instead of one HDD and one SSD, was because of the lifespan concerns of the SSD.

Now... if the SSD would NOT improve the performance of this game... I really do not think it would be worth trading the lifespan of the SSD for the speedup on Windows, and the load time only of a game.

 

I'm really at a crossroads here.

P.S.

Believe it or not.. one of the HDD's I was going to put in the PC:

600GB Gaming Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache WD6000HLHX ,

 

costs ONE dollar MORE than this SSD drive:

120 GB Intel 510 Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s SSD - 450MB/s Read & 210MB/s Write

 

and 114 dollars MORE than THIS SSD drive:

120 GB Intel 510 Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s SSD - 450MB/s Read & 210MB/s Write

 

I thought the SSD's were supposed to be much more expensive?

And what about the SSD running THIS game faster than a HDD.. Yes? No?

Running a game on the SSD damaging it or making the life much shorter?

And the lifespan of the SSD being less and failure rates being a good big higher?

 

I REALLY don't know what to do!!!!!!!!

 

The reason the SSDs are relatively cheaper right now is possibly due to the current supply shortage of HDDs due to the flooding in Thailand. You'll notice that HDDs prices are crazy high right now.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Dinadan

[Marmerus]

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.

You are also mistaken. You are thinking about movies and the low FPS. Well in movies you have motion blur and this game does not. So to get the same smoothness as a movie with 25 fps you need around 3 times the amount. But most people settle for 60 fps since the increase in fps does not make it much smoother but does require much better hardware.

[Marmerus]

Ok so the definite is that everyone says if you use a SSD for one drive and a HDD drive for the other... use the SSD for the OS and the HD for hard files, pics, media.

 

But on this forum I heard a couple of people say not to put this game on the SSD drive.

I believe someone went as far to say that it could even kill the SSD.

I am reading that on MOST games the SSD will only speed up load times.

HOWEVER...I am reading on MMOG it is different.. with the environment changing so much and other things that most other games do not have... the games like this one WILL run faster on a SSD.

 

What I am concerned about... and why I was going to get TWO HDD's instead of one HDD and one SSD, was because of the lifespan concerns of the SSD.

Now... if the SSD would NOT improve the performance of this game... I really do not think it would be worth trading the lifespan of the SSD for the speedup on Windows, and the load time only of a game.

 

I'm really at a crossroads here.

P.S.

Believe it or not.. one of the HDD's I was going to put in the PC:

600GB Gaming Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache WD6000HLHX ,

 

costs ONE dollar MORE than this SSD drive:

120 GB Intel 510 Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s SSD - 450MB/s Read & 210MB/s Write

 

and 114 dollars MORE than THIS SSD drive:

120 GB Intel 510 Series SATA-III 6.0Gb/s SSD - 450MB/s Read & 210MB/s Write

 

I thought the SSD's were supposed to be much more expensive?

And what about the SSD running THIS game faster than a HDD.. Yes? No?

Running a game on the SSD damaging it or making the life much shorter?

And the lifespan of the SSD being less and failure rates being a good big higher?

 

I REALLY don't know what to do!!!!!!!!

If you have a bit more expensive motherboard you can use both a SSD and HDD as a single drive. It will make a hybrid disk of it and the performance is really good. Not that good as a pure SSD but good enough that you won't ruin your SSD by storing stuff on it.

 

Reason you should not use MMOs on a SSD is that you are making LOTS of read and writes every second and you can wear out the drive in just a couple of days use.

Normal games and programs does not make lots of read and writes to the drive often and will not wear it out.

 

Also do not use it for peer 2 peer transfers either. Torrents will also do LOTS of read and writes.

 

And about your questions

1. Yes it will decrease the LOAD times if your HDD is really slow. When game was launched I tried running it from SSD, HDD and Ramdisk. Ramdisk was the fastest but the decrease in load times was not low enough for me to put the game on any other disk than my slowest HDD.

2. MMOs will wear out the disk faster than normal games. If you put games like League of Legends or Alan Wake you will not ruin your drive at all. But before you put a game on the disk you need to ask yourself if its worth to decrease the load times because that is what you get from playing with an SSD.

3. Yes. But with normal use and you stay away from games and applications that is doing lots of small read and writes your drive will last long enough before it breaks or gets really slow.

 

Do NOT get a velociraptor drive! Get a SSD and a normal 7200 rpm HDD. Put the most important stuff on the SSD and the rest on the HDD. This is going to be faster than the velociraptor and it will give you more storage space. Best of both worlds.

[Malastare]

I am reading that on MOST games the SSD will only speed up load times.

 

Correct. Drive speeds have nothing to do with framerates and the vast majority of games are designed to minimize any disk loading while playing.

