"I need a New PC!" 2011 Thread of reading the OP. Seriously. [Part 2]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alextended said:
I've got an aging Core 2 Duo (E8500) with 4GB DDR2 and a GTX285 on a Windows 7 setup.

Can I do any cheap but noticable CPU upgrade that will help with games like Crysis 2 and The Witcher 2?

It really seems to me that my CPU is the biggest bottleneck. My motherboard is a P5Q Asus that says it supports Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Extreme.

P45 Express chipset, socket 775, I guess.

I was googling and saw people mention that a Q9650 Core 2 Quad outperforms i5 processors but it seems too expensive and rare for an older model...

What about the q9550? Would that be substantially better?

Something around 100-150 euros would be ideal, if it offered a good difference, until I can build a full new rig, which will probably take me quite a while...

Edit: shit, I see my E8500 going for higher than that budget. Amazon.de sells the Q9550 for like 190 Euros, I don't see it cheaper anywhere is that a good deal?

Why don't CPU prices drop more. Who the hell (besides me) is going to buy these old models...
Click to expand...

I would also be very interested in this :)

I have an E8500 as well but with a GTX 275 and 4 gigs of ram.
Is it better to just upgrade my videocard to a 560 Ti for example or to just buy a new pc.
 
Is that advice based on any benchmarks? I'm just curious. It's not like I expect my system to fly as if I got a whole brand new top of the line setup, I'm just looking for a low budget upgrade as I made clear. Games like The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 get frame rates around 20 in various areas, which is quite annoying. If a Quad would make the minimum a nice 30 or so, that would be a worthwhile upgrade to me, depending on the pricing. Would such frame rates still be impossible with a Q9550 or Q9650 on this setup? I'm only running these at 1680x1050, or lower at around 720p or 800p when I play games windowed, so I don't think it's my GPU that is the biggest bottleneck (the frame rates change little with different settings anyway). Getting a new CPU + Mobo + Ram at this point isn't really an option unless you can link to some super prices that will ship Europe-wide.
 
I might have to invest in a new monitor. What is the preferred resolution for gaming on a 21" to 24" screen? 1920x1080? The one I have now is 1680x1050. Is Dell UltraSharp U2311H a decent option?
 
archnemesis said:
I might have to invest in a new monitor. What is the preferred resolution for gaming on a 21" to 24" screen? 1920x1080? The one I have now is 1680x1050. Is Dell UltraSharp U2311H a decent option?
Click to expand...
Yeah, 1920 is pretty much the standard
 
Definitely ordering today, just looking to save some pennies. Any reason not to go with a Gigabyte Z68-A over the previous P8P67 Pro? Google has very little in the way of Z68-A reviews, but it's quite a bit cheaper, so I figured I'd ask.
 
slidewinder said:
Sounds pretty extreme to be just Windows getting crufty. Are you sure your HD isn't failing? I'd run the manufacturer's diagnostic tool as well as check SMART status with something like CrystalDiskInfo, just in case, if you haven't.
Click to expand...
So I downloaded CrystalDisk, but I have no clue what any of this means, bad good?

 
Alright got most of my items for my new rig..
Will be using mostly for gaming/converting video files/Photoshop.
.So far Ive ordered....
Asus GTX560 Ti DirctCUII (will sli in future)

Asus ROG Maximus IV Gene-Z MOBO

G skill 2x2GB DDR3 RAM

Corsair TX750 PSU

Any suggestions for SSD, HD,CPU cooler and cases? I would like a case that has cable management but im not trying to spend over 60 bux...any ideas?
 
Ryan_ said:
I would also be very interested in this :)

I have an E8500 as well but with a GTX 275 and 4 gigs of ram.
Is it better to just upgrade my videocard to a 560 Ti for example or to just buy a new pc.
Click to expand...

