PDA

View Full Version : Crysis/gaming upgrade Help


Pages : [1] 2

Pennyboy
04-30-08, 04:09 AM
I have been out of the hardware game for a while now so I was hoping for some advise on upgrading my PC because it doesn't run Crysis very well :(

At this stage I am looking at getting a Geforce 9800GTX, so that is sorted unless someone has a better idea.

For the best performance in Crysis and other demanding games would I be better off with an Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4ghx (Q6600) or an Intel Core 2 Duo 3Ghz (E8400)?

What chipset based mobo should I go for?

Revs
04-30-08, 04:26 AM
If you can, you'd be better of waiting for the new cards in July. Currenty, the only single card that will cope at Very High settings is the 9800GX2. You could always go SLI with a pair of GTX's though.

E8400 is the one to go for IMO. As for the mobo, that's down to whether you wanna go SLI at any time. 780i if so, P35/X38 if not.

Pennyboy
05-01-08, 03:13 AM
Hey thanks for the advise. Might as well wait then till July, do you know what the specs are rumoured to be for the next video cards??

Revs
05-01-08, 03:20 AM
Just have a look through the Rumor Mill. There's all sorts in there :)

Pennyboy
05-01-08, 05:12 AM
Just checked out the rumour mill and the GT200 def looks like it will be worth the wait. Hey just one more question, would 2gigs be enough to run crysis at max detail under win xp?
Would love to run it in DX10 mode but don't really want to put up with Vista.

FastRedPonyCar
05-01-08, 02:06 PM
I can run crysis at all very high details with a few even higher and a couple of key values a little lower than very high and the system in my sig averages near 30 fps...which is a highly acceptable framerate for the crysis engine to be viewed at.

you may want to check out the 9600gt as a filler card temporarily until the GT's come out later in the year.

In all honesty though, you'll get spectacular eye candy even with an 8800gt.

If I were building a new gaming machine right now, I'd put all my money into the actual system and get a buget card. It's what I did back last march when I built the one in my sig. I had everything with a $100 7600gt card temporarily until the 8800 ultra oc's were down in the mid $400's and I got one then.

Now, I'd swing for the E8400, and a mobo w/single pcie 16X like the intel boards like the asus p5K deluxe, Abit IP35 pro, Asus P5E LGA or maximus formula (any board in the $200~275 range) with DDR2 support..

and then toss one of these in.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130329

Unless you feel like just overclocking one of the lower speed ones

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130334

Or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150253


But yeah, IMO, there's really no real reason to get the 9800GTX right now. It can't run crysis THAT much better than an 8800 ultra so why pay more? There's a very real noticable point of diminishing returns right now in the video card market. Consumers are marking a card's worth by it's crysis frame rendering prowess and a $560 9800 GX2's high res performance just isn't worth the price tag and the 9800gtx can't put up better benchmark numbers than a meager 8800 gts.


So, in my honest opinion, holding out for the new GT's later in the year is the smartest thing you can do with your money. Now just isn't the time IMO to upgrade much, if anything if you've already got a half decent rig.

Anything scoring above 10,000 3dmark06 is perfectly adequate right now. (to me at least)

H4yd3n
05-01-08, 02:27 PM
My 9800 GTX and Q6600 play Crysis on very high with a playable FPS.

I advise getting a quad core, dual core is a thing of the past, and I will never go back. About the Graphics card, I agree that you are better off waiting for July. I think we all are :p I know I am. :D

FastRedPonyCar
05-01-08, 02:31 PM
I advise getting a quad core, dual core is a thing of the past, and I will never go back.

Despite numerous benchmarks of the E8400 at stock speeds out performing the QX9650...


Edit: In gaming at least

H4yd3n
05-01-08, 03:34 PM
Despite numerous benchmarks of the E8400 at stock speeds out performing the QX9650...


Edit: In gaming at least

E8400 out performs any quad core when playing older games. Quad core CPUs run in circles around dual cores when it comes to having multiple programs open, video or graphics editing, and in newer games that actually utilize all of the cores. I think in the near future we will see many games begin being able to utilize 4 cores at once.

In my opinion quad cores are overall better than dual cores.

It all comes down to personal opinion. Don't look at clock speeds when buying a cpu either, they mean very little. You can overclock, and a quad core with a lower clock speed will still out perform a dual core with a higher clock speed.


To each his own.

FastRedPonyCar
05-01-08, 03:45 PM
E8400 out performs any quad core when playing older games. Quad core CPUs run in circles around dual cores when it comes to having multiple programs open, video or graphics editing, and in newer games that actually utilize all of the cores. I think in the near future we will see many games begin being able to utilize 4 cores at once.

In my opinion quad cores are overall better than dual cores.

It all comes down to personal opinion. Don't look at clock speeds when buying a cpu either, they mean very little. You can overclock, and a quad core with a lower clock speed will still out perform a dual core with a higher clock speed.


To each his own.

Well, as I originally told Pennyboy, there are few, if any games that actually are using all 4 cores. Of all the games that should, crysis, doesn't. It just looks at whatever brute force the GPU can offer.

Now with apps and other processes outside of gaming, yeah 2 extra cores are handy if you do lots of that stuff but that would be up to him to decide if he'll be doing enough multitasking or multi~app'ing to justify the extra 2 cores.

jcrox
05-01-08, 03:53 PM
When it comes to gaming, I personally wont choose quad core until the consoles have them. That's what most of the games are being made for anyways.

lduguay
05-01-08, 04:04 PM
I can run crysis at all very high details with a few even higher and a couple of key values a little lower than very high and the system in my sig averages near 30 fps...which is a highly acceptable framerate for the crysis engine to be viewed at.

