the bigger the hdd the slower the read times would be. thats only for load screens though. might i suggest a fresh install with just the os and game to see if that improves your performance? maybe reset your modem and router too. possible ur getting some bad ping issues being confused for bad fps?
edit: bad sectors could cause poor performance too. go to a cmd and type chkdsk /x/r
I tend to agree with you here. I finally purchased my dream PC this summer ($2,700 dollars), and to be honest, the performance simply isn't there and my PS3 still plays several multiplatform titles better than my computer.
Your PS3 plays them on much lower settings. Try turning down your video settings and see how that compares.
Also, what SSD did you get? Or did you spend $2700 to get a computer that isn't even high end?
I spent 2k on my PC and it blows any console out of the water.
I spent 1k on my PC and it blows any console out of the water.
See the VelociRaptor down at the bottom? That's faster than your hard drives. A lot faster. Indeed, it's faster than any 1 TB hard drive that ever has been made. And see how it even that compares to the SSDs?
Yes, longer bars are better. The best case scenario is that two in RAID 0 will double performance; realistically, it doesn't help with random reads. But even eight of them in RAID 0 wouldn't perform well compared to a good SSD.
You know how you constantly have to sit there and wait for your computer to do things? You click on a program, sit there and wait, and then eventually it loads? If you had a good SSD, you wouldn't have to wait nearly so long. In some cases, you wouldn't have to wait a noticeable time at all. Loading times are the easiest to measure, but in a lot of other cases, it improves a program's responsiveness, kind of as an offline equivalent to taking 100 ms off of your ping time in an online game. An SSD also fixes hitching problems in some badly-coded games.
An SSD is also dead silent, uses virtually no power, and is nearly indestructible. But in a desktop, it's mainly for speed. The low power and nearly indestructible are really nice in a laptop, though--the latter because dropping the laptop won't damage it.
-----
This post is about 24 hours old, and Karble hasn't posted since yesterday. So I'll ask again: what SSD is it, and what power supply?
you could probably get away with core 2 duo too (no, you won't have to turn the graphics all the way down.) Even if you do, I have not really noticed between highest and lowest in FFXIV on my core i7, GTX 480.
See the VelociRaptor down at the bottom? That's faster than your hard drives. A lot faster. Indeed, it's faster than any 1 TB hard drive that ever has been made. And see how it even that compares to the SSDs?
Yes, longer bars are better. The best case scenario is that two in RAID 0 will double performance; realistically, it doesn't help with random reads. But even eight of them in RAID 0 wouldn't perform well compared to a good SSD.
You know how you constantly have to sit there and wait for your computer to do things? You click on a program, sit there and wait, and then eventually it loads? If you had a good SSD, you wouldn't have to wait nearly so long. In some cases, you wouldn't have to wait a noticeable time at all. Loading times are the easiest to measure, but in a lot of other cases, it improves a program's responsiveness, kind of as an offline equivalent to taking 100 ms off of your ping time in an online game. An SSD also fixes hitching problems in some badly-coded games.
An SSD is also dead silent, uses virtually no power, and is nearly indestructible. But in a desktop, it's mainly for speed. The low power and nearly indestructible are really nice in a laptop, though--the latter because dropping the laptop won't damage it.
-----
This post is about 24 hours old, and Karble hasn't posted since yesterday. So I'll ask again: what SSD is it, and what power supply?
Well ok, it helps performance in badly coded games, but what games are "badly coded," and how much does it help?
Considering some of the best SSD drives are around $500 dollars, and all I care about is video game framerate, I'd rather spend that kinda money on getting a good cooling system or something.
My processor is the AMD Phenom X6 1090T @ 3.2GHz, and I've been curious as to whether or not I should get a cooling system that would allow me to push it up a bit.
Are frame rates really the only thing you care about? So you don't care at all if your system is generally sluggish, just so long as it doesn't kill your average frame rates in games?
Never use anything like, say, e-mail or a web browser? Or just not care at all about performance in other programs besides games?
Good SSDs are around $2/GB. The price depends on the capacity you need.
Are frame rates really the only thing you care about? So you don't care at all if your system is generally sluggish, just so long as it doesn't kill your average frame rates in games?