I've got an E8500 @ 4ghz, paired with a GTX 580 I got on sale for $330 (I wouldn't have gotten it otherwise). In almost all games, the pairing is excellent, and provides great framerates. On some very CPU intensive games (specifically those designed for 4 cores), it would falter, but it's definitely fine for now (tested in Crysis, Crysis 2, The Witcher 2, Portal 2, etc, at 1080p)

My advice is to get the 560 ti now, and see what kind of performance you are going to get. If it doesn't meet your needs, you can always drop it into a new rig immediately.


iSurvivedTheOutage said:
Alright got most of my items for my new rig..
Will be using mostly for gaming/converting video files/Photoshop.
.So far Ive ordered....
Asus GTX560 Ti DirctCUII (will sli in future)

Asus ROG Maximus IV Gene-Z MOBO

G skill 2x2GB DDR3 RAM

Corsair TX750 PSU

Any suggestions for SSD, HD,CPU cooler and cases? I would like a case that has cable management but im not trying to spend over 60 bux...any ideas?
Click to expand...

Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233
SSD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441 (or another m4)

HDD:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185&Tpk=Samsung F3

CPU cooler: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065
 
Ryan_ said:
I would also be very interested in this :)

I have an E8500 as well but with a GTX 275 and 4 gigs of ram.
Is it better to just upgrade my videocard to a 560 Ti for example or to just buy a new pc.
Click to expand...

Alextended said:
Is that advice based on any benchmarks? I'm just curious. It's not like I expect my system to fly as if I got a whole brand new top of the line setup, I'm just looking for a low budget upgrade as I made clear. Games like The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 get frame rates around 20 in various areas, which is quite annoying. If a Quad would make the minimum a nice 30 or so, that would be a worthwhile upgrade to me, depending on the pricing. Would such frame rates still be impossible with a Q9550 or Q9650 on this setup? I'm only running these at 1680x1050, or lower at around 720p or 800p when I play games windowed, so I don't think it's my GPU that is the biggest bottleneck (the frame rates change little with different settings anyway). Getting a new CPU + Mobo + Ram at this point isn't really an option unless you can link to some super prices that will ship Europe-wide.
Click to expand...

I'm going to offer a different opinion than LordCanti.

I went from a Core2Duo E6600 w/ 6gigs of DDR2 and a GTX 260 superclocked to an i5 2500k w/ 8gigs DDR3.

I kept the same video card and instantly I went from playing Witcher 2 on low to playing on high with better framerate. That's the only graphics intensive game that I am playing right now but every other game that I'm playing (Darksiders, Assassins Creed 2, Tropico 3) all run at higher settings with higher frame rates.

I've known I was CPU bottlenecked for awhile but I didn't realize how much. At least in my case, a GPU upgrade would not have made as big of a difference.

However, take that with a grain of salt. Both of you are running better procs than I was.

You can do a budget upgrade of just around $400 for an i5 2500k, a P67 mobo and 4-8gigs of DDR3.

Both Q9550 and Q9650 CPUs are out of stock on newegg but you're looking at $300 min for that upgrade. Definitely not worth it. Either go with the i5 or get a new GPU.

edit: sorry, overlooked the Europe part. Still, the price difference between a Q9550 and a new i5 cpu+mobo+RAM can't be that significant. Even if it's double, it's worth it. I wouldn't spend a penny on a new CPU for that old chipset.
 
Well that's not really different to what he said, which was also to go for a new mobo/ram/cpu.

But thanks. I guess I'll have to get a more decent amount dedicated to a more substantial upgrade then.

I won't be upgrading for a while since that's essentially like half an all new rig. Are there any expected i5/i7 price cuts?

What about going for AMD since I'll have to change mobo anyway? Their sockets tend to last longer making future upgrades easier, no?
 
