Just a quick bit of discussion: Do current gaming PCs seem over-specced to you? I say this because my current set up, by current standards, is quite medieval. I run: EVGA 680i Intel C2D E6400 @ 3.0GHz inno3D 7600GT (my 8800GT blew up ) 1.5GB Generic RAM But still, I manage to run any game I wish to play at pretty high resolutions on my 19" Samsung monitor. I mean, even after my 8800GT blew, I could still play COD4 at the highest possible settings, at 1600 x 900 with a more than sufficient frame rate... I recently got my hands on Spore and Assassin's Creed and I experienced similar effects. My PC Graphics atm are rather console pwning... I mean, how many of us are gaming on 32" monitors at 2600 x 1800 (or whatever it is)? Every system I see these days seems to feature two 280GTX's, 4 cores and 8GB of memory, and to my eyes, it seems like overkill... unless everyone here plays Crysis on their 50 inch flat screens...? Is it overkill? Is it a case of peen = power? Or does everyone know something I don't know...
Cod 4 maxed with a 7600GT at that rez has to drop to sub 30's, which is choppy to most people and gets annoying. That said i think its great a cd2 set up thats getting on for two years old can still pump the frames.
Not for me, 25fps is perfectly fine IMO, I don't really notice higher than that. And yeah, extreme gaming rigs are overkill, but not many people actually buy 2 280GTXes and a quad core. Although I'm not sure how you can run spore on max settings, mine chugs quite a bit sometimes and I'm using a 7800GTX. But then again my CPU isn't that amazing and the whole computer doesn't seem to be too happy.
Well I managed to average around 30fps, which seemed more than playable to me, though when I did get some lag, twas quite annoying... I do love my C2D and mobo combo - I really can overclock the f*** out of it (Highest I managed was 3.4GHz stable) though I need some decent RAM... my limiter is the 7600GT... though having said that, I can get pretty funky on Riva Tuner with it... and I might have exaggerated with the system specs, but I'm not lying when I say that the specs we see are pretty high. What sort of rig are you guys running? If I built a system now, with the same budget I built mine on a while back, it would probably look like mrbungle's... Oh, and I didn't get Spore entirely maxxed out (it crashed after 15 minutes ) but I did get close...
Well, I look at it this way, It was either stick with my old PC (cruddy dell "gaming" computer) or get a new gaming rig.... My mindset on the matter is as long as you set your budget, and end within it (while getting a computer that is good for what you want to use it for), I don't find them overspeced.
modgodtanvir I seem to keep running into this week LOL. Yes, I would say most PC specs are pretty crazy these days. Honestly, outside of video processing (compression or editing) who really uses more than 2 cores on a regular basis. I would say it would be a good idea to include a quad-core for future proofing of course, but still... So, unless you are playing nothing but Crysis my opinion is that most "hardcore" rigs are overkill for the current software. IMHO of course. I just built a system for my uncle under $1100 with a Q9300, 4GB RAM, MSI 4850 and multiple optical and hard drives. Really overkill, but he tends to run his systems out 4 or 5 years...
I'll have to agree, I know some people who absolutely MUST get +70fps on the games they play.. if I can at least stay above 25fps, I'm more then happy. That said my rig is a bit of overkill, but I started out more modest, and then swapped parts out gradually as prices came down.
I suppose a it depends on your budget and what the market is like at the time... If I could get a 780i with the same money, I would - but I can't... I recently built a rig for a lad named E*****, which cost him over £1500... it really was the bomb - 780i, 9800GTX's, Q9450, 1200W PSU and all the rest. Went to his house yesterday, 3 months later, and all he plays on it is WoW. I mean come on! Why? Use the money to feed orphans or buy a car ffs... Aahh, ve meet again Mr Bond... I must say, I seldom find myself using the full potential of my C2D, so I often wonder what people do with these mega quad cores in their bedrooms... I would love a Q6600, but a Q9450 like the guy whose rig I built? Unless you're at the centre of a Blu-Ray piracy ring, and you like to play Crysis at the same time, I don't see why that is necessary... I must say, that is quite a good rig for $1100. And it looks to be sensible. Tried gaming on it? Exactly. I mean, anything over 50fps is simply overkill. If my current rig is Xbox360 pwning, then some of these systems must be CERN pwning... I see that your rig has had the same sorts of humble beginnings as mine. Yours is far from the overkill I sometimes see... The current drop in prices means that you can build a rig which will play any game, at any setting, at any resolution for <£700. So why people spend thousands, I do not know. I mean, you can justify it if you're Bill Owen, or own a PC Store, or have to run the LHC from your bedroom, or you're even a pro gamer... but for leisure purposes, it seems insane...