Good SSDs are around $2/GB. The price depends on the capacity you need.
Really yeah. I mean, I built this thing for video gaming, with intentions of playing games like Rift, FFXIV, SW:TOR, GW2, and TERA on max settings with a smooth framerate.
I edited my post with a link to my processor, and I've been contemplating looking into water cooling so that I can push my processor a bit higher, thinking that might give me some performance gains. Problem is the couple of people I know that are heavily into PCs don't know much about the stuff, and I don't think it'd be a good idea to talk to my computer store about OCing this machine they just built me.
If I were to purchase an SSD, would I be able to use it in addition to the 2 TBs worth of storage space I have on my HDDs (lots of space), seeing as the SSD's don't offer quite as much breathing room just yet.
Are frame rates really the only thing you care about? So you don't care at all if your system is generally sluggish, just so long as it doesn't kill your average frame rates in games?
Good SSDs are around $2/GB. The price depends on the capacity you need.
Really yeah. I mean, I built this thing for video gaming, with intentions of playing games like Rift, FFXIV, SW:TOR, GW2, and TERA on max settings with a smooth framerate.
I edited my post with a link to my processor, and I've been contemplating looking into water cooling so that I can push my processor a bit higher, thinking that might give me some performance gains. Problem is the couple of people I know that are heavily into PCs don't know much about the stuff, and I don't think it'd be a good idea to talk to my computer store about OCing this machine they just built me.
Just snoop around http://hardforum.com/ and you should be able to find a guide to OC Amd & Intel cpu's.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
your computer store is the perfect place to talk abou tthis stuff. thats what we get paid to do good sir. i dont really think u need to oc it though. i tell my customers to start ocing when they have a second machine. full water solutions is hard for most of my customers, luckily they have some very simple water cooler out that are just for the cpu
As long as you haven't disabled turbo core, it will clock 3 cores up to 3.6 GHz on its own if the others are idle. The only games where the processor will hold you back in the near future are really badly coded ones.
I guess if you really don't care if your computer does what you tell it when you tell it or usually sometime later and occasionally not at all, then an SSD isn't for you. But I think that's nuts, and that you don't realize what you're giving up.
How'd you spend $2700 on a computer with a $300 processor ($300 at launch, cheaper today) and no SSD? Two liquid cooled GTX 480s in SLI, or something crazy like that? Three monitors and include that in the purchase price?
also go ahead and disable that turbo core stuff. it all sounds good on paper but nine times outa ten u actually get better performance disabling that shit and setting core affinitys manually
also go ahead and disable that turbo core stuff. it all sounds good on paper but nine times outa ten u actually get better performance disabling that shit and setting core affinitys manually
Err, what? You expect a core to run faster a 3.2 GHz than at 3.6 GHz? If sometimes it runs at 3.2 GHz when it could have run at 3.6 GHz, that's not going to be slower than always running at 3.2 GHz.
Sure, you disable turbo core if you're going to overclock it yourself. But not if you're leaving it at stock speeds.
As long as you haven't disabled turbo core, it will clock 3 cores up to 3.6 GHz on its own if the others are idle. The only games where the processor will hold you back in the near future are really badly coded ones.
I guess if you really don't care if your computer does what you tell it when you tell it or usually sometime later and occasionally not at all, then an SSD isn't for you. But I think that's nuts, and that you don't realize what you're giving up.
How'd you spend $2700 on a computer with a $300 processor ($300 at launch, cheaper today) and no SSD? Two liquid cooled GTX 480s in SLI, or something crazy like that? Three monitors and include that in the purchase price?
I really don't know what I'm missing since I don't know anyone that has an SSD, but as I said, if I'm going to spend money on something, my first priority is what affects video game performance the most. The speed at which I can pull up programs and such is simply a bonus for me. As for how I spent so much money on a system without all that stuff, well, unless my 8 gigs of RAM was super expensive, I'm not so sure, but I can just PM you a full list of parts a bit later because I don't have the parts list on me atm.
I know a good bit about what's in my PC, but I have exact specifics on a print sheet.
also go ahead and disable that turbo core stuff. it all sounds good on paper but nine times outa ten u actually get better performance disabling that shit and setting core affinitys manually
Err, what? You expect a core to run faster a 3.2 GHz than at 3.6 GHz? If sometimes it runs at 3.2 GHz when it could have run at 3.6 GHz, that's not going to be slower than always running at 3.2 GHz.