 

HOWEVER...I am reading on MMOG it is different.. with the environment changing so much and other things that most other games do not have... the games like this one WILL run faster on a SSD.

 

Correct again... to a point. Since most MMOs try to limit the number of load screens, there is more "behind the scenes" disk loading going on. However, I haven't heard of an MMO that optimized this for SSD access (ie: extremely low latency or extremely high read speed). Most are designed to work well with normal mechanical drives.

 

To further drive this point home: I have an SSD tested at about 320MB/s read speed. I also have a 2TB WD Green that only spins at 5400rpm. I've tried putting the SWTOR files on both drives and there is no strong difference between the two. The only change I noticed was a slight decrease in world load time (perhaps 4-8 seconds). In game performance was unchanged.

 

What I am concerned about... and why I was going to get TWO HDD's instead of one HDD and one SSD, was because of the lifespan concerns of the SSD.

 

You're free to make your own decisions, and SSDs should be considered perks/luxuries rather than required hardware, but....

 

You're buying into FUD and old information. New SSDs simply don't have the issues you're worried about. The people at Tom's complain about reliability because of bad drives from the manufacturer, not death-through-usage. Again, people who actually understand SSDs and how operating systems use them, recognize that the life of an SSD is almost invariably going to be significantly longer than the life of the PC it was bought for.

 

So long as you buy an SSD from a decent manufacturer, you're fine.

 

Of course.... you've got the same issue with hard drives. Buy a hard drive from a bad manufacturer or bad manufacturing line and the thing is going to have a short lifetime. The only difference is that if your mechanical drive dies, you're out a little less money.

 

Now... if the SSD would NOT improve the performance of this game... I really do not think it would be worth trading the lifespan of the SSD for the speedup on Windows, and the load time only of a game.

 

Agreed... if there was a problem with the lifespan of SSDs.

 

Instead, its just a money/performance tradeoff. Having your OS on an SSD adds some serious quality-of-life improvements to computer use. However, it's not going to make your computer perform any better while gaming. If that's your main concern, then SSDs are probably a waste of your money.

 

I didn't buy mine for gaming. I bought it because I spend a lot of time at my computer between gaming, trying to explain things to people on forums, programming, running multiple VMs to test Linux configurations and working from home. All of those get improved slightly by an SSD.

 

I've had the SSD now for a year. Checking the drive statistics, I've got over ten more years of use on the thing before I run out of writes. And in the last year, I've installed windows on it, as well as about 40GB of games... plus a few dozen steam updates to those games.

 

Believe it or not.. one of the HDD's I was going to put in the PC:

600GB Gaming Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache WD6000HLHX ,

 

Don't buy that drive.

 

It's like an SSD, but slower. It's overpriced (in the first place, but also due to shortage) and it's not going to improve your gaming at all. You get almost as much benefit from buying any other drive with a 32MB cache.

 

I REALLY don't know what to do!!!!!!!!

 

I feel your pain. Building (or "custom buying") PCs isn't easy.

 

If nothing else will convince you, just look at what most people are building. For all the complaints you see, remember that there are loads and loads of people who aren't complaining. SSD failure rates are somewhere around 2% (only a bit higher than HDDs)... but they get inflated by reporting on the internet.

 

Do you need an SSD? No. Absolutely not.

 

Would an SSD improve game performance? Only very slightly.

 

Could you use two HDDs instead? Absolutely. I'd recommend a smaller 7200rpm drive (1TB) and a larger 5400rpm drive (2TB+). Both should ideally have 32MB caches. The OS should go on the 7200rpm drive, with whatever applications you care about load times for.

 

If you get an SSD, should it hold the OS? Yes. It's a better use of the drive. Don't worry about lifetime. Other people have already tested that for you. You're fine.

 

Most importantly:

 

Every single option you've presented here is a good option. Seriously. All of them will work really well and you'll enjoy them. You're stressing out over which tires to put on your Ferrari. In the end, you should pick whichever one makes you comfortable and happy, because none of them are going to be bad choices. Pick something and enjoy your new computer.

[belizar]

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

 

so im looking at my 120hz lcd dont need an old crt to have 120hz

[Xorn]

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 don't lie! I put a new machine together so my wife could play swtor with me. So I put together a machine inside an older lian li case I had for about 800$. I realized that any MMO on todays market is not going to require the pinnacle of computing, I guess mostly due to the constraints of bandwidth and sync. It might be hard to pinpoint, but i am suspecting things like the upgrade to 6gb SATA, the very fast I5 2600, the OCed 8gb ram, and the nvidia 550 gtx. All of which is really last years high end, maybe even 2 years. All in all I think it is very responsible of Bioware to make a game that can be maxed with an 800$ machine.

