Replacing PC, want input on specs Please

[ArielFetters]

Heyas. As I said in another thread, I've come to the conclusion I've pushed my rig as far as I can and it's falling waaaay short. I can't run AA over 2X, AF over 2X, Shadows on medium, and bloom over low on most games without murdering my framerate. Hell, I can't even max the graphics on Modern Warfare 2. I Also can't run as many mods as I want on Skyrim or the Fallout games because my system can't handle the load. If I load up Whterun Enhanced, Better looking NPC's, and Children of the sky, I can't even get into Whiterun. Instant CTD.

 

So I'm saving, with a total outside budget of $1200. My local shop does custom computers...for a ton of cash. They're good, but not good enough for a 20% or more price hike.

 

Current rig's from IBuyPower, (Been issues with them) with the following stats.

3.2 Ghz Quad Core, 4 Gigs DDR3 1333 Ram, Radeon 6770 HD W/1Gb DDR5, 7200 RPM 500Gb System Drive, 1 Tb Storage Drive

If I drop my settings to 720P it'll go higher on the SFX, but looks like crap on my 1080P TV/Monitor. (Element 32 Inch native 1080P)

 

The system config I've come up with that's inside my budget is as follows. I'm hoping people can help me optimize it so I can get the best bang for my buck. I can't build a liquid cooled system myself plus I can get it cheaper from an online retailer than just buying the parts off Newegg. System is NOT overclocked and I don't want it to be. I'm going for quiet cool temps and thus a long life. Price does not include Tax or S&H (Roughly another $100 total)

 

Vendor: Cyberpower

Total Price $1145

Case: Raidmax Vampire Full Tower

Fans: 120mm Blue (Going for a blue theme, don't want a computer that looks ready to kill people)

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5Ghz 6-core W/6Mb Cache & Turbo

Cooling: Asetek 510LC 120MM Dual Fan Push/Pull

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-970A

RAM: 16 Gb DDR3 Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz

Video Cards: 2 NVidea 650's (1Gb, Non TI) in SLI

Power Supply: 600 Watts

System Drive: 64 Gb Sandisk SATA 3

Games Drive: 64 Gb Sandisk SATA 3 (Second SSD, not system drive)

Storage Drive: 1TB SATA 3

DVD Drive: 24X double Layer/Dual Format

Sound: Onboard 7.1

Extras: Dual-Bay Touchscreen Temp/Fan control, Windows 7 Pro, 6 outlet Surge Protector/Power Filter rated at 8,000 Watts

 

So what do people think? Obviously it's better than my current system but will it run more heavily modded games easily and be reasonably future proof? Also, would it last a long time? This's prolly gonna be the last computer I ever buy so I need the most bang for my buck and the lonest lifespan. Hence why I'm going for liquid cooling and no overclocking. I figure if I keep the temp low and don't overstress the system by overclocking it, it'll max out it's lifespan. Lastly I'm also hoping I can play my fav games (Witcher 2, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Avatar) at 1080P on high or even max settings without dropping my FPS under 30.

 

Any ideas or suggestions?

[reae]

First of all stay away from AMD CPU's. Especially for multi GPU config, as CPU will be bottleneck to whole setup. AMD cpu's right now have weaker threads, than old Phenoms II. Intel is the way to go, some i5 never hurt anyone. Those 6 cores you are seeing are in reality three full threads divided into two each.

Second of all, the right way of approaching GPU's is buying is buying strongest possible one processor card and, if that's not enough, adding another one. Not low mid range two times. Small example: I'm currently owner of i7 2600 and two HD6970. In theory those radeons together are in gf Titan range. In practice, they are quite a lot below Titan. Some games are scaling wonderful, like Tomb Raider (min frames went from 22 to 50 something), some average (Skyrim, Rome2) and some has multi GPU support by switching it off (Company of Heroes 2). Small note: here AMD is weaker too, nvidia's card are offering better scalability, than AMD's.

Third one, going for long lifespan is good for servers or something. But your super config will be in two years only good and in next year average-good and so on. If you will get used to the quality of certain level, you will be switching hardware more often, than lifespan of non OC'ed hardware.

Last one: 16 GB is overkill ATM. 8 GB would be enough.

Witcher 2 with ubersampling would probably kill even SLI Titans or something, Witcher 3 is coming.

 

My advice?

If that quad core have intel as producer, just switch GPU to any sensible nvidia 7x0/6x0 (sensible are ending in gf770 range, but YMMV). Radeon 6770 is just low-mid range card, you can't get enough power from it. Nowadays 6970, top one from one processor line, is below average. Transistor shrink wasn't gracious to our cards, I'm afraid.