Sure, you disable turbo core if you're going to overclock it yourself. But not if you're leaving it at stock speeds.
well thats a common mistake people make. what u dont htink bout is that u are not just running a video game. u are running an os, internet, and if your like me, you are playing another game and watching hulu at the same time. why disable cores for a nominal ghz increase? set each core to do a differnet task. and yes oc it too if u want, but i usually have better frames on alot of different builds turning off that turbo core and setting things up manually.
See the VelociRaptor down at the bottom? That's faster than your hard drives. A lot faster. Indeed, it's faster than any 1 TB hard drive that ever has been made. And see how it even that compares to the SSDs?
Yes, longer bars are better. The best case scenario is that two in RAID 0 will double performance; realistically, it doesn't help with random reads. But even eight of them in RAID 0 wouldn't perform well compared to a good SSD.
You know how you constantly have to sit there and wait for your computer to do things? You click on a program, sit there and wait, and then eventually it loads? If you had a good SSD, you wouldn't have to wait nearly so long. In some cases, you wouldn't have to wait a noticeable time at all. Loading times are the easiest to measure, but in a lot of other cases, it improves a program's responsiveness, kind of as an offline equivalent to taking 100 ms off of your ping time in an online game. An SSD also fixes hitching problems in some badly-coded games.
An SSD is also dead silent, uses virtually no power, and is nearly indestructible. But in a desktop, it's mainly for speed. The low power and nearly indestructible are really nice in a laptop, though--the latter because dropping the laptop won't damage it.
-----
This post is about 24 hours old, and Karble hasn't posted since yesterday. So I'll ask again: what SSD is it, and what power supply?
my power supply is a Thermaltake Toughpower 750 W.
The SSD I want to get is the Crucial Real SSD C300 CFDDAC128
Hey...been playing some games for a while and just to help you out. Getting a 570 for this game is going overboard. Grab a 460 or 470 and the game should run as good as a 570. If you want more than a 460 or 470, than grab the 480. Simply the 570 is not worth it, you will regret it! I am not lying cause I have own a 480 and 570 and don't see any difference.
Hey...been playing some games for a while and just to help you out. Getting a 570 for this game is going overboard. Grab a 460 or 470 and the game should run as good as a 570. If you want more than a 460 or 470, than grab the 480. Simply the 570 is not worth it, you will regret it! I am not lying cause I have own a 480 and 570 and don't see any difference.
The 480 vs 570
480 costs $400 at cheapest
570 costs $360 average
480 runs hotter
570 cooler
480 guzzles more power
570 less power
480 more loud fan
570 more quiet fan
480 slower frame rates
570 faster frame rates
...to me there is is no comparison between the two since the 570 walks all over the 480 for cheaper. the 460 on the other hand is very desirable for the price. Before the 570 came out I was strongly leaning to the 460.
See the VelociRaptor down at the bottom? That's faster than your hard drives. A lot faster. Indeed, it's faster than any 1 TB hard drive that ever has been made. And see how it even that compares to the SSDs?
Yes, longer bars are better. The best case scenario is that two in RAID 0 will double performance; realistically, it doesn't help with random reads. But even eight of them in RAID 0 wouldn't perform well compared to a good SSD.
You know how you constantly have to sit there and wait for your computer to do things? You click on a program, sit there and wait, and then eventually it loads? If you had a good SSD, you wouldn't have to wait nearly so long. In some cases, you wouldn't have to wait a noticeable time at all. Loading times are the easiest to measure, but in a lot of other cases, it improves a program's responsiveness, kind of as an offline equivalent to taking 100 ms off of your ping time in an online game. An SSD also fixes hitching problems in some badly-coded games.
An SSD is also dead silent, uses virtually no power, and is nearly indestructible. But in a desktop, it's mainly for speed. The low power and nearly indestructible are really nice in a laptop, though--the latter because dropping the laptop won't damage it.
-----
This post is about 24 hours old, and Karble hasn't posted since yesterday. So I'll ask again: what SSD is it, and what power supply?