True, and that kid is an idiot..... or just has WAAAY to much cash (i.e. his parents gave it to him...)
Yeah same here, at the higher end of the performance spectrum but not stupidly high. Enough to play most games on high and will last a few years. I think quad cores might be worth it in the future with people like valve taking about doing some funky stuff with them.
I built my system with a view to keeping it for a good few years. My 8800GT chews through any game I throw at it on max settings at 1920x1200. (Apart from crysis, but I played the demo and wasn't enthralled) The Q6600 gives video encoding a new lease of life. (for watching films on my PSP on the night shift) The only thing I'd change is the cooling (moving to water as soon as my res arrives) and the amount of RAM. 2Gb really isn't enough nowadays. That will be upgraded eventually, and the PC will pootle along for a good 3-4 years before I need an overhaul. Even then, it'll still get used, just like my old PC (Athlon XP 2600+ w/1Gb RAM and 9800Pro) is sitting next to me for web browsing while I'm playing games, or watching TV on.
Im still running my trusty XP3200 and a 9800pro... but then gaming hasnt really been the top of my priority list for a while!
Yep, I started with the low-end 1.8ghz C2D and a 7900GS vid card and 2Gbs of ram with a 400W PSU. Blew-up all of those within 4 months of each other (I cracked the CPU in half, the 7900GS overheated and shorted, ram corrupted, PSU went bang). I've built my bro a little shuttle case based PC for 450$.. plays most games at 1440x900 with very acceptable framerates (30-60). I hardly ever use mine for gaming anymore..
Re: Crysis, I think that game represents a plateau of graphical quality somewhat. There are time and manpower concerns when blinging a game out with intricate, gorgeous graphics, and I think we've found the limit to those for a while yet. So building a PC that can run Crysis on high basically sets you up for all games for the next year or so at least. That's just hypothetical, of course, but I'd be surprised if another game came along and did what Crysis did (kill every card and cpu on the market.)
"No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" - best Bond villian line ever. And the answer, like 3 days later... Yes I have. In fact part of my burn-in routine for him was to play Crysis on it some :-D The system still didn't "handle" Crysis the way most FPS games are played, but I was able to finally get a sense of the true beauty that game has to offer. I think the included demos fps were in the 19-22fps range for 1680x1050 res at "High" settings. Full spec = Q9300, 4GB DDR2 800 RAM (remember, his primary system goal was NOT heavy gaming),MSI R4850 512MB, 2x 500GB Seagate 7200.11, 2x Liteon 20x DVD+-RW Lightscribes all in a QPack2 (he wanted small) running on a Asus P5Q-EM mobo. Stable, quiet (except for the HDs because they are so close to the front) and cool. Why 2 hard drives? He really wanted to focus on video editing being a primary goal. A RAID would have been best, yes - but there were budget concerns and the 2 drive system should allow a good separation from media and system functions. We might have been able to shift the budget a bit with a cheaper video card, but then the system longevity would have been shortened. The only thing I would have changed is to have gone up to DDR 1066 RAM.
Oh, and to further the Overkill theme I would add that some of the best visuals I have seen outside of Crysis was from a system that cost around $400 US - the Playstation 3 and Metal Gear Solid 4. That game is absolutely stunning, graphically and ran without a hiccup for us at 1080p all day long. I am not a console junkie at heart (I like my keyboard and mouse too much), but I was nonetheless impressed.
I played Crysis on the Ultra High settings on this: e6300 CPU Bog standard MSI Mobo 2Gb of 667 DDR 8800GTS 512mb 1680x1050 res with no AA or FSAA It ran at around 20-30fps throughout the game, and only dipped below 20fps on the aircraft carrier at the end - admittedly I think it struggled to hit double figures at times. Considering people are spending 3 or 4 times what I've spent on a system that doesn't run it that much better than that to justify the expense, I was pretty chuffed. It looked amazing even without the AA etc. I've added an extra 1Gb of RAM and an e6600 in preparation for Farcry 2.
I completely agree - I refuse to upgrade from a C2D E6700 and borrow an 8800 GT from work because it works just fine. When I play warhead eventually I may drag home a GTX 280 for the weekend but I spose I'll be putting in more time into Left 4 Dead which only needs DX9 iirc.