[ArielFetters]

Exact same system config, but switching to a 100% intel setup with an I5 4670K: $1281 ($81 over budget)

Drop it down to 8 Gb RAM as suggested: $1192 (Inside budget by $8)

Also drop I5 4670K down to plain 4670: $1172 (Inside budget by $18)

Can't tell if there's a shift in FPS, the Cyberpower site won't list the FPS for some reason >.<

 

It would mean I've got a 100% one or the other system, whiuch would hopefully mean few to no software conflicts. That's a big plus considering my last few systems have been software nightmares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ArielFetters]

GAH! Just now found out you can't SLI normal 650's. Need to go with 650TI/Boost cards. That jumps my lowest budget system options (SLI cards, 6-core, 8Gb RAM, reliable water cooling setup) up to just under $1,400. I Might, maybe be able to do that if I sell off a bunch of my stuff. Got 2 months, so one can hope >.< If I can, my framerates are gonna be absolutely beastly lol.

 

Attached my (Hoped for) System Specs as PDF

 

MinPerfSpec.pdf

[reae]

I've just checked how strong gf 650 is...~3000 3d marks. I'm holding my hd6970 as average and it's ~5900 3d marks. Make those gf's two times and you are in hd6970 range, if they scale in 200% basis, which is impossible. Now, you can easily switch to used hd6970 for under 120€ in Europe, I'm guessing 120$ in US of A.

If you insist on those 650's, nvidia is planning price drop for 650ti, as they are getting out of production.

 

And paying for that 1400$...i7 2600+hd6970+12 GB 1333 ram+850W Seasonic PSU+case+monitor+128 GB SSD+3TB Storage cost me around 1300$. Two years ago. Of course without liquid cooling.

[Veladarius]

Go with a video card with 2 gb ram instead of 1gb, the extra power won't be much use without the video memory to support it. As for 8gb ram or 16gb of you can afford more then get more. When I bought my ram I picked up 16gb for $10 more than 8gb for the same memory brand and specs. Check out Microcenter http://www.mircocenter.com for deals as they usually have combos on cpu/motherboards that can really help you out. I bought a lot of my pc components there but the video card prices are kinda high.

[ArielFetters]

Here's the revised idea. Swaps the 650's for a couple 7850's in crossfire. That lowers my max framerates, but it keeps the whole system to one standard (AMD) plus it jumps my overall framerates, even on super graphics games like Tomb Raider ultimate way the frack up. Posted on their forums to see if the 7850's would ship watercooled like the option I picked says it can (Not will, but can. I wanna know for sure before I blow this kinda cash)

 

Also keeps the price under $1,400, which is good because to hit even $1,300 I'll need to sell a few things.

PerfSys2.pdf

[reae]

Uhhh, that fx is worse, than i3 3240, at least for a games...and CrossfireX is worse, than SLI.

Do me a favor, look for some Z68 mobo or newer(for haswell), ivy bridge/haswell i5 with K besides number, any ddr3 RAM, strong single card (gf 770 for example, gf 780 in wild dreams) and some ssd. Tower's are cheap, if you are not going for thermaltake level10 gt or something.

[ArielFetters]

Well, it won't be a problem. Turns out if you buy the liquid cooled system that covers CPU/GPU? Well, tough shit. You need to buy their flagship system, and they only offer ONE video card with water cooling. Their most expensive one of course, so in order to get Liquid Cooled SLI, well, I've seen cheaper cars. Another place, they make the whole process easy to see what does what...but it'd cost me 1,700 freaking dollars. If I had a hope in hell of building my own damn system I'd already be ordering parts.

[reae]

Building pc is rather easy, as long as you don't try it after vodka or something. It's just matter of sticking right stuff in right slots, aside CPU, you can't put it in wrong direction. Laste resort is asking a friend to do it for you.

Problem is with LC. It makes whole setup really pricey. Waterblock for my hd6970 is worth like 100€ (~133$), which in turn is almost as much as cost of that card. If you have no problem with noise, then I fail to see any advantages of LC. You're not going to OC it, so? Cooler setup? Intel CPU's are bit better with TDP (they are worse for house heating) and you should have no problem of selecting cool and low-noise non referent card. Twin card setup with such weak CPU is also against serious machine building practices. SLI/CF setup gives you no advantage over single card setup, if they have equal 3dmark score.

 

Let's say you have bought second proposal. Compared to me, you have bit newer cards (less power needed to run them, but similar performance) and CPU, that is below level of i3. Now, in Rome2 my CPU (i7 2600) begins to show it's age and is bottlenecking my radeons. How do you expect it will run on two shelves lower CPU? Thankfully Rome2 is that sound exaggeration of "moar CPU" thingie, but tests from gf580/hd6970 shows, that for SLI/CF that i7 is near minimum. PhenomsII (stronger, than that fx 6300) were to weak for the task.

 

I understand, that being an owner of watercooled, twin card setup sounds cool and all, but trust me, owner of classic air cooled/single card would kick ours asses (mine's thanks to age) with equal or less money.

[Veladarius]

Really the only reason to use 2 cards are if you are using 2 cheap cards (a single better card would be preferable), have a really high resolution monitor or are using multiple monitors. And with a budget of $1200 stay away from liquid cooling as that will really eat your budget and would be better spent on better hardware.