Well ok, it helps performance in badly coded games, but what games are "badly coded," and how much does it help?
Considering some of the best SSD drives are around $500 dollars, and all I care about is video game framerate, I'd rather spend that kinda money on getting a good cooling system or something.
My processor is the AMD Phenom X6 1090T @ 3.2GHz, and I've been curious as to whether or not I should get a cooling system that would allow me to push it up a bit.
An SSD helps with load times of anything.
Examples are....you come home and hit power on pc...wait for it to go thru post then OS loads then programs load....then you are finally ready to click on Rift and you have to wait for it to load...then you have to wait for the login in to charcter screen....then you have to wait for the load to wherever your char is in the land.....then you play for a bit and decide to enter a dungeon and then wait some more for the dungeon to load.
All these are examples of you waiting around for your pc when the actions could be completed almost as quick as when you click the mouse button. No waiting is a great thing. Imagine if we still had 2400baud modems and internet speeds never increased. You would take literally 3 weeks to download a big patch the size of today's patches. Progress is a good thing. Hard drives are good for storage. Keep your music and videos on those. But keep your Operating system and your top few games on an SSD for insane boost to your overall experiance with speed.
Before I say anything. I've worked on and build systems of all types including Macs. Windows, Linux, Unix, You name it I've build it. Amd or Intel. BOTH are great. AMD are stable at higher speeds if you plan to overclock and have good cooling, Intel are strong chips and are harder to OC but have less heat... and cost a SHIT ton.
Now SSD's... Are over priced. And unless your doing high end rendering, fucking stupid to buy.
spend $20 and get a 16 gig flash drive. Plug it in and use Windows Readyboost. Same thing minus the price tag.
If you can:
AMD Phemon II x6
x2 Nvidia gtx460
750watt PwrSupply
MSI makes an AM3 Nvidia bourd that is amazing.
12-16 gigs ram minumal speed 5-5-5-15.
This will play anything out there now. End of story. you are future proofed. 460's are cheap. ~$260 They run hot so have a good case.
Remember, Not everything uses SLI, multiple cores, or Crossfire.
But if your just doing gaming this would hold you for a YEARS.
Most games can be played on their highest settings with two 8800gt's 8 gigs of ram. and a quad core.
I meant the 580 compare to the 480. That is a my bad, it is your choice to go with the 570. But really, you don't need the 570, a 460 is good enough because I used $1000 to built a PC for FF14 and saw little differnece. Was using a 8800 GTX OC and got a 480. Just saying that a 570 can do a bit better but not that much. 460 is already good enough for you to play at high setting because a graphic card alone does not make your PC better. It also depends on your other PC parts too. I'm just telling you from experience and also you asking if your using too mcuh money, and the answer is yes! In a couple of months, some better cards will come out making your 570 even cheaper. Its all about money.
well thats a common mistake people make. what u dont htink bout is that u are not just running a video game. u are running an os, internet, and if your like me, you are playing another game and watching hulu at the same time. why disable cores for a nominal ghz increase? set each core to do a differnet task. and yes oc it too if u want, but i usually have better frames on alot of different builds turning off that turbo core and setting things up manually.
You've got dozens of processes running in the background. You have to stack a lot of them on the same core. But if you take 20 things that each use less than 0.1% of one core and put them all on the same core, they work just fine.
You don't disable cores. What turbo core does is to say, hey, one of the cores is maxed out, and three of the cores aren't doing anything, so let's clock the one that is in use higher. Without power gating to completely shut off the other cores, it's not as nice of an implementation as Intel's power gating, but it's still a lot better than nothing.
Also, power gating doesn't turn have to turn off a core for very long. If the processor decides that it could use another core, it can turn it back on in a small fraction of a second. Lynnfield processors can easily turn a core on and off several times per second.
-----
A Thermaltake Toughpower 750 W is a good enough power supply that I wouldn't worry about it. I asked because some people have rather bad power supplies and don't know it.
I wouldn't get a Crucial RealSSD C300 unless you have SATA 3 in the chipset--which the P55 chipset doesn't. It's really only any better than the SandForce drives if it can take advantage of SATA 3 sequential read speeds. Having a separate SATA 3 chip on the motherboard steal PCI Express lanes really isn't that great of a solution--and in some cases, it would mean running your video card at PCI Express x8 bandwidth rather than x16.