Alextended said:
Is that advice based on any benchmarks? I'm just curious. It's not like I expect my system to fly as if I got a whole brand new top of the line setup, I'm just looking for a low budget upgrade as I made clear. Games like The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 get frame rates around 20 in various areas, which is quite annoying. If a Quad would make the minimum a nice 30 or so, that would be a worthwhile upgrade to me, depending on the pricing. Would such frame rates still be impossible with a Q9550 or Q9650 on this setup? I'm only running these at 1680x1050, or lower at around 720p or 800p when I play games windowed, so I don't think it's my GPU that is the biggest bottleneck (the frame rates change little with different settings anyway). Getting a new CPU + Mobo + Ram at this point isn't really an option unless you can link to some super prices that will ship Europe-wide.
Click to expand...
A better quad will help out your min frames on games like those two, but it really isn't a good way to go spending money unless you find a nice chip cheaply used imo.

AM3+ may or may not have longevity. In the past this was true, but they ditched AM3 for AM3+ (AM3 is not compatible upwards, except on like six $250 boards).
Intel 1155 should support the revamp coming next year, beyond that doubtful.
 
Flying_Phoenix said:
How much faster can SATA III SSD get?
Click to expand...

You mean in the future? I suppose 4K read can be sped up. But SATA 3 is 6 Gb/s, which is 750 MB/s - The Corsair Force Series 3 is 550/510, so we're getting there.

Again, 4K read is still really no where near that, so I guess they can optimize that, without me being able to say anything about the technical limitations of that read speed.

In comparison, SATA 2 is 3 Gb/s, which is 375MB/s.
 
TommyT said:
You might be interested in this as well. The monitor is great, however if you're using the speakers for anything significant I cannot recommend it for that purpose. I had headphones planned in my build so I was ok with that.
Click to expand...

That seems like a good price for an LED. I use nice headphones and a zalman mic on my setup so if I buy a monitor with speakers I'll be spending additional money on something I don't need.

Do you want a lower or higher MS for response time?
 
Okay, how's this looking? :)

1.jpg
 
Coldsnap said:
I'm thinking of buying this monitor, seems to have a higher contrast ratio and Ms time than most the asus in its price range and over.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001463
Click to expand...

For response time you want the lowest possible because the time means how long it takes to recognize your input and show it on the screen. This is one of the reasons why Asus' monitors are generally excellent because so many of their modern line of monitors have 2ms response. So that samsung actually takes 4 times as long to recognize and display input. However, if you don't play FPS or fighting games you will likely not feel the difference. I'd say most people can't tell the difference between 2ms and 8ms except for in fighting games.
 
taoofjord said:
Okay, how's this looking? :)

1.jpg
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the same as my computer which I just built. Same case, cpu, gpu (different brand though) and hdd. I also put a Crucial 128GB M4 SSD into my system for my OS and it's running beautifully.

Good choice. It'll be a nice computer. The case is great and coupled with the Spinpoint F3 its pretty quiet.
 
Tallshortman said:
For response time you want the lowest possible because the time means how long it takes to recognize your input and show it on the screen. This is one of the reasons why Asus' monitors are generally excellent because so many of their modern line of monitors have 2ms response. So that samsung actually takes 4 times as long to recognize and display input. However, if you don't play FPS or fighting games you will likely not feel the difference. I'd say most people can't tell the difference between 2ms and 8ms except for in fighting games.
Click to expand...

Ah right on, now that you say that it seems like Asus is a better choice over samsung. However though the only game i play on my monitor is a MMO Final Fantasy XIV (I play everything else on my plasma tv via a 50' HDMI cable), I do need fast inputs on XIV to select abilities but most of it is probably server lag dependent.
 
Coldsnap said:
Ah right on, now that you say that it seems like Asus is a better choice over samsung. However though the only game i play on my monitor is a MMO Final Fantasy XIV (I play everything else on my plasma tv via a 50' HDMI cable), I do need fast inputs on XIV to select abilities but most of it is probably server lag dependent.
Click to expand...

Oh lawds.
 
Tallshortman said:
For response time you want the lowest possible because the time means how long it takes to recognize your input and show it on the screen. This is one of the reasons why Asus' monitors are generally excellent because so many of their modern line of monitors have 2ms response. So that samsung actually takes 4 times as long to recognize and display input. However, if you don't play FPS or fighting games you will likely not feel the difference. I'd say most people can't tell the difference between 2ms and 8ms except for in fighting games.
Click to expand...