[ArielFetters]

I'm going for dual cards because I'm tryng to future-proof my system as best I can. This's gonna probably be the last computer I ever buy, so I need to make it a good one. My 'basic acceptable FPS rate' is 30FPS on Tomb Raider 2013 on ultimate settings. Seems like a lot now, but in 2 years Ultimate's gonna be high and 2 years after that it'll prolly be medium or even low. Thus better stats now equals tolerable stats later.

 

System specs

I should switch to an 8-core then? Probably should also bump up to 16Gb Ram too. I looked at Intel systems but they're fricking expensive as hell. I can build an AMD system with much better stats for the same price. I've had good luck with AMD's too. Oh, and I'm dropping the whole Liquid Cooling bit. Like you said, it's just too freaking expensive. Gonna go with an airflow-based system with lots of fans and good air routing. Maybe filters or dust catchers if I can figure out how.

[reae]

M'kay. For Tomb Raider 30 fps in ultra (minimal 30 fps, not average) single radeon 6970 is enough. Two of them have around 55 min fps. TR don't like nVidia, so gf680 is needed for 30 fps on ultra, but in reality it's ways ahead of that hd6970. Choose your poison, IMHO gf770 is the way to go now, it's gf680 after small corrections.

 

And here comes CPU...my 3,4 Ghz i7 beats in almost all circumstances any AMD's CPU, as long as we are looking at gaming. FX has castrated cores (it's a bit, like intel's Hyper Threading), where one core is paired with another, so they can share quite a bit of architecture (FPU or ALU, I'm not sure, look for yourself), thus making them weak. Thanks to that single thread in FX is weaker than in Phenom2, not to mention intel CPUs. If you are treating that FX 6300 as six core, than my i7 is eight core CPU. Games, that use more, than 4 cores are as common, as good politician in Poland.  Some googleing and...http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html . Take it with a grain of salt, It's just some chart from internet, but general direction should be clear. Now, since Rome 2 is here and it's hungry for haswells (and only for them, sadly), I bet you will be able to find some used mobo with i5/i7 for a little cash, heck, my mobo+i7 was like 400$, two years ago. In that case CPUs without 'K' are a bit safer, as OC is very limited with them.

 

Watch Dogs will be asking for 6 GB. 8 GB for one year should be enough, in worst case you will be buying another 8 GB later.

 

Small edit about SLI/CF and AMD FX: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471-6.html

[LordJerle]

First of all stay away from AMD CPU's. Especially for multi GPU config, as CPU will be bottleneck to whole setup. AMD cpu's right now have weaker threads, than old Phenoms II. Intel is the way to go, some i5 never hurt anyone. Those 6 cores you are seeing are in reality three full threads divided into two each.

 

In 16+ years of PC gaming and building my own rigs, that is one of the worst, and dumbest, myths that's spread about processors.  I've never had any issues with AMD builds bottlenecking, as opposed to the 3-4 Intel processors I've fried in the past.  In fact, AMD's throttling system is more streamlined and efficient than anything Intel has put out.  In fact, newer AMD CPU's automatically overclock themselves if extra power is needed, and if you're worried about overheating, a good liquid cooling system costs about the same as a half decent generic heatsink, and works twice as well, with less power usage.  As far as GPU's go, stay away from ATI.  AMD makes great CPU's, but they're shit on the software side support with GPU's, whereas NVidia's top notch across the board.  

 

Here's the specs for my system, got it for about 600 off of magicmicro.  I have yet to find anything that I can't run on ultra and still get 50-60 FPS.

 

 * AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer (Zambezi) 3.6GHz (Quad Core) 32nm, AM3+ 8MB Cache  * AMD FX High Performance Liquid Cooling system  * MSI 760GM-P23 (FX) AM3+, Onboard Video, GB LAN  * 8GB (2x4GB) PC12800 DDR3 1600 Dual Channel  * GeForce GT 640 2GB PCI EXpress 16X dual head, HDMI  * 1000.0 GB Hitachi / Toshiba 7200RPM SATA3 6GB/s 32m cache  * Realtek HD digital audio (onboard)  * Ethernet network adapter (onboard)  * Cooler Master Elite 311 black, Side Window, front USB  * Logisys 600W ATX Power Supply, SLI & X-fire ready

 

 

[reae]

 

In 16+ years of PC gaming and building my own rigs, that is one of the worst, and dumbest, myths that's spread about processors.  I've never had any issues with AMD builds bottlenecking, as opposed to the 3-4 Intel processors I've fried in the past.  In fact, AMD's throttling system is more streamlined and efficient than anything Intel has put out.  In fact, newer AMD CPU's automatically overclock themselves if extra power is needed, and if you're worried about overheating, a good liquid cooling system costs about the same as a half decent generic heatsink, and works twice as well, with less power usage.  As far as GPU's go, stay away from ATI.  AMD makes great CPU's, but they're shit on the software side support with GPU's, whereas NVidia's top notch across the board.  