If you want high frame rates at max settings, I'd wait for Sandy Bridge. That will offer higher clock speeds and better performance per clock cycles, for about the same price tag. That should launch somewhere around January 5-10. I think the P67 chipset is supposed to have SATA 3 in the chipset. If the game is single-threaded as people are saying, then Sandy Bridge should especially help with that, as it's going to have a more aggressive turbo boost, in addition to the higher base clocks and better performance per clock cycle.
Personally, I'd probably go with a SandForce drive over the RealSSD C300 just because the SandForce ones tend to be cheaper for the same capacity. But the RealSSD C300 is a very nice drive, too, now that the firmware problems seem to be fixed. The RealSSD C300 is better than the SandForce drives at reads and the SandForce ones are better at writes, both both are very good at both. Reads are probably more important.
There are some new SSD controllers coming soon from Intel, SandForce, and Indilinx, possibly among others. I wouldn't buy an SSD with a new controller right after it launches for fear of firmware problems. Both the SandForce and the Marvell controllers (the latter is what Crucial's RealSSD C300 uses) have been around for long enough to have mature firmware, so that's not an issue.
-----
Faster program load times that you can measure with a stopwatch are nice, but not the main point. Trying to explain why you need an SSD is kind of like trying to explain why you need a hardware cursor rather than a software cursor. The only way to really understand it is to try both for yourself, and the difference will jump out at you.
The first time you use a good SSD, it might not seem blazingly fast. When things just work, you don't necessarily notice; it's when they don't work that you notice. But if you use an SSD for a week and then go back to a hard drive, the hard drive will seem a lot slower than you remember. You kind of adapt to the sluggishness caused by a hard drive, and don't necessarily realize that it could be otherwise, the way that people adapted to Windows offering a blue screen a day or so in the late 90s.
I meant the 580 compare to the 480. That is a my bad, it is your choice to go with the 570. But really, you don't need the 570, a 460 is good enough because I used $1000 to built a PC for FF14 and saw little differnece. Was using a 8800 GTX OC and got a 480. Just saying that a 570 can do a bit better but not that much. 460 is already good enough for you to play at high setting because a graphic card alone does not make your PC better. It also depends on your other PC parts too. I'm just telling you from experience and also you asking if your using too mcuh money, and the answer is yes! In a couple of months, some better cards will come out making your 570 even cheaper. Its all about money.
A GeForce GTX 570 offers about 85% of the performance of a GTX 580 for 70% of the price tag. The GTX 580 only makes sense for people who absolutely insist on the very best single GPU card and are willing to pay quite a price premium for it.
You can often get better performance per dollar from cards in about the $100-$220 range, depending on what happens to be on sale that day. But those are lower performance cards.
I ran the game flawlessly on max settings, with 100+ people on screen on my 8800GT card. Old card, but otherwise a new system though Phenom 1075T, 8gig ram. Was running 1650x1280 resolution (or whatever the closest numbers are)
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
The game engine is very well optimized. You can run it at high quality graphics on a decent pc.
Who could have thought that WOW could bring super power like USA to its knees?
Originally posted by Arcken
To put it in a nutshell, our society is about to hit the fan, grades are dropping, obesity is going up,childhood the USA is going to lose its super power status before too long, but hey, as long as we have a cheap method to babysit our kids, all will be well no? Im picking on WoW btw because its the beast that made all of this possible
Comments
I did ask. I was recommend two 7200 RPM 1 TBs in Raid 0.
How would the HD make "that" much of a difference anyway?
the bigger the hdd the slower the read times would be. thats only for load screens though. might i suggest a fresh install with just the os and game to see if that improves your performance? maybe reset your modem and router too. possible ur getting some bad ping issues being confused for bad fps?
edit: bad sectors could cause poor performance too. go to a cmd and type chkdsk /x/r
Yeah what are the specs?
Go here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3681/oczs-vertex-2-special-sauce-sf1200-reviewed/6
See the VelociRaptor down at the bottom? That's faster than your hard drives. A lot faster. Indeed, it's faster than any 1 TB hard drive that ever has been made. And see how it even that compares to the SSDs?