Coldsnap said:
Ah right on, now that you say that it seems like Asus is a better choice over samsung. However though the only game i play on my monitor is a MMO Final Fantasy XIV (I play everything else on my plasma tv via a 50' HDMI cable), I do need fast inputs on XIV to select abilities but most of it is probably server lag dependent.
Click to expand...

Wow wow wow, hold on. If I'm not mistaken, that '2ms' value is an indication of ghosting, not input lag. Not only that, but you'll sometimes find monitors that have a higher response time on paper but are actually faster than others because those kind of measures can easily be manipulated to put the screen in a good light. Add to that the various processes that are particular to each manufacturer and can improve the quality in some respects while degrading it in others. I don't know this stuff in detail, but that is what has me on the fence.

Also, the ASUS monitor recommended earlier has tons of good reviews, but I'd get a bit worried looking at the 1/2-star ratings.
 
Kilrogg said:
Wow wow wow, hold on. If I'm not mistaken, that '2ms' value is an indication of ghosting, not input lag. Not only that, but you'll sometimes find monitors that have a higher response time on paper but are actually faster than others because those kind of measures can easily be manipulated to put the screen in a good light. Add to that the various processes that are particular to each manufacturer and can improve the quality in some respects while degrading it in others. I don't know this stuff in detail, but that is what has me on the fence.

Also, the ASUS monitor recommended earlier has tons of good reviews, but I'd get a bit worried looking at the 1/2-star ratings.
Click to expand...

Ghosting is an effect of the lag shown on the screen. It doesn't matter how fast it reads the input if it can't display it on the screen quick enough. ASUS reviews show that they have good response times and is apparent by the fact that they produce the official monitors of EVO.

Every monitor will get some 1/2 star ratings, I don't understand how this is relevant if 90% of the users are giving good ratings. This is true for every popular product. The only products you'll see with no bad ratings are the ones with very few reviews.
 
Kilrogg said:
Wow wow wow, hold on. If I'm not mistaken, that '2ms' value is an indication of ghosting, not input lag. Not only that, but you'll sometimes find monitors that have a higher response time on paper but are actually faster than others because those kind of measures can easily be manipulated to put the screen in a good light. Add to that the various processes that are particular to each manufacturer and can improve the quality in some respects while degrading it in others. I don't know this stuff in detail, but that is what has me on the fence.

Also, the ASUS monitor recommended earlier has tons of good reviews, but I'd get a bit worried looking at the 1/2-star ratings.
Click to expand...

Yea.. hmmm this has become a bigger task than originally planned
 
Tallshortman said:
Ghosting is an effect of the lag shown on the screen. It doesn't matter how fast it reads the input if it can't display it on the screen quick enough. ASUS reviews show that they have good response times and is apparent by the fact that they produce the official monitors of EVO.

Every monitor will get some 1/2 star ratings, I don't understand how this is relevant if 90% of the users are giving good ratings. This is true for every popular product. The only products you'll see with no bad ratings are the ones with very few reviews.
Click to expand...

I see, my bad. This is actually good news because I've been considering buying that ASUS monitor. My one and only worry is that I don't know how it will handle 480p and olschool, high-contrast 2D games. I used to be on the "who cares about HD for the Wii?", but now that I'm looking for something that will perform well in SD, I kinda understand some people's predicaments.
 
edit: nevermind


Coldsnap said:
lol, it's actually 35' I dont know why I have a tendency to over exaggerate it. I bought a nice cable though, no decrease in quality from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

I'm also using a 35' HDMI cable. Absolutely no issues. None with my 35' Active USB cable either.
 
SenseiJinx said:
The last part I'm really getting hung up on is the case. I'm leaning towards the Storm Scout:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119196

Can anyone vouch for that case?