 

Here's the specs for my system, got it for about 600 off of magicmicro.  I have yet to find anything that I can't run on ultra and still get 50-60 FPS.

 

 * AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer (Zambezi) 3.6GHz (Quad Core) 32nm, AM3+ 8MB Cache  * AMD FX High Performance Liquid Cooling system  * MSI 760GM-P23 (FX) AM3+, Onboard Video, GB LAN  * 8GB (2x4GB) PC12800 DDR3 1600 Dual Channel  * GeForce GT 640 2GB PCI EXpress 16X dual head, HDMI  * 1000.0 GB Hitachi / Toshiba 7200RPM SATA3 6GB/s 32m cache  * Realtek HD digital audio (onboard)  * Ethernet network adapter (onboard)  * Cooler Master Elite 311 black, Side Window, front USB  * Logisys 600W ATX Power Supply, SLI & X-fire ready

 

 

 

In fact try Rome 2, Metro 2033, Tomb Raider, Witcher 2, old time favorite, Morrowind, with MGE

Now, in fact, tell me, how on earth CPU with so weak thread, that it must be on 5 GHz to achieve some performance is not bottlenecking two...gf770 for example. Lone, ok, maybe. Mind you, it's nVidia, so it runs bit better on poorer CPU's.  How on earth gf640 would be bottlenecked? What for intels CPUs's were so poor? netburst Pentium 4 and what else? Celerons? Would you write something about AMD TDP's, with super 250Watt FX on top? Weak software side on radeons? How many do you have used in last 5 years? I've had just one problem with Radeon, it was x1950, paired with (surprise) Athlon XP 2400+, quite a machine at it's times. It was drivers issue. Oh, just for nVidia's fans out there: my friend has quite a card, gf660ti (lovely, to be frank) and somehow that nVidia's was dying in Riverwood, without any ENB or dragons. My weaker hd6970 is not dying in exact situation. How? It's shit, compared to nVidia, right?

 

AMD auto OC...hm, let's check my i7...yup, it's there. Are you willing to explain bit more about default AMD's cooling system? Jumping on liquid is not required, you know. With energy efficient CPU's. Please, save that AMD's marketing mumbo jumbo for somebody else. AMD is placing it's CPU's on i5 level, which is exaggeration already and now you are talking about choking intels and super sexy AMDs. Shall we check memory controllers? Maybe single thread strength? Of course we can check all threads strength, at least intel doesn't lie about HT threads, opposed to castrated AMD cores. And today's software incompatibility with AMDs....tell me, are you always buying hardware to use it with some distant, foreshadowed and not sure software or one good for now and in near future? Because, you know, square wheels have had some distant future back then as well.

 

Just looked for some single thread efficiency and my i5 3470T, bought just to save energy (35 W TDP, would AMD be better?) has stronger thread, than top AMD's. Overall it's ways weaker, but...it's just energy saver, for internet, music and movies.

 

Just to finish not so nice text. It's about getting most bang from a buck. Right now, which is for some 3 years, there only one way in CPU's. AMD's have their merits, but Athlons XP times are long since gone and we all can just hope for some replay. In GPU market is stronger competition, thus nVidia sometimes loses (gf4xx for example).

 

Config...ATM on ebay.de there's one setup with i7 2600 without any GPU (i7 is APU in AMD nomenclature) for 381€, in US it would be ~400$, as we have VAT. Throw to that gf580 for around 120€ and your 600$ rig goes south. Sorry, no bonus.

 

LordJerle, can I ask you to provide us/me with some benchmarks from games, showing, that modern AMD CPU's are indeed better, than modern intels, excluding some obvious flops, like Skyrim or Rome 2,as they just love intel. I'm willing to leave the choice to you, limiting it only to real sound titles, with right to counter reply if needed.

[ArielFetters]

Can we please not turn this into an AMD/Intel flame war? Intel does seem to be more powerful, but like I said, the problem is price. However, like you guys have said, the problem is actual capability. I don't have a problem with Intel, I've just had good luck with AMD. Right now though all I care about is the best performance I can afford. Oh, and my budget's a bit more than I thought since I don't have quite the time crunch I thought. $1,500 is probably my upper budget limit, though it'd be March of next year before I could scrape together that kinda cash.

[LordJerle]

 

 

In 16+ years of PC gaming and building my own rigs, that is one of the worst, and dumbest, myths that's spread about processors.  I've never had any issues with AMD builds bottlenecking, as opposed to the 3-4 Intel processors I've fried in the past.  In fact, AMD's throttling system is more streamlined and efficient than anything Intel has put out.  In fact, newer AMD CPU's automatically overclock themselves if extra power is needed, and if you're worried about overheating, a good liquid cooling system costs about the same as a half decent generic heatsink, and works twice as well, with less power usage.  As far as GPU's go, stay away from ATI.  AMD makes great CPU's, but they're shit on the software side support with GPU's, whereas NVidia's top notch across the board.  

 

Here's the specs for my system, got it for about 600 off of magicmicro.  I have yet to find anything that I can't run on ultra and still get 50-60 FPS.

 

 * AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer (Zambezi) 3.6GHz (Quad Core) 32nm, AM3+ 8MB Cache  * AMD FX High Performance Liquid Cooling system  * MSI 760GM-P23 (FX) AM3+, Onboard Video, GB LAN  * 8GB (2x4GB) PC12800 DDR3 1600 Dual Channel  * GeForce GT 640 2GB PCI EXpress 16X dual head, HDMI  * 1000.0 GB Hitachi / Toshiba 7200RPM SATA3 6GB/s 32m cache  * Realtek HD digital audio (onboard)  * Ethernet network adapter (onboard)  * Cooler Master Elite 311 black, Side Window, front USB  * Logisys 600W ATX Power Supply, SLI & X-fire ready

 

 

 

In fact try Rome 2, Metro 2033, Tomb Raider, Witcher 2, old time favorite, Morrowind, with MGE

Now, in fact, tell me, how on earth CPU with so weak thread, that it must be on 5 GHz to achieve some performance is not bottlenecking two...gf770 for example. Lone, ok, maybe. Mind you, it's nVidia, so it runs bit better on poorer CPU's.  How on earth gf640 would be bottlenecked? What for intels CPUs's were so poor? netburst Pentium 4 and what else? Celerons? Would you write something about AMD TDP's, with super 250Watt FX on top? Weak software side on radeons? How many do you have used in last 5 years? I've had just one problem with Radeon, it was x1950, paired with (surprise) Athlon XP 2400+, quite a machine at it's times. It was drivers issue. Oh, just for nVidia's fans out there: my friend has quite a card, gf660ti (lovely, to be frank) and somehow that nVidia's was dying in Riverwood, without any ENB or dragons. My weaker hd6970 is not dying in exact situation. How? It's shit, compared to nVidia, right?

 

AMD auto OC...hm, let's check my i7...yup, it's there. Are you willing to explain bit more about default AMD's cooling system? Jumping on liquid is not required, you know. With energy efficient CPU's. Please, save that AMD's marketing mumbo jumbo for somebody else. AMD is placing it's CPU's on i5 level, which is exaggeration already and now you are talking about choking intels and super sexy AMDs. Shall we check memory controllers? Maybe single thread strength? Of course we can check all threads strength, at least intel doesn't lie about HT threads, opposed to castrated AMD cores. And today's software incompatibility with AMDs....tell me, are you always buying hardware to use it with some distant, foreshadowed and not sure software or one good for now and in near future? Because, you know, square wheels have had some distant future back then as well.

 

Just looked for some single thread efficiency and my i5 3470T, bought just to save energy (35 W TDP, would AMD be better?) has stronger thread, than top AMD's. Overall it's ways weaker, but...it's just energy saver, for internet, music and movies.

 

Just to finish not so nice text. It's about getting most bang from a buck. Right now, which is for some 3 years, there only one way in CPU's. AMD's have their merits, but Athlons XP times are long since gone and we all can just hope for some replay. In GPU market is stronger competition, thus nVidia sometimes loses (gf4xx for example).

 

Config...ATM on ebay.de there's one setup with i7 2600 without any GPU (i7 is APU in AMD nomenclature) for 381€, in US it would be ~400$, as we have VAT. Throw to that gf580 for around 120€ and your 600$ rig goes south. Sorry, no bonus.

 

LordJerle, can I ask you to provide us/me with some benchmarks from games, showing, that modern AMD CPU's are indeed better, than modern intels, excluding some obvious flops, like Skyrim or Rome 2,as they just love intel. I'm willing to leave the choice to you, limiting it only to real sound titles, with right to counter reply if needed.

 

 

Ermm I have Rome 2, and witcher 2, play them on ultra just fine.  Quickest FPS I can pull off the top of my head (it has an ingame FPS display), is for SWTOR, I get 50 FPS on both Sith and Jedi stations, an area that's well known for bottlenecking CPU and GPU.  The only hesitation I get is in area loading, but that's more due to the bandwidth constraints of 4G net.  As for liquid cooling, I counter your why go liquid with why not?  It's more energy efficient, does a better job, and it's quieter than a heatsink and fan.  

[polluxval]

here:

 

HP Pavilion 742c Desktop PC Product Specifications

Model number

P8627A

top
Countries sold in

    United States

    Canada

top
Base processor and speed

P4N 2.0 GHz/400

top
Chipset

845GL

top
Memory
Component
    
Attributes
RAM (standard)
    
512/2100 DDR (2 x 256MB)
Maximum
    
2 GB (4 x 512MB) requires the removal of the installed 256MB DIMMS
Speed
    
PC2100/PC1600
Type
    
DDR SDRAM
DIMM slots
    
Four
Open DIMM slots
    
Two

top
Hard drive

80 GB

top
DVD drive

16x

top
CD-RW drive

32x10x40

top
Diskette drive

1.44 MB (3.5-inch)

top
Fax and data modem

Cheetah 2 Modem

top
Video graphics

Integrated into Chipset, No AGP slot

top
Sound and audio

AC97 Audio

top
Network interface

10/100BT Integrated on Motherboard

top
USB specification

USB 2.0

top
External ports
Port type
    
Quantity
USB
    
6 (2 front and 4 back)
1394
    
1 (cable not included)
Serial
    
1
Parallel
    
1
PS2 Keyboard
    
1
PS2 Mouse
    
1

top
Expansion slots (total)
Slot type
    
Quantity
PCI
    
3
DIMM
    
4

top
Drive bays (total)
Bay type
    
Quantity
5.25-inch CD external
    
2
3.5-inch HDD, internal
    
1
3.5-inch FDD, external
    
1
3.5-inch (other)
    
1

top
Speakers

Polk Audio “E” stereo speakers (left and right)

top
Other

    Internal Speaker Cable

    America Online (AOL) 7.0 CD in box

top
Keyboard and mouse

    HP One Touch Internet Keyboard

    PS/2 Scrolling Mouse

top
Supported operating system

Microsoft® Windows XP Home Edition

top
Complete software package
Operating system

Windows XP Home Edition
 

[reae]

 

*snap* no need for pyramid

 

Ermm I have Rome 2, and witcher 2, play them on ultra just fine.  Quickest FPS I can pull off the top of my head (it has an ingame FPS display), is for SWTOR, I get 50 FPS on both Sith and Jedi stations, an area that's well known for bottlenecking CPU and GPU.  The only hesitation I get is in area loading, but that's more due to the bandwidth constraints of 4G net.  As for liquid cooling, I counter your why go liquid with why not?  It's more energy efficient, does a better job, and it's quieter than a heatsink and fan.  

 

 

Witcher 2 on ultra, with ubersapling is known for toppling any sensible hardware.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/02/21/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-6gb-review/6

Anything slower, than gf680 is too weak to provide minimal 60 fps, with ubersampling off. Now, gf680 is ~9000 3d marks'11, hd6970 (mine, thus there) is ~6000 and your gf640 is ~2600. There's no way to beat my frames with that rig. Even in Civ5, obvious nVidia flop.

How come, that none of AMD users have spilled the word, how great their cpu works? And rome 2...please...best FX is worse, than lowly i3 (haswell) in that game. That's the reason I take it for a flop.

Your FX can't bottleneck that gf640, simply because that gf is about half hd6970 or bit more, than legendary gf8800 in strongest version. Not a difficult target for modern CPU.

 

LC is fine and all, but for first one wants performance (aside silence maniacs, but there are classical hdds to silence) and LC costs a lot. Waterblock for one of my radeons is around 100€ worth. That 100€ means air cooled gf660ti for example, or something better. My i5 (I have two desktops, thus i7 and i5) should run just fine with passive cooling. No liquid, no noisy fan, nothing. No FX can do that. Full LC for my config would be around 500€, if not more. For such money, I would be looking for GPU replacement, some gf770 or something.

 

I'm not saying, that AMDs are crap. They are not. They simply are losing against Intels. Less power efficient, less money efficient, with lower peak performance, with less PCI-E lines, slower memory controllers, with not-so-full cores and all. Your FX is on i3-2300 level, as long as we don't pair it with some extraordinary card, then it falls behind. But nobody should pair i3/ FX 4100 with 7970 Ghz Edition, so there s no way to recognize that.

 

Personally, I wish for Athlon XP/64's situation replay, so we have a choice. Like with GPU's, where you can say AMD is bit weaker, bit cheaper traditionally and nVidia leads the way. In CPU's Intel is in such position, that they can milk customers with 7% performance increases, as AMD tries hard to reach three generation old, Sandy Bridge level.

 

Happy gaming.

 

@ArielFetters:

There is no reason for a flame war, I think. We have just discussed some sound issues with our proposals and that's it. Yes, you can have lot of fun with AMD, but that's not optimal way IMHO. I've had great run with AMD too, but it's just history now. Sentiments are good towards people, but towards a hardware? Buy best power/money ratio you can, regardless of company name.

 

With 1500$ it's high intel and gf780 time. Once you have settled to CPU+mobo and GPU, the rest is just a snap. Don't bother with titan,as 780 after small oc can reach it. Or wait for new AMDs GPU, as there's small chance, that it will knock nVdia's price down a bit.

 

Happy comparing and deciding.

[...0...]

Heyas. As I said in another thread, I've come to the conclusion I've pushed my rig as far as I can and it's falling waaaay short. I can't run AA over 2X, AF over 2X, Shadows on medium, and bloom over low on most games without murdering my framerate. Hell, I can't even max the graphics on Modern Warfare 2. I Also can't run as many mods as I want on Skyrim or the Fallout games because my system can't handle the load. If I load up Whterun Enhanced, Better looking NPC's, and Children of the sky, I can't even get into Whiterun. Instant CTD.

 

So I'm saving, with a total outside budget of $1200. My local shop does custom computers...for a ton of cash. They're good, but not good enough for a 20% or more price hike.

 

Current rig's from IBuyPower, (Been issues with them) with the following stats.

3.2 Ghz Quad Core, 4 Gigs DDR3 1333 Ram, Radeon 6770 HD W/1Gb DDR5, 7200 RPM 500Gb System Drive, 1 Tb Storage Drive

If I drop my settings to 720P it'll go higher on the SFX, but looks like crap on my 1080P TV/Monitor. (Element 32 Inch native 1080P)

 

The system config I've come up with that's inside my budget is as follows. I'm hoping people can help me optimize it so I can get the best bang for my buck. I can't build a liquid cooled system myself plus I can get it cheaper from an online retailer than just buying the parts off Newegg. System is NOT overclocked and I don't want it to be. I'm going for quiet cool temps and thus a long life. Price does not include Tax or S&H (Roughly another $100 total)

 

Vendor: Cyberpower

Total Price $1145

Case: Raidmax Vampire Full Tower

Fans: 120mm Blue (Going for a blue theme, don't want a computer that looks ready to kill people)

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5Ghz 6-core W/6Mb Cache & Turbo

Cooling: Asetek 510LC 120MM Dual Fan Push/Pull

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-970A

RAM: 16 Gb DDR3 Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz

Video Cards: 2 NVidea 650's (1Gb, Non TI) in SLI

Power Supply: 600 Watts

System Drive: 64 Gb Sandisk SATA 3

Games Drive: 64 Gb Sandisk SATA 3 (Second SSD, not system drive)

Storage Drive: 1TB SATA 3

DVD Drive: 24X double Layer/Dual Format

Sound: Onboard 7.1

Extras: Dual-Bay Touchscreen Temp/Fan control, Windows 7 Pro, 6 outlet Surge Protector/Power Filter rated at 8,000 Watts

 

So what do people think? Obviously it's better than my current system but will it run more heavily modded games easily and be reasonably future proof? Also, would it last a long time? This's prolly gonna be the last computer I ever buy so I need the most bang for my buck and the lonest lifespan. Hence why I'm going for liquid cooling and no overclocking. I figure if I keep the temp low and don't overstress the system by overclocking it, it'll max out it's lifespan. Lastly I'm also hoping I can play my fav games (Witcher 2, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Avatar) at 1080P on high or even max settings without dropping my FPS under 30.

 

Any ideas or suggestions?

 

If you gonne mod alot your skyrim or wanne be future proof you should rethink your videocard 1gig is realy to low for todays games and future games im 100% sure you regret you not bought at least videocard with 2gig or more.

Btw do some research first on building new rig most here try give advice but most is below par i can't tell who becouse i dont wanne hurt anybody's feelings.

 

Go to sites that are neutral and give valid advice on how to build a rig that in range of you budget, you be alot happier:)

 

[Guest carywinton]

 

Heyas. As I said in another thread, I've come to the conclusion I've pushed my rig as far as I can and it's falling waaaay short. I can't run AA over 2X, AF over 2X, Shadows on medium, and bloom over low on most games without murdering my framerate. Hell, I can't even max the graphics on Modern Warfare 2. I Also can't run as many mods as I want on Skyrim or the Fallout games because my system can't handle the load. If I load up Whterun Enhanced, Better looking NPC's, and Children of the sky, I can't even get into Whiterun. Instant CTD.

 

So I'm saving, with a total outside budget of $1200. My local shop does custom computers...for a ton of cash. They're good, but not good enough for a 20% or more price hike.

 

Current rig's from IBuyPower, (Been issues with them) with the following stats.

3.2 Ghz Quad Core, 4 Gigs DDR3 1333 Ram, Radeon 6770 HD W/1Gb DDR5, 7200 RPM 500Gb System Drive, 1 Tb Storage Drive

If I drop my settings to 720P it'll go higher on the SFX, but looks like crap on my 1080P TV/Monitor. (Element 32 Inch native 1080P)

 

The system config I've come up with that's inside my budget is as follows. I'm hoping people can help me optimize it so I can get the best bang for my buck. I can't build a liquid cooled system myself plus I can get it cheaper from an online retailer than just buying the parts off Newegg. System is NOT overclocked and I don't want it to be. I'm going for quiet cool temps and thus a long life. Price does not include Tax or S&H (Roughly another $100 total)

 

Vendor: Cyberpower

Total Price $1145

Case: Raidmax Vampire Full Tower

Fans: 120mm Blue (Going for a blue theme, don't want a computer that looks ready to kill people)

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5Ghz 6-core W/6Mb Cache & Turbo

Cooling: Asetek 510LC 120MM Dual Fan Push/Pull

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-970A

RAM: 16 Gb DDR3 Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz

Video Cards: 2 NVidea 650's (1Gb, Non TI) in SLI

Power Supply: 600 Watts

System Drive: 64 Gb Sandisk SATA 3

Games Drive: 64 Gb Sandisk SATA 3 (Second SSD, not system drive)

Storage Drive: 1TB SATA 3

DVD Drive: 24X double Layer/Dual Format

Sound: Onboard 7.1

Extras: Dual-Bay Touchscreen Temp/Fan control, Windows 7 Pro, 6 outlet Surge Protector/Power Filter rated at 8,000 Watts

 

So what do people think? Obviously it's better than my current system but will it run more heavily modded games easily and be reasonably future proof? Also, would it last a long time? This's prolly gonna be the last computer I ever buy so I need the most bang for my buck and the lonest lifespan. Hence why I'm going for liquid cooling and no overclocking. I figure if I keep the temp low and don't overstress the system by overclocking it, it'll max out it's lifespan. Lastly I'm also hoping I can play my fav games (Witcher 2, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Avatar) at 1080P on high or even max settings without dropping my FPS under 30.

 

Any ideas or suggestions?

 

If you gonne mod alot your skyrim or wanne be future proof you should rethink your videocard 1gig is realy to low for todays games and future games im 100% sure you regret you not bought at least videocard with 2gig or more.

Btw do some research first on building new rig most here try give advice but most is below par i can't tell who becouse i dont wanne hurt anybody's feelings.

 

Go to sites that are neutral and give valid advice on how to build a rig that in range of you budget, you be alot happier:)

 

 

Or you could always contact me and my company. I do system builds , networks, etc. for a living, I won't give you my "opinion" I will just show you what my customers are using and why. I will say for cost verses performance, I have been with AMD/ATI as a partner for nearly 10 years, and never had any complaints from customers with regards to my builds and systems not performing up to and exceeding needs. You cannot rely on benchmarks either, AMD and Intel use an entirely different process.

[LordJerle]

I might also mention I play Planetside 2 now and then on ultra, no performance issues whatsoever.  Only time I ever get bottlenecking is when I fire up Homeworld 2 Dynamic Deathmatch mod and raise the unit cap to maximum >.> There's around 1000 ships on the field before it starts to skip, though :-P

[...0...]

I don't say benchmarks are aboslute and you buy a system on that but there plenty of sites who give reviews and benchmarks that are accurate enough to have atleast and idea about a product or not and ive been so far with my own rigs not realy wrong. Ok i build my own rigs and and fix program everything myself if there is any problem i love screwing around with my darling rig:)

 

Everybody can claim this or that, but eventually you have to experience it for yourself and thats only what counts:)

 

I claim my rig beats nasa's hardware can you?...

[ArielFetters]

Lol, my tablet could eclipse Nasa's Computing power...from the lunar shuttle days

 

Seriously though, it's sounding like AMD's cheaper, but not as powerful, while Intel's the opposite. For my system build I was gonna go to a local shop used by gamers and businesses. It'll cost a bit more, but they give an automatic 1-year free warrantee on any system you get from them. As long as you don't spill coffee on the CPU (Or cook an eggg on the video card), they'll rebuld it for free.

 

From what I can tell, Intel video cards cost more, but power/capability wise they blow AMD's out of the water. CPU's I'm still sorting out from people's comments, but like I said above. More power/more expensive vs Less power/less expensive. All of which puts old beer commercials in my head >.< Great taste! Less filling! *Chaos ensues*

[gregathit]

The issue with OPenGL for the most part has been resolved with AMD cards\drivers.  The list of games that have issues is pretty slim anymore.  As long as you are getting a modern card then you should not have issues.

 

Now running dual cards is a horse of another color.  This can have issues regardless of whether it is Nvidia or ATI.

 

As to CPU's and motherboards, again, as long as you are getting something recent (last year or 2) and it is designed for gaming (not some emachine BS crap), then you should be able to run damn near any game on the market.

 

Remember however that old games like Oblivion WILL NOT utilize the extra cores on multi-core processors, so it is IMPORTANT to have a 2.8GHz or better for Intel or a 3.0 or better for AMD.  The way both companies measure the Ghz is slightly different for some damn reason (at least performance wise), so you need a bit higher for AMD processors.  If at all possible shoot for a 3.0 or better Intel or a 3.2 or better AMD so you are future proofed a bit.  Shoot for a minimum of 8 gigs of fast RAM (DDR5 if you can afford it).

 

Here is a fairly simple article that breaks things down:  http://www.techradar.com/us/news/computing-components/processors/intel-vs-amd-which-processor-is-best-936589