Yes, longer bars are better. The best case scenario is that two in RAID 0 will double performance; realistically, it doesn't help with random reads. But even eight of them in RAID 0 wouldn't perform well compared to a good SSD.
You know how you constantly have to sit there and wait for your computer to do things? You click on a program, sit there and wait, and then eventually it loads? If you had a good SSD, you wouldn't have to wait nearly so long. In some cases, you wouldn't have to wait a noticeable time at all. Loading times are the easiest to measure, but in a lot of other cases, it improves a program's responsiveness, kind of as an offline equivalent to taking 100 ms off of your ping time in an online game. An SSD also fixes hitching problems in some badly-coded games.
An SSD is also dead silent, uses virtually no power, and is nearly indestructible. But in a desktop, it's mainly for speed. The low power and nearly indestructible are really nice in a laptop, though--the latter because dropping the laptop won't damage it.
-----
This post is about 24 hours old, and Karble hasn't posted since yesterday. So I'll ask again: what SSD is it, and what power supply?
core i5 quad
Nvidia GTX 460
4 GB RAM
700~ power supply.
you could probably get away with core 2 duo too (no, you won't have to turn the graphics all the way down.) Even if you do, I have not really noticed between highest and lowest in FFXIV on my core i7, GTX 480.
Guild Wars 2's 50 minutes game play video:
http://n4g.com/news/592585/guild-wars-2-50-minutes-of-pure-gameplay
Everything We Know about GW2:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/287180/page/1
Well ok, it helps performance in badly coded games, but what games are "badly coded," and how much does it help?
Considering some of the best SSD drives are around $500 dollars, and all I care about is video game framerate, I'd rather spend that kinda money on getting a good cooling system or something.
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=phenom+x6+1090t&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=17156787252500768985&ei=4-EOTbPoN8P58AaRxLSEDg&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q8wIwAg#
My processor is the AMD Phenom X6 1090T @ 3.2GHz, and I've been curious as to whether or not I should get a cooling system that would allow me to push it up a bit.
Are frame rates really the only thing you care about? So you don't care at all if your system is generally sluggish, just so long as it doesn't kill your average frame rates in games?
Never use anything like, say, e-mail or a web browser? Or just not care at all about performance in other programs besides games?
Good SSDs are around $2/GB. The price depends on the capacity you need.
Really yeah. I mean, I built this thing for video gaming, with intentions of playing games like Rift, FFXIV, SW:TOR, GW2, and TERA on max settings with a smooth framerate.
I edited my post with a link to my processor, and I've been contemplating looking into water cooling so that I can push my processor a bit higher, thinking that might give me some performance gains. Problem is the couple of people I know that are heavily into PCs don't know much about the stuff, and I don't think it'd be a good idea to talk to my computer store about OCing this machine they just built me.
If I were to purchase an SSD, would I be able to use it in addition to the 2 TBs worth of storage space I have on my HDDs (lots of space), seeing as the SSD's don't offer quite as much breathing room just yet.
Just snoop around http://hardforum.com/ and you should be able to find a guide to OC Amd & Intel cpu's.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
your computer store is the perfect place to talk abou tthis stuff. thats what we get paid to do good sir. i dont really think u need to oc it though. i tell my customers to start ocing when they have a second machine. full water solutions is hard for most of my customers, luckily they have some very simple water cooler out that are just for the cpu
As long as you haven't disabled turbo core, it will clock 3 cores up to 3.6 GHz on its own if the others are idle. The only games where the processor will hold you back in the near future are really badly coded ones.
I guess if you really don't care if your computer does what you tell it when you tell it or usually sometime later and occasionally not at all, then an SSD isn't for you. But I think that's nuts, and that you don't realize what you're giving up.
How'd you spend $2700 on a computer with a $300 processor ($300 at launch, cheaper today) and no SSD? Two liquid cooled GTX 480s in SLI, or something crazy like that? Three monitors and include that in the purchase price?
also go ahead and disable that turbo core stuff. it all sounds good on paper but nine times outa ten u actually get better performance disabling that shit and setting core affinitys manually
Err, what? You expect a core to run faster a 3.2 GHz than at 3.6 GHz? If sometimes it runs at 3.2 GHz when it could have run at 3.6 GHz, that's not going to be slower than always running at 3.2 GHz.
