Andferne Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I'm in the market for a new gaming desktop and would like one capable of playing ToR on max settings. My question is would the following specs be capable of doing such. Processor 3.6 GHz i7-3820 RAM 16 GB SDRAM DDR3 Hard Drive 2048 GB SATAIII Graphics Coprocessor NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 Graphics Card Ram Size 2048 MB Number of USB 2.0 Ports 10 Number of USB 3.0 Ports 4 Operating System Windows 8 Computer Memory Type DDR3 SDRAM Flash Memory Size 120.0 Hard Drive Interface Serial ATA-600 Hard Drive Rotational Speed 7200 RPM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThiborF Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Yes. But, I would punt back to an i5-3570 and 8gb of memory and with the savings add a SSD OS drive (like a 60gb) instead. You may also want to consider an nVidia 770 vs the 680. They're about the same price. http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-770-vs-GeForce-GTX-680 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwwhite Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 That's nearly the same exact specs I have on my rig and it plays any game (SWTOR included) at max settings with around 60 FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesixxpack Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Yes. and this ▼ Yes. But, I would punt back to an i5-3570 and 8gb of memory and with the savings add a SSD OS drive (like a 60gb) instead. You may also want to consider an nVidia 770 vs the 680. They're about the same price. http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-770-vs-GeForce-GTX-680 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSchuyler Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 That's very close to mine, too. I have a 680, but there's a newer one out now in the 700 range. You can't keep up with GPUs because they change every 6 months, so don't try, but still,, newer is better, by and large. I get over 100 fps with mine most places in game. DO NOT scrimp back on RAM or processor. You simply do not know what the requirements will be next time. RAM is cheap. There's no reason to scale back. You don't want to tailor this PC to the "recommended requirements" for SW. You want to scale it to whatever comes next. Although, I gotta say, that hard drive of yours is pretty big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimvinny Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 More than anything else, you need to add an SSD to that rig. And not 60 gb. I have a 128gb, and with Windows 7, SWTOR, and battlefield 3 installed, I have almost no room left. get the biggest SSD you can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThiborF Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 More than anything else, you need to add an SSD to that rig. And not 60 gb. I have a 128gb, and with Windows 7, SWTOR, and battlefield 3 installed, I have almost no room left. get the biggest SSD you can afford. You realize his initial list didn't have any SSD budgeted. My suggestions merely put him in at about the same price rig that will still bulldoze any game out there AND get him the benefit of SSD for an OS drive though with the savings on the CPU and memory I suggested he could likely get a 128gb one. Obviously if you can afford to then buy a large enough one to hold your favorite games or, at least the ones requiring heavy read/writes while playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malastare Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 More than anything else, you need to add an SSD to that rig. And not 60 gb. I have a 128gb, and with Windows 7, SWTOR, and battlefield 3 installed, I have almost no room left. get the biggest SSD you can afford. No. He doesn't need to add an SSD. SDDs are great. I have one. I'd recommend one for people looking to upgrade their PC. However, it's important to understand what you're getting. The biggest benefit I get from my SSD is the reduced CPU/IO load due to high concurrency and multi-tasking. My gaming system is also my coding system... and my media player... and one of the file servers for my LAN... and a backup controller for my web server. SSDs reduce the IO involved in constantly switching those tasks... and even then, its more for my benefit than for the system. Unless there is something else weird going on, an SSD will not give you higher framerates. It won't let you run at a higher level of detail. It won't do much at all to help with high CPU games. For the majority of games, you won't even notice much of a reduction in stutter or texture load times (even if you decide to load the game entirely from the SSD). For comparison: I have an SSD, and a (current gen) 5400rpm hard drive (with 32MB cache). My wife has a laptop with no SSD and a 7200rpm drive. I've tried the game on all three storage devices. Using the SSD only gives me a 20% decrease in planet load times (About 6s for Alderaan) over my 5400rpm drive. The 7200rpm drive falls somewhere in the middle. The rest of the game has no notable differences in performance. Of course, I have 16GB of memory and my wife has 12GB. That probably gives far more of a benefit than the SSD does, making the SSDs effects less impressive. So, clearly there is no need for an SSD. They're nice, but I see no reason to drop the amount of RAM to buy one. Practically speaking, the extra RAM is more likely to improve game performance than the SSD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smuglebunny Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 blah blah yes that's more than enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts