Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Ideal MMO System
How would you set up your ideal MMO machine?
I want to buy a new system for MMOs and don't have a price limit. I don't want to go overboard, though, and I don't want to get into water cooling and whatnot, which seems to be required if I went out and bought the best of everything. (This would be pointless anyways as MMOs aren't that demanding.) I'm having a hard time finding that sweet spot and I'm a bit overwhelmed, as well.
Comments
For me you are just talking about that gaming rig that is almost standardised:
i5 3570
Mobo of you choice with what ever bells and whistles you want
8gb of DDR3 1600
7870 or 660ti or 670 depending on how pretty you want it
Decent 600+ W PSU
Good gaming case - the new Antec 300 is a good starting point
A SSD - again plenty to choose from i would suggest a 120/240Gb Samsung 830
Storage HDD
Optical Drive
Then you may also want to look at some MMO specific mice: Naga
That system is what i class as the sweet spot - not the most expensive but should get the best results per $ gaming wise and also give you some future proofing.
Interesting. Take a look:
Motherboard: Asus Sabertooth z77
CPU: Intel Core i5 3570K
GPU: N680GTX Twin Frozr 4GD5/OC
8G of appropriate RAM
Big case
Good PSU : Antec HCP-750 750
SSD + HD
Thoughts?
I thought about getting an i7 and then buying a Rampage IV motherboard. Do you think that would make much of a difference?
My goal is to get the best visuals I can and then make videos of various MMO events.
That sounds interesting. I didn't know that was possible with MMOs. I would like to get the highest resolution possible for the videos. Perhaps using multiple monitors would help.
You can make anything scale across however many monitors - the problem mostly lay with UI elements (skill bars, mini maps, menus, etc) and making them show up where they are useful. Some games have enough customization that you can make them work without any trouble - others need some work-arounds.
This is a bit older post, but describes some of what I'm talking about:
http://www.tech-forums.net/forums/f15/amd-eyefinity-compaitibility-238094/
The only other trick with multiple monitors are the bezels (the strips of plastic case around the edges of the monitors) and mounting. Some monitors have huge bezels, and would make stacking them next to each other a bit disconcerting to the eye. Also, need to make sure you can mount them (especially if you do vertical) where the monitors aren't going to fall over, move, shift, etc. There are special stands that do this, or you can do it yourself with a little hardware, but generally if you just buy 3 monitors and stand them next to each other - every time one of them shifts a bit (move to unplug a cable, your desk shakes, something) you will notice it because the angle will be different.
The idea of multiple monitors is that the video card tells a game that it's just one really big monitor and that the game should be rendered at a large resolution. The video card then takes the large resolution game image and breaks it up as this part goes on this monitor and that part on that monitor. The real work is done by the video card, so it works with any game unless the game programmers either go out of their way to artificially disable it or are idiots who lock you into one of a handful preset resolutions--which, at least in OpenGL, would actually be more work to code than allowing a window to be any arbitrary resolution.
As Ridelynn pointed out, some game UIs aren't meant for ultra-high resolutions. It will still work, but important things may be way off to the side in awkward locations. This won't be a problem for games with an appropriately customizable UI that let you put things wherever you want them. But it can be a problem in games with a badly-designed UI.
If you want to go with multiple monitors, then you need to decide how many monitors and how they're oriented. You normally want an odd number of monitors, as an even number of monitors means a monitor bezel right through the center of the window--which splits your character in half and looks terrible. That might look fine on a video that won't show the bezels, but isn't useful for gaming.
So your real choices are 3 monitors or 5 monitors. GeForce 600 series GPU chips can do up to four monitors. Most Radeon HD 5000 series and later GPU chips can do up to six. But just because a GPU chip can handle several monitors doesn't mean you can actually run several if the needed monitor ports aren't present. If you want three monitors, you've got a lot of options, but do need to check the particular card before you buy it to make sure it has the right ports. If you want five, either of these cards are pretty much built for running six monitors:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121560
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127670
Next is the question of whether you want to run the monitors in landscape or portrait mode. If they're 1920x1080 monitors, then this basically gives you a choice of a combined resolution of 5760x1080 or 3240x1920. There are at least two critical things to consider here that aren't obvious.
One is that the way that 3D graphics is typically done is by projecting a frustum onto a plane. The idea is that this is what the world would look like as viewed from a camera some particular distance from the exact center of the screen. If you increase the resolution, the camera position isn't assumed to move back. This will still look fine to you if you just add monitors off to the side with screens parallel to the center one. But it can look rather dumb in screenshots as viewed by people with only one monitor.
Perhaps some examples will demonstrate. Here's a program perspective chosen for a narrow frustum width:
Here's the same program with double the frustum width:
Note how the trees and the brick wall look rather slanted toward the edges of the map. Here's the same program with quadruple the original frustum width:
The trees on the edges look like they're falling over. One bush near the front looks like you see the back of the bush as much as the front. All three screenshots were taken on a monitor of the same resolution, with a camera pointed downward about 36 degrees away from being parallel to the ground.
It's possible to compensate for this by reducing the frustum width. But games generally don't do this, in part because it would mean a larger resolution doesn't let you see any more. They assume that the screens are all parallel (as is pretty much mandatory in DirectX 9.0c and earlier and a lot of work to get around even in newer versions) and that you're exactly the same distance from the center monitor no matter how many you have or what their resolutions are (which they could let you adjust if they wanted to, but they don't).
If you go for three monitors in landscape mode for a 5760x1080 resolution, then get used to seeing a lot of edge distortion. If you find screenshots that people have taken with three monitors in that resolution, the stuff off to the sides looks like it's falling over. It's the correct perspective for a user in the right spot, but looks dumb to people who zoom out and see it from only one monitor.
You can reduce the edge distortion by having the camera much nearer to parallel to the ground. But then you don't have a clear view of the action, which is useless for an awful lot of games. If you put the monitors in portrait mode instead for a 3240x1920 combined resolution, you'll still get some edge distortion, but a lot less, basically because 3240 pixels of width is a lot less than 5760.
The other factor that I'd like to bring up is viewing angles. Pretty much all modern monitors have good horizontal viewing angles. That's not true of vertical viewing angles, however. Stand off to the side of your computer and look at it such that the direction you're facing is maybe 30 degrees away from being parallel to the monitor. The colors should look pretty close to correct. Now do the same looking down from above. That will probably make the colors look all washed out, as most monitors don't have good vertical viewing angles. (Actually, you'd want a brighter page than this web site to get the proper effect.)
If you set a monitor on its end to view it in portrait mode, then what is normally the vertical viewing angles becomes horizontal instead. That will make a lot of monitors look terrible as viewed off to the side. IPS monitors have good vertical viewing angles in addition to horizontal. IPS also gives you better color accuracy than the traditional TN. The downsides are that IPS is more expensive, and that the response time is slower. The latter means it takes several milliseconds longer to get an image onto the screen. For e-IPS (which tensd to be the cheapest type of IPS), this isn't really a problem, but for some other types, it's slow enough as to be awkward for gaming. A 30 ms response time on S-IPS is fine if it's for mostly still shots and you need excellent quality on those still shots. That's what the monitors are for--but isn't a description of how most games work.
Even once you know how many monitors you want and how you want to orient them, there's still the question of what size of montiors to get. 1920x1080 is pretty cheap. 1920x1200 is a lot more expensive. 2560x1440 costs considerably more yet, and 2560x1600 costs several times as much per monitor as 1920x1080. There is also 3840x2160, but that's several thousand dollars and can't go over 30 frames per second yet, so that's not what you wnat.
One reason I'm bringing up monitors right now is that your monitor choices have a big impact on what video cards will work for you, and that subsequently affects other things.
Thank you for the detailed reply. Starting with a monitor sounds like an intelligent idea. I'm not in a hurry to rush out and buy everything, because (1) I want to make the best choices I can for what I want to do and (2) I want to think about this for awhile to make sure it's something I want to do. (It's easy to rush into something and regret it later.)
Looking at 2560x1600 monitors, I'm seeing prices between ~$500 to ~$1000+. This means to mean that there is a lot to think about when buying a monitor. I'm going to spend some time learning about this.
This link might help you with your search:
http://www.squidoo.com/gaming-monitors
It get's updated quite often, last update was 19 Sep 2012.
Something else that wasn't really touched on yet regarding monitors is the option to go for "3D" models. Not because of the 3D feature but rather the 120Hz refresh rate which is required in order to pull off the 3D function. What this translates to when you aren't using 3D is the ability to actually effectively produce and potentially see up to 120FPS vs standard monitors which only run at 60Hz and thus are limited to only 60FPS, regardless what you computer tells you it's able to produce in a given program. Ever system is limited to it's weakest link. Of course the catch is they are typically twice as expensive for the same resolution as well.
Update: I think I found the monitor. It;s big enough that I don't think I'll need three monitors (at least not for awhile), which I thought looked a bit werid. It has a decent response time of 7ms, fast enough for MMOs, I think, and 60 Hz should be fine. I'd be interested to hear other peoples' opinions, however. Here it is:
HP ZR30w Black 30" 7ms S-IPS Panel Height &Swivel Adjustable Widescreen LCD Monitor w/USB Ports 370 cd/m2 DC 3,000:1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176177
---------------------------------------
Just starting to get into the IPS - 120 Hz debate. Both sides make a good point. I'm not sure which is best for MMOs. I'm pretty sure I have a IPS monitor at home (out of town now) and have been happy with it, but I can't make a solid call without spending time with 120 Hz monitors.
Currently, I'm looking at monitors like this:
(1) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260028
RR: 60 Hz
RT: 7 ms
(2) RR: 120 Hz+ and RT 2 ms
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236206
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236293
One word of caution about monitors:
Do not believe any of the numbers/specifications printed.
There is no standard for measuring a lot of that. Something as simple as "pixel response time" gets muddled in a world where the same exact monitor can be measured anywhere from 15ms to 3ms depending on what color you start with and how you measure it (and guess which number they print on the spec sheet).
The ~only~ thing that can really be relied upon is the size/resolution (and even size numbers get spoofed, a 30" may only be a 29.3" if measured by someone else or some such), and if you think it looks good or not. What looks good to one person (or a lot of people) may not look good to you. Every eye is different, and LCD monitors vary a lot - especially when you consider the different technologies (IPS, LED, TN, etc) - all have tradeoffs and benefits - it only matters which looks best to you for your purposes.
If at all possible, go out and look at a monitor before you buy (even if it's just to go out and buy it online afterwards). Don't purchase based solely on online reviews or spec sheets.
I agree with this.
I'm not going to purchase a new computer until next year to give me enough time to think/re-think, check/re-check out everything. That way, I can be sure I'm not giving into hype. I figure if I am still excited about a new system next year around Feburary, then it is something I really want to get into and not just a short-term hobby.
I'm still thinking about a 3-monitor system, as well. Ideally, I will get to sit down with one for awhile before buying anything.
All of this said, to get more to the point of the original question "My Ideal MMO Gaming Rig"
I think MMO gaming is less about the computer itself - many people play MMOs on what I would consider not even gaming machines. I think MMO gaming is more about being comfortable for long stretches of time (hours long raids), and that means:
Desk/Chair
Keyboard/Mouse
Easy on the eyes monitor
The graphics need to look good and the game needs to run smooth, but I don't necessarily need 60+FPS at all times like a FPS.
That means any "gaming" rig will probably perform well (even if you have to turn off a few options, which in MMOs, usually isn't a big deal). If you want to turn up all the eyecandy (and in many MMOs it isn't possible to turn it up all the way even with the fastest computer you can build today), then a little more beef under the hood, but for all intents and purposes, a good quad core CPU with a mid-tiered video card (AMD 7800 series, nVidia 660/670 series) with 4+G of RAM will perform well.
Honestly, though, I would put more thought into what chair you are sitting in, what keyboard your typing on, and what mouse your using than on what hardware is under the hood.
Well, I can't fault you for waiting; however, that brings up it's own can of worms.
Inside of a month or two, usually the only big changes are "What's on sale this week", and barring any major releases, the actual hardware choices don't change that much.
You get much beyond that, and things start to shift - sometimes by a lot. What could be recommended today, inside of 6 months could be just an afterthought because of newer technology, or price shifts, or any number of causes.
One example:
It was just about this time last year that SSD's became a real possibility for everyone's computers - not because of advances in SSDs, but mainly because of flooding in Thailand (where a majority of hard drive components were manufactured). Traditional hard drives had been dirt cheap for a long time, and suddenly saw their prices more than double almost over night (and still aren't quite back down to where they used to be before the flood). That suddenly made SSD's competitive, which have been on a long slow price/capacity decline. Today, you'll be hard pressed to find a computer build (any save the most extreme budgets) that doesn't consider an SSD in some form or fashion.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/324306-31-hard-drive-prices-thailand-flooding
Hype on most hardware is quelled within the first week or two of its release: either it performs well and has benchmarks to prove it, or it doesn't. Then the only real "hype" becomes brand preference: AMD vs Intel, ATI vs nVidia, etc - and brand preference doesn't really have a ~huge~ affect on overall performance (kind of like a Chevy and Ford both are going to go 55 down the freeway on any given day).
The TL;DR being that getting advice and ideas now is great, but make sure you go back before you pluck out your credit card and map out your system again - a lot of things could change. Who knows, maybe we'll see 4k monitors/TV's finally hit the stage this holiday season, and that would make multi-monitor setups look archaic over night.
The early 4k monitors are supposedly going to cost something like $8000 and can only do 30 frames per second. That's not what you want for gaming. Or at least, 30 frames per second isn't what I'd want. Some Radeon HD 7000 series cards can handle them, but no Nvidia cards or older AMD cards can.
If you want to know what's coming, AMD's Trinity for non-OEM desktops is expected to launch next week, and Vishera should launch sometime soonish. Neither of those will be of interest to you on a large budget. Intel's Haswell is coming sometime next year, and will probably be a small performance bump over the current generation Ivy Bridge.
On the video card side, I'd expect AMD's Sea Islands (probably Radeon HD 8000 series) to launch early next year. I'm not expecting the cards to be much better in efficiency metrics than the current Cape Verde (7700 series) and Pitcairn (7800 series) cards, though there will presumably be slight improvements. I would expect to see a new GPU chip fill the hole between those two, and rumors point to two chips that will be significantly faster than Pitcairn--as the current Tahiti (7900 series) chip already is.
On the Nvidia side, I don't know if they'll do a respin of their current chips or not. GK106 just showed up earlier this month, so it's presumably not going to be replaced for quite a while. GK110 will be a high end chip, and probably the fastest on the market by a good margin. But it's focused more on Quadro and Tesla cards, so even if Nvidia paper launches them for GeForce cards around the end of the year, widespread retail availability probably won't come until well into 2013.
I've done some more thinking, I decided on going on a more conservative system: I don't want to get into water cooling and multiple monitors and spending a lot of money for questonable benefits. I have come up with what I think is a decent system, though. Here it is:
Motherboard: SABERTOOTH Z77 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131821
CPU: Intel Core i5 3570 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115233
GPU: GTX 660 Ti GC 3GB DDR5 - http://shopping.pchome.com.tw/?mod=item&func=exhibit&IT_NO=DRAD1L-A67875249&SR_NO=DRAD3V&ROWNO=26
Hard Drive: Seagate 750GB 2.5 SATA - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148599
(I have a SSD.)
Case: SUPER FLOWER ?2000?- http://www.super-flower.de/index.php?id=98
Power Supply: Cooler Master Silent Pro M2 850W 80plus - http://shopping.pchome.com.tw/?mod=item&func=exhibit&IT_NO=DRAE1Y-A63136674&SR_NO=DRAE2E&ROWNO=7
RAM: Kingston 8GB DDR3 1600 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104173
I figure this way, I'll have room to upgrade for the next year or two. Thoughts?
Out of curiousity what made you decide to go with a Superflower case and a Coolermaster psu, or rather a Coolermaster branded FSP psu? Not that FSP isn't a good brand in terms of PSU's but personally if I was going to rack and stack PSU quality I would go with Superflower. In that same regards Coolermaster is better known for cases than they are rebranded PSU units. Please don't take this as a mock to your decision, I'm just curious how you came about it.
Firstly, I'd like to say that I appreciate everyones' advice so far. My choice to move away from multi-secreen set ups is basically due to simplicity; the advice everyone gave in that regards was valuavble nonetheless.
Thank you for your comment, Minguksaram. I had not thought about that. I will definately look into getting a Superflower psu. This is exactly the type of information I am looking for . thank you.
2 suggestions based on your current parts list
Dump the sabretooth - save yourself $100 and get a decent board around $140, you wont see the difference in performance, and then you can spend the savings on sorting your GPU, reading through your posts you wont use what you pay the extra for on those top end boards.
Really there is no reason to get a 660ti - it more or less always beaten by a 7950 which is the same price, and you can spend some of that money that you save on the mobo getting a 7970 which is better than both. If you want nvidia then get a 670, which will cost you around the same as a 7970.
Well that's some random component selection. You've got some things linked from New Egg, some from a Taiwanese site, and your link to a case is the German-language version of Super Flower's site and you probably can't buy products off of it.
I don't see any reason to buy a laptop hard drive for a desktop. The 2.5" form factor makes laptop hard drives both slower and more expensive for a given capacity.
Cooler Master's Silent Pro power supplies are all right, but way tend to be way too expensive for merely "all right". And a number of Cooler Master's other power supplies are junk.
What matters is not the brand name on a power supply, but which particular power supply you get. Super Flower's platinum platform is excellent, and their gold platform is very good, but some of their lower end platforms are dicier. For a single video card system, you don't need to pay a fortune to get something nice, though.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182262
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti tends to be a lot more expensive than its performance can justify. A Radeon HD 7950 is significantly better and tends to be about the same price. A Radeon HD 7870 or GeForce GTX 560 are a lot cheaper than either of those cards, and not that much slower. Above the 7870 and GTX 560 (not Ti), performance per dollar goes down substantially, as you can pay twice as much and only get 60% more performance.
On the other hand, on an unlimited budget, you could just grab the top of the line: a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125439