 

Principle among all of this was the fact that the game loads so much faster on the new machine. Almost twice as fast as my older computer running a 2.2ghz, with 2gb SATA.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Xorn

[Marmerus]

You don't lie! I put a new machine together so my wife could play swtor with me. So I put together a machine inside an older lian li case I had for about 800$. I realized that any MMO on todays market is not going to require the pinnacle of computing, I guess mostly due to the constraints of bandwidth and sync. It might be hard to pinpoint, but i am suspecting things like the upgrade to 6gb SATA, the very fast I5 2600, the OCed 8gb ram, and the nvidia 550 gtx. All of which is really last years high end, maybe even 2 years. All in all I think it is very responsible of Bioware to make a game that can be maxed with an 800$ machine.

550 gtx has never been high end. GTX 570 or higher is high end but by the end of this month that will be moved down to mid range when Kepler is out.

[Lhaim]

Video with constant above 60 in warzones or constant above 40 in ilum with this rig or it didnt happen.

 

Running i5 2500@5Ghz, gtx570 2x sli, 1920x1080 with everything max (or low doesnt matter in this game) i dip sub 10 in ilum and sub 60 in warzones quite often.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Lhaim

[Mephistofilus]

 

Do NOT get a velociraptor drive! Get a SSD and a normal 7200 rpm HDD. Put the most important stuff on the SSD and the rest on the HDD. This is going to be faster than the velociraptor and it will give you more storage space. Best of both worlds.

 

600GB Gaming Western Digital VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 32MB Cache WD6000HLHX

 

Don't buy that drive.

 

It's like an SSD, but slower. It's overpriced (in the first place, but also due to shortage) and it's not going to improve your gaming at all. You get almost as much benefit from buying any other drive with a 32MB cache.

 

 

Could you use two HDDs instead? Absolutely. I'd recommend a smaller 7200rpm drive (1TB) and a larger 5400rpm drive (2TB+). Both should ideally have 32MB caches. The OS should go on the 7200rpm drive, with whatever applications you care about load times for.

 

 

Ok so given the information that I have been given.. The SSD is not going to make a difference in gaming performance for me. And I would rather not take the risk of the SSD. Perhaps I will wait until the future to go with an SSD.

I can always decide to scrap the HDD I put my OS on later for an SSD if I want.

Prices will probably be lower for the more respectable and reliable brands and given the technology won't be as new... perhaps prices will drop on a nice big one.

 

SO I am going to go with the two HDD drive idea.

One for the OS... and one for the rest.

 

To Malastare, or anyone else who wishes to chime in:

 

You recommended a 1TB and a 2TB Both with 32MB caches, with the OS on the 2TB.

 

The 2TB drive this company offers actually has 64MB cache.

Is that ok or is there some reason to go with 32 MB instead?

 

Here is what they offer:

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

2TB x 2 (2TB Capacity) Raid 1 High Performance with Data Security

Note: The cache was not listed on the Raid 1.

 

Now... is the second one actually 2 drives? Both being 1TB each?

Or what exactly is it?

 

Also... what about just going with two 2TB 64mb 7200rpm drives?

I was thinking about going with two of the FIRST HDD listed above.

 

Is there some reason NOT to get two of the 2 TB drives? Besides someone saying it could be a waste of money? I mean I do have a lot of music and I think both of them being 2TB 7200RPM drives would be a good idea... unless that would slow things down for some reason.

 

Again, thank you everyone for all the help.

I am VERY close to having my build. When I am finished with my choices, I will post them up for everyone to have final opinions on!

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mephistofilus

[Kourage]

I have am Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2GHz

 

 

It sits in a Gigabyte P35-DS3P

 

Now I could have bought another CPU, 3GHz for $65 but the guy at the computer store said I'd be wasting my money. Upgrade the whole motherboard.

 

Then I'd also need DDR3 RAM, should get a larger power supply and upgrade to Windows 7.

[biowareftw]

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".

 

Do me a favor. Go on the most popular server. Fatman. Go to Illum on a tuesday during primetime (we usually have several instances). Play a melee and charge into the zerg group. Record a video of it. When your "rofl stomp" rig becomes a slideshow? Tell me how it is not "bad code".

 

If you are ranged it isn't near as bad. Melee is simply unplayable on any rig in a full Ilum. The settings mean nothing. Low settings get the same FPS as high settings.

 

Same thing happens on a full fleet. Not a slide show but stuttering.

 

On an EMPTY or low population server? You won't see a dip. On an empty Ilum? No different then any planet. Smooth as glass.

 

I am at well over 60 fps everywhere except warzones when a ton of aoe is going on, Ilum that becomes a slideshow and stuttering on the fleet.

 

This game engine simply can't handle more then 8 on 8 pvp and even it can bog down if there is a ton of aoe flying around. Settings don't matter. Hardware doesn't matter. You need a GOOD computer to even stay near a constant 60 fps in warzones.