Sure, you disable turbo core if you're going to overclock it yourself. But not if you're leaving it at stock speeds.
I really don't know what I'm missing since I don't know anyone that has an SSD, but as I said, if I'm going to spend money on something, my first priority is what affects video game performance the most. The speed at which I can pull up programs and such is simply a bonus for me. As for how I spent so much money on a system without all that stuff, well, unless my 8 gigs of RAM was super expensive, I'm not so sure, but I can just PM you a full list of parts a bit later because I don't have the parts list on me atm.
I know a good bit about what's in my PC, but I have exact specifics on a print sheet.
well thats a common mistake people make. what u dont htink bout is that u are not just running a video game. u are running an os, internet, and if your like me, you are playing another game and watching hulu at the same time. why disable cores for a nominal ghz increase? set each core to do a differnet task. and yes oc it too if u want, but i usually have better frames on alot of different builds turning off that turbo core and setting things up manually.
my power supply is a Thermaltake Toughpower 750 W.
The SSD I want to get is the Crucial Real SSD C300 CFDDAC128
Hey...been playing some games for a while and just to help you out. Getting a 570 for this game is going overboard. Grab a 460 or 470 and the game should run as good as a 570. If you want more than a 460 or 470, than grab the 480. Simply the 570 is not worth it, you will regret it! I am not lying cause I have own a 480 and 570 and don't see any difference.
The 480 vs 570
480 costs $400 at cheapest
570 costs $360 average
480 runs hotter
570 cooler
480 guzzles more power
570 less power
480 more loud fan
570 more quiet fan
480 slower frame rates
570 faster frame rates
...to me there is is no comparison between the two since the 570 walks all over the 480 for cheaper. the 460 on the other hand is very desirable for the price. Before the 570 came out I was strongly leaning to the 460.
An SSD helps with load times of anything.
Examples are....you come home and hit power on pc...wait for it to go thru post then OS loads then programs load....then you are finally ready to click on Rift and you have to wait for it to load...then you have to wait for the login in to charcter screen....then you have to wait for the load to wherever your char is in the land.....then you play for a bit and decide to enter a dungeon and then wait some more for the dungeon to load.
All these are examples of you waiting around for your pc when the actions could be completed almost as quick as when you click the mouse button. No waiting is a great thing. Imagine if we still had 2400baud modems and internet speeds never increased. You would take literally 3 weeks to download a big patch the size of today's patches. Progress is a good thing. Hard drives are good for storage. Keep your music and videos on those. But keep your Operating system and your top few games on an SSD for insane boost to your overall experiance with speed.
Before I say anything. I've worked on and build systems of all types including Macs. Windows, Linux, Unix, You name it I've build it. Amd or Intel. BOTH are great. AMD are stable at higher speeds if you plan to overclock and have good cooling, Intel are strong chips and are harder to OC but have less heat... and cost a SHIT ton.
Now SSD's... Are over priced. And unless your doing high end rendering, fucking stupid to buy.
spend $20 and get a 16 gig flash drive. Plug it in and use Windows Readyboost. Same thing minus the price tag.
If you can:
AMD Phemon II x6
x2 Nvidia gtx460
750watt PwrSupply
MSI makes an AM3 Nvidia bourd that is amazing.
12-16 gigs ram minumal speed 5-5-5-15.
This will play anything out there now. End of story. you are future proofed. 460's are cheap. ~$260 They run hot so have a good case.
Remember, Not everything uses SLI, multiple cores, or Crossfire.
But if your just doing gaming this would hold you for a YEARS.
Most games can be played on their highest settings with two 8800gt's 8 gigs of ram. and a quad core.
Outside of fucking crysis.
I meant the 580 compare to the 480. That is a my bad, it is your choice to go with the 570. But really, you don't need the 570, a 460 is good enough because I used $1000 to built a PC for FF14 and saw little differnece. Was using a 8800 GTX OC and got a 480. Just saying that a 570 can do a bit better but not that much. 460 is already good enough for you to play at high setting because a graphic card alone does not make your PC better. It also depends on your other PC parts too. I'm just telling you from experience and also you asking if your using too mcuh money, and the answer is yes! In a couple of months, some better cards will come out making your 570 even cheaper. Its all about money.