Good for you, I get a slideshow at 2560x1600 DX10 @ very high. About 0.5 fps, so i would need 120 x 8800 GTX's to get 30 fps.:headexplode:

lduguay
05-01-08, 04:08 PM
When it comes to gaming, I personally wont choose quad core until the consoles have them. That's what most of the games are being made for anyways.
Teh cellz has 8 SPE's (cores). :headexplode:

Bman212121
05-01-08, 04:36 PM
And the 360 is made of 3, 3.2Ghz cores. It can already run 6 threads at a time.

http://www.xbox.com/en-AU/support/xbox360/manuals/xbox360specs.htm

Bman212121
05-01-08, 04:45 PM
Good for you, I get a slideshow at 2560x1600 DX10 @ very high. About 0.5 fps, so i would need 120 x 8800 GTX's to get 30 fps.:headexplode:

I assume you have the hotfixes uninstalled and SP1 not installed right? Otherwise it could be running that slow due to a bug with DX10 + SLI + 4GB ram where it practically locks up the game. I could get 30fps @ 1920 x 1200 with DX10 and SLI on my older athlon system because it didn't have that issue. I can't even run Crysis atm with SLI enabled.

Pennyboy
05-02-08, 01:56 AM
Thanks for all the post guys, def has given me some ideas on what to do. I am swinging towards upgrading my CPU, mobo, RAM now and I think I will just use one of my 7800GTXs until the 9900GTX comes out.
Still undecided about the CPU, would love to get a quad core but don't really have the cash for a high speed one, plus I am a big gamer and I don't really need to run multiple apps at a time. When I encode mp3's etc i usuall just leave the PC doing that I go watch TV or something.

FastRedPonyCar
05-02-08, 01:45 PM
Good for you, I get a slideshow at 2560x1600 DX10 @ very high. About 0.5 fps, so i would need 120 x 8800 GTX's to get 30 fps.:headexplode:

with the system in your sig?

Something isn't right. (try lowering the resolution to start with)

I run mine at 1680X1050 (native resolution for my lcd)

Still undecided about the CPU, would love to get a quad core but don't really have the cash for a high speed one, plus I am a big gamer and I don't really need to run multiple apps at a time. When I encode mp3's etc i usuall just leave the PC doing that I go watch TV or something.

E8400 FTW!!

walterman
05-02-08, 02:43 PM
I upgraded from an Athlon X2 4400+ to a Quad Core X3350, and there's no difference in the framerate with Crysis. The cpu is idling more time, that's all.


Teh cellz has 8 SPE's (cores). :headexplode:

They aren't segmented, they only can exec SIMD instructions, they have little non shared memories per SPE, the data transfer is done with a slow ring bus, ... i do not remember more details, but a friend was coding one, and he told me that the raw performance of his code was around 1.5x times faster on the Cell than on his old P4. He was coding 2d wavelets, if i remember.

Pennyboy
05-02-08, 06:35 PM
E8400 FTW!![/QUOTE]

E8400 it is!!!!! :)

Pennyboy
05-08-08, 02:33 AM
Have put my order in for 4gigs of ram, Gigabyte GA-X38-DS4 Motherboard and a Core 2 Duo 3.00GHz CPU (E8400). Will wait for the 9900GTX, just hope it comes out in July because not too keen on using my 7800GTX for much longer.

David power
05-16-08, 05:22 AM
Just checked out the rumour mill and the GT200 def looks like it will be worth the wait. Hey just one more question, would 2gigs be enough to run crysis at max detail under win xp?
Would love to run it in DX10 mode but don't really want to put up with Vista.


I was playing crysis on "very high" with 2 gigs of ram. Also 2 gigs is enough to run 64bit perfectly. I was told several times that its not, I personally did not see it struggling for memory

Muppet
05-16-08, 07:05 AM
I was playing crysis on "very high" with 2 gigs of ram. Also 2 gigs is enough to run 64bit perfectly. I was told several times that its not, I personally did not see it struggling for memory
Vista 64bit is much smoother with 4Gb (less hitching) and game load times are a huge improvement. I have just upgraded myself and am very surprised at the results.

David power
05-16-08, 09:00 AM
Vista 64bit is much smoother with 4Gb (less hitching) and game load times are a huge improvement. I have just upgraded myself and am very surprised at the results.


Cool, I guess I wouldn’t know unless I tried it myself. *Dave goes to komplett.ie*

Ok just ordered 2 more gigs of OZE Platinum DDR 3 ram.
(its out of stock so it will be 2 weeks i'd say)

I will let you know now this goes.

I found that a 10,000 RPM drive really helps with the loading times over ram XD

Muppet
05-16-08, 07:22 PM
Cool, I guess I wouldn’t know unless I tried it myself. *Dave goes to komplett.ie*

Ok just ordered 2 more gigs of OZE Platinum DDR 3 ram.
(its out of stock so it will be 2 weeks i'd say)

I will let you know now this goes.

I found that a 10,000 RPM drive really helps with the loading times over ram XD
I will be interested to see if your results equal my own.

Pennyboy
05-16-08, 07:37 PM
Have gone 4gb in the end just incase because it is not too expensive to get 4gb, also I returned the x38 based Gigabyte and went for the ASUS Striker extreme as I still want to run my 7800GTXs in SLI until the GT200 arrives.