Alternatively, I like the look of the Fractal R3 quite a bit. But that Scout is cheaper, and seems to have better cooling solutions. Would that be accurate?
Click to expand...
Storm Scout can't fit long video cards (6900 series, 580, older cards of that length) without modification. Other than that it's supposed to be a pretty nice case though.
 
chaosblade said:
Storm Scout can't fit long video cards (6900 series, 580, older cards of that length) without modification. Other than that it's supposed to be a pretty nice case though.
Click to expand...

Hm...I ordered a PNY 460GTX and I'm fairly certain that's under 10.5", so it should fit. I hate to restrict myself for card length in the future, though. Can you think of any cases in that general price rage (~$100) that have more breathing room for card length? The HAF 922 can fit longer cards, correct? Also, what about the Fractals?
 
SenseiJinx said:
Hm...I ordered a PNY 460GTX and I'm fairly certain that's under 10.5", so it should fit. I hate to restrict myself for card length in the future, though. Can you think of any cases in that general price rage (~$100) that have more breathing room for card length? The HAF 922 can fit longer cards, correct? Also, what about the Fractals?
Click to expand...

The R3 lists 290mm (11.42") for video cards. It should fit without issue.
 
SenseiJinx said:
Hm...I ordered a PNY 460GTX and I'm fairly certain that's under 10.5", so it should fit. I hate to restrict myself for card length in the future, though. Can you think of any cases in that general price rage (~$100) that have more breathing room for card length? The HAF 922 can fit longer cards, correct? Also, what about the Fractals?
Click to expand...

I really like the Lancool K63 in that price range, though the styling may not be your cup of tea (it's also sold out at Newegg currently). You can pull one of the drive cages if you have to fit a huge video card. In addition, it's got great ventilation, tons of room in general and really outstanding cable management.
 
Coldsnap said:
So I'm down to these two monitors :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236059&Tpk=asus vh236

vs

http://www.buy.com/prod/asus-ve248h...x-1080-speakers-hdmi/q/loc/101/217317196.html

pretty much lcd vs led. I'm leaning towards the LCD because it's a bit cheaper, is the monitor of choice for mlg so it's tried and tested.
Click to expand...

It really comes down to how much you care about the picture because LED looks better because there are lights spread throughout the monitor rather than from a single source like LCD.
 
Tallshortman said:
It really comes down to how much you care about the picture because LED looks better because there are lights spread throughout the monitor rather than from a single source like LCD.
Click to expand...

Will the speed and quality be the same as the LCD? I'm just hesitant to go with the LED because it's one of the cheapest LED out there and I'm just wondering if they skimped on quality to get an LED around $200
 
Well I got my GTX 460 over lunch and put it in. Unfortunately I only have one intensive game to really test with.

My specs are:

i5 2500k @ stock speeds
8gigs DDR3 1600

EVGA GTX260 Superclocked 898mb
Witcher 2 on high in Floatsam
max fps 40, avg fps 30

PNY GTX460 1gig
Witcher 2 on high in Floatsam
max fps 48, avg fps 35

I'm a little disappointed in the increase. Benchmarks before I bought it showed a ~30% jump. I guess the superclocked edition gave me a leg up. I didn't do any before and afters for any other games but it wasn't as big of a jump as I'd hope for the $100.

On the bright side, it's dx11 compliant so Skyrim should look very nice :) The other bright side is the temps are down. It maxed at 65C at 45% fan in Witcher 2 compared to the 260 which maxed at 78C at 55% fan. I should be able to OC a little bit and squeeze out some more performance.

The only objective is to tide me over through new games until the next generation of AMD AND Nvidia cards hit.
 
garath said:
Well I got my GTX 460 over lunch and put it in. Unfortunately I only have one intensive game to really test with.