You've got dozens of processes running in the background. You have to stack a lot of them on the same core. But if you take 20 things that each use less than 0.1% of one core and put them all on the same core, they work just fine.
You don't disable cores. What turbo core does is to say, hey, one of the cores is maxed out, and three of the cores aren't doing anything, so let's clock the one that is in use higher. Without power gating to completely shut off the other cores, it's not as nice of an implementation as Intel's power gating, but it's still a lot better than nothing.
Also, power gating doesn't turn have to turn off a core for very long. If the processor decides that it could use another core, it can turn it back on in a small fraction of a second. Lynnfield processors can easily turn a core on and off several times per second.
-----
A Thermaltake Toughpower 750 W is a good enough power supply that I wouldn't worry about it. I asked because some people have rather bad power supplies and don't know it.
I wouldn't get a Crucial RealSSD C300 unless you have SATA 3 in the chipset--which the P55 chipset doesn't. It's really only any better than the SandForce drives if it can take advantage of SATA 3 sequential read speeds. Having a separate SATA 3 chip on the motherboard steal PCI Express lanes really isn't that great of a solution--and in some cases, it would mean running your video card at PCI Express x8 bandwidth rather than x16.
If you want high frame rates at max settings, I'd wait for Sandy Bridge. That will offer higher clock speeds and better performance per clock cycles, for about the same price tag. That should launch somewhere around January 5-10. I think the P67 chipset is supposed to have SATA 3 in the chipset. If the game is single-threaded as people are saying, then Sandy Bridge should especially help with that, as it's going to have a more aggressive turbo boost, in addition to the higher base clocks and better performance per clock cycle.
Personally, I'd probably go with a SandForce drive over the RealSSD C300 just because the SandForce ones tend to be cheaper for the same capacity. But the RealSSD C300 is a very nice drive, too, now that the firmware problems seem to be fixed. The RealSSD C300 is better than the SandForce drives at reads and the SandForce ones are better at writes, both both are very good at both. Reads are probably more important.
There are some new SSD controllers coming soon from Intel, SandForce, and Indilinx, possibly among others. I wouldn't buy an SSD with a new controller right after it launches for fear of firmware problems. Both the SandForce and the Marvell controllers (the latter is what Crucial's RealSSD C300 uses) have been around for long enough to have mature firmware, so that's not an issue.
-----
Faster program load times that you can measure with a stopwatch are nice, but not the main point. Trying to explain why you need an SSD is kind of like trying to explain why you need a hardware cursor rather than a software cursor. The only way to really understand it is to try both for yourself, and the difference will jump out at you.
The first time you use a good SSD, it might not seem blazingly fast. When things just work, you don't necessarily notice; it's when they don't work that you notice. But if you use an SSD for a week and then go back to a hard drive, the hard drive will seem a lot slower than you remember. You kind of adapt to the sluggishness caused by a hard drive, and don't necessarily realize that it could be otherwise, the way that people adapted to Windows offering a blue screen a day or so in the late 90s.
A GeForce GTX 570 offers about 85% of the performance of a GTX 580 for 70% of the price tag. The GTX 580 only makes sense for people who absolutely insist on the very best single GPU card and are willing to pay quite a price premium for it.
You can often get better performance per dollar from cards in about the $100-$220 range, depending on what happens to be on sale that day. But those are lower performance cards.
I ran the game flawlessly on max settings, with 100+ people on screen on my 8800GT card. Old card, but otherwise a new system though Phenom 1075T, 8gig ram. Was running 1650x1280 resolution (or whatever the closest numbers are)
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
The game engine is very well optimized. You can run it at high quality graphics on a decent pc.
Who could have thought that WOW could bring super power like USA to its knees?
Originally posted by Arcken
To put it in a nutshell, our society is about to hit the fan, grades are dropping, obesity is going up,childhood the USA is going to lose its super power status before too long, but hey, as long as we have a cheap method to babysit our kids, all will be well no?
Im picking on WoW btw because its the beast that made all of this possible