 

Why do you think they made warzones 8 vs 8? Why not 10? Why not have some warzones more then 8? It is because this game engine is poorly coded. I am not saying it can't be tweaked or get better. They could have a spell animation option for instance.

 

Saying this game engine is not at fault though? Seriously do you work for EA???

 

Like I said make a video on a high pop server like Fatman. Get back to me. When you can't even pull these claimed numbers on the Fleet, let alone Ilum with aoe/spell animations flying all over the place? I will say...told you so.

[piethief]

I've been tempted by the i5-2500k too, for its price, the performance seems excellent, and my Q6700 is ageing now.

 

What stops me though, is that Ivybridge is just about to come out isn't it?

 

I'm interested in whether there will be a significant improvement that makes it worthwhile holding off the i5-2500k. I suppose, even if there isn't, the 2500k might go down in price anyway with the new release.

 

Anybody seen any performance or pricing info on the new range?

[Blackardin]

Same thing happens on a full fleet. Not a slide show but stuttering.

 

I have not been in a war zone, but I am running a 5 or 6 year old rig with a dual core and 4 meg of ram and I can run the game on full graphics everywhere I have leveled, including space missions. At fleet, with 190 players I get some stuttering that is clearly noticable.

 

With that I have to call horsehocky on these post that argue that someone will experience the same issues I do on a modern, updated machine.

[Marmerus]

I've been tempted by the i5-2500k too, for its price, the performance seems excellent, and my Q6700 is ageing now.

 

What stops me though, is that Ivybridge is just about to come out isn't it?

 

I'm interested in whether there will be a significant improvement that makes it worthwhile holding off the i5-2500k. I suppose, even if there isn't, the 2500k might go down in price anyway with the new release.

 

Anybody seen any performance or pricing info on the new range?

 

Wait for ivy bridge. Its just around the corner.

[FourTwent]

Lame, so after looking at what I purchased. . .

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127594

 

I noticed there was a 2GB version of the card for only 30 dollars more I hope the OP wasn't using the 2GB version. . .

[Mephistofilus]

Nobody here that knows about HDD and motherboards and can help with the questions I posted on the last page?

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mephistofilus

[Vulgarr]

550 gtx has never been high end. GTX 570 or higher is high end but by the end of this month that will be moved down to mid range when Kepler is out.

 

generation means nothing. a gtx 550 will not outperform a gtx 275.

 

 

http://www.hwcompare.com/9742/geforce-gtx-275-vs-geforce-gtx-550-ti/

 

 

first number in the nvidia cards means generation. second number is what you look at to determine the quality of the card.

 

everything X40 and below are not gaming cards.

 

the X50 cards are all entry level gaming cards.

the X60 and x70 are mid range cards

the x80 and x90 are high end cards.

 

if things go the way they have in the past, although i havent kept up with the next gen cards and they could surprise me but the past 3 generations have went like:

 

the gtx 590 will be rated in performance the same as the gtx 780 still high end

the gtx 580 will be rated in performance the same as the gtx 770 medium

the gtx 570 (gtx 480/gtx 295) will be rated in performance the same as the gtx 760 medium

the gtx 560 (gtx 470) will be rated in performance the same as the gtx 750 entry level

 

the only difference between a gtx 550 and a gtx 275 is compatibility with versions of directx. the 550 supports directx 11, the 275 supports directx 10. also architecture, and maybe lower temperatures on the newer card.

 

they are going with gtx7xx series this time right? if not replace the 7s with 6s.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Vulgarr

[Vulgarr]

Nobody here that knows about HDD and motherboards and can help with the questions I posted on the last page?

the only reason you couldnt swap a SSD out with a regular HDD is if they dont allow it where you buy it from.

 

if you want to buy the system and after you get it swap it out you can. but you will need a copy of windows to install on one of your HDDs and you will have to buy the extra HDD.

[Nemmar]

In my experience the processor is the most important part for running this game. You need an i3 3Ghz or better for it to work really well.

 

The graphics card is not that important. I upgraded from a Geforce GT 8800 to a Radeon 6950 and the difference was little. For fps issues, the processor is the part that makes the biggest difference on this game.

[Romiz]

In my experience the processor is the most important part for running this game. You need an i3 3Ghz or better for it to work really well.

 

The graphics card is not that important. I upgraded from a Geforce GT 8800 to a Radeon 6950 and the difference was little. For fps issues, the processor is the part that makes the biggest difference on this game.

 

This game is much more GPU intense than CPU. When I use Vsync 2 GPUs run at 28% and CPU only uses 10% If turn Vsync off no charge in CPU usage but GPUs jump to 81% and get 110 FPS.

 

GPU 5970

CPU i7 930

Edited March 5, 2012 by Romiz