My specs are:

i5 2500k @ stock speeds
8gigs DDR3 1600

EVGA GTX260 Superclocked 898mb
Witcher 2 on high in Floatsam
max fps 40, avg fps 30

PNY GTX460 1gig
Witcher 2 on high in Floatsam
max fps 48, avg fps 35

I'm a little disappointed in the increase. Benchmarks before I bought it showed a ~30% jump. I guess the superclocked edition gave me a leg up. I didn't do any before and afters for any other games but it wasn't as big of a jump as I'd hope for the $100.

On the bright side, it's dx11 compliant so Skyrim should look very nice :) The other bright side is the temps are down. It maxed at 65C at 45% fan in Witcher 2 compared to the 260 which maxed at 78C at 55% fan. I should be able to OC a little bit and squeeze out some more performance.
Click to expand...
Min fps is more important in a lot of cases. Just you just stand around?
Benefits should be better than that.
 
MisterNoisy said:
I really like the Lancool K63 in that price range, though the styling may not be your cup of tea (it's also sold out at Newegg currently). You can pull one of the drive cages if you have to fit a huge video card. In addition, it's got great ventilation, tons of room in general and really outstanding cable management.
Click to expand...

Actually, I really like the design of that case -- moreso than the Cooler Master ones. I was considering those more for functionality than design, but that one seems to have both. Air flow looks awesome as well, which is really important to me. Is the cable management good as well?

Too bad they're out of stock, everywhere else seems to be charging $30 more than Newegg. I set it up to auto notify me. I'm not planning to build for about two more weeks, so hopefully they get some in stock. I really think I might go with that one.

Anyone else have any good experiences with that case?
 
Hazaro said:
Min fps is more important in a lot of cases. Just you just stand around?
Benefits should be better than that.
Click to expand...

Could DX11 account for the meager improvement? The GTX 260 was DX10 if memory serves, and The Witcher 2 is DX11.

Just a theory. The improvement should definitely have been more than that though.

Out of curiosity, what did you do to benchmark, garath?
 
garath said:
Well I got my GTX 460 over lunch and put it in. Unfortunately I only have one intensive game to really test with.

My specs are:

i5 2500k @ stock speeds
8gigs DDR3 1600

EVGA GTX260 Superclocked 898mb
Witcher 2 on high in Floatsam
max fps 40, avg fps 30

PNY GTX460 1gig
Witcher 2 on high in Floatsam
max fps 48, avg fps 35

I'm a little disappointed in the increase. Benchmarks before I bought it showed a ~30% jump. I guess the superclocked edition gave me a leg up. I didn't do any before and afters for any other games but it wasn't as big of a jump as I'd hope for the $100.

On the bright side, it's dx11 compliant so Skyrim should look very nice :) The other bright side is the temps are down. It maxed at 65C at 45% fan in Witcher 2 compared to the 260 which maxed at 78C at 55% fan. I should be able to OC a little bit and squeeze out some more performance.

The only objective is to tide me over through new games until the next generation of AMD AND Nvidia cards hit.
Click to expand...
Witcher 2 is very CPU dependent. Overclock your CPU to 4.4-4.5GHz for a nice speed boost.
LordCanti said:
Could DX11 account for the meager improvement? The GTX 260 was DX10 if memory serves, and The Witcher 2 is DX11.

Just a theory. The improvement should definitely have been more than that though.

Out of curiosity, what did you do to benchmark, garath?
Click to expand...
Witcher 2 is DX9.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NeoGAF Digital Key Giveaway Thread - Read Instructions in OP
Staff  4 5 6 7 8
368
6K
mrpants replied
The Last of Us Part II - PC Version | Review Thread
Community Platform 
25
2K
viveks86 replied
Alien: Rogue Incursion - Part One: Evolved Edition - Reviews Thread (The Non-VR version of the game)
7
222
IbizaPocholo replied
Naughty Dog And Nixxes On The PC Port Of The Last Of Us Part II: “We Take The Steam Deck Very, Very Seriously”
12
915
MiguelItUp replied
Digital Foundry: The Last of Us Part 2 PC Review - We're Disappointed - Analysis + Optimised Settings
7 8 9 10 11
540
31K
yamaci17 replied
Top Bottom