Buying new Computer for Gaming

[KnightExemplar]

The 570 may be a significant 20% faster than the 560Ti today, but that difference will shrink dramatically as time goes on (what’s the difference between a GTX260 and a GTX280 today?)

As a counterpoint, if the 0-2% figure is right, probably still bigger than the difference between the RAM speeds.

I forgot that I could always answer it directly. Lol.

In Street Fighter IV, the GTX285 is 46% faster than the GTX260.

http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/optimal ... ce-GTX-285
http://www.geforce.com/optimize/optimal ... ce-GTX-260

And the GTX285 plays Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty 28% faster.

Damn, I still remember putting together ISA parts. I'm old

*remembers IRQs*
*goes and buries his head in a pillow to scream a bit*

Fuck yes Plug-and-play.

Sweet god, lets hope none of you will ever deal with that bullshit again. What do you mean these two cards use the same IRQ?

[GeorgeH]

You're picking games where they're both still playable at was looks to be maximum settings. Throw them at a more demanding game and you'll see something like this Crysis Warhead benchmark, where the 280 is putting out 22FPS vs the 260's 19. The 280 is still technically ~20% faster than the 260, but nobody cares because neither one is playable. The only time a 20% difference will come into play is when you're in the valley between "maxed out and smooth" and "choppy". As time goes on the percentage of games in that valley will shrink until GPUs become effectively identical.

My thinking was the same -- I could carry the case forward to my next computer, while moving the guts of my current computer into the case of my current-previous computer. And it really is a great case.

But you know, I'm not sure I will actually do that.

I'm still rocking a case from 2004, I know the feeling.

First, re. your first point (buying more than you need today is silly), I think it's crazy to not overprovision HDD by at least a bit.

Absolutely. From my perspective a 128GB is already over provisioning - right now I really don't need more than 64GB on a SSD. I can't tell someone else how much space they really need, though, which is why I didn't say anything to begin with.

Wait, mentioning major architectural shifts works against your argument.

Consider this, how much is that overclocked DDR2 RAM worth in a modern build?
Answer: Ziltch. No modern motherboard takes DDR2 RAM. Its completely obsolete. Its only useful for much older legacy computers.

I don't think I made myself clear. Whatever mobo/CPU/RAM goes into this build will still be there in 5+ years. Whatever GPU goes into this build will be gone (if it were my box) in 2, if not less. The potential for a slight speedup due to RAM will be there for the life of the computer, while the 20% GPU benefit will be gone in two. The 20% is also of more limited utility while it's there; pushing 80FPS instead of 70 doesn't matter at all, but finishing an encode slightly faster can be a real benefit.

It isn't a purely rational decision to spend 50% more for a low single digit performance differential, but as I said to begin with a $1000 gaming box isn't purely rational either - you can squeeze roughly the same shiny flashy pixel experience out of $500.

[KnightExemplar]

You're picking games where they're both still playable at was looks to be maximum settings. Throw them at a more demanding game and you'll see something like this Crysis Warhead benchmark, where the 280 is putting out 22FPS vs the 260's 19. The 280 is still technically ~20% faster than the 260, but nobody cares because neither one is playable. The only time a 20% difference will come into play is when you're in the valley between "maxed out and smooth" and "choppy". As time goes on the percentage of games in that valley will shrink until GPUs become effectively identical.

There is a danger in picking 4-year old benchmarks: Crysis is well-known to be CPU bound, not GPU bound. Look at the CPU in the benchmark: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. A good CPU for its time, but its very very old.

When Crysis came out in 2008, no CPU in the world could handle it. Today, a mediocre GPU paired up with even a cheap AMD Phenom II processor can handle Crysis. (Because CPUs are just so much more powerful today)

These systems all used the same graphics card, an AMD 5870.



Crysis is one of those feak examples where it is better to upgrade your CPU/Motherboard than it is to upgrade your GPU. The proof is in the benchmarks: the GPU doesn't slow down much between 1920x1200 and 1440x900 graphics.

[GeorgeH]

There is a danger in picking 4-year old benchmarks: Crysis is well-known to be CPU bound, not GPU bound. Look at the CPU in the benchmark: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. A good CPU for its time, but its very very old.

Unfortunately the GTX 280 is also very old. Battlefield 3 (or any other modern DX11 game) benchmarks would be pointless, and Crysis was the next best thing that I could think of to throw into a search engine.

When Crysis came out in 2008, no CPU in the world could handle it. Today, a mediocre GPU paired up with even a cheap AMD Phenom II processor can handle Crysis. (Because CPUs are just so much more powerful today)

That cheap Phenom II is very comparable to an overclocked Q6600, a CPU that was launched in early 2007. It’ll trade blows with a stock QX9770, a CPU released in early 2008 (6 months before Crysis Warhead.) What that graph is showing you is that at reduced detail levels and resolutions the CPU starts to become more important than the GPU. That has always been the case, in any game. I’m not going to claim that Crysis is completely insensitive to CPU speed, but at the highest detail levels and higher resolutions CPU performance becomes much less relevant.

[KnightExemplar]

I made a critical error: the Crysis high settings are GPU bound. So you're right in your last post.

But if we backtrack to the core of your argument:

Wait, mentioning major architectural shifts works against your argument.

Consider this, how much is that overclocked DDR2 RAM worth in a modern build?
Answer: Ziltch. No modern motherboard takes DDR2 RAM. Its completely obsolete. Its only useful for much older legacy computers.

I don't think I made myself clear. Whatever mobo/CPU/RAM goes into this build will still be there in 5+ years. Whatever GPU goes into this build will be gone (if it were my box) in 2, if not less. The potential for a slight speedup due to RAM will be there for the life of the computer, while the 20% GPU benefit will be gone in two. The 20% is also of more limited utility while it's there; pushing 80FPS instead of 70 doesn't matter at all, but finishing an encode slightly faster can be a real benefit.

You see... I still have some room to move around argument-wise. The conversation was pinned on the nearly 4-year old GTX285. As opposed to say... 30-month old models like the GTX480 or the 18-month old models like the GTX 560Ti, which itself is about to be replaced by the GTX 660Ti this week. If we are sticking with a two-year replacement cycle, then the GTX 560 Ti would be replaced soon.

Some people who work at Best Buy already got their GTX 660 Ti. The GTX 660 Ti is sitting in stores right now, its just not officially launched yet.

I figure we picked the GTX 560Ti because its right now one of the best price/performance points on the market. But as far as gaming quality, there are more expensive cards that will make your rig game better... and will certainly not be obsoleted in a matter of days.

I just can't see how the RAM upgrade even compares to the GPU upgrade.

[biohazard]

No love for the 7850? out preforms the 560 ti in most games and has 2gb of ram and is a current gen design and starts at $220 currently on newegg this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102998 one by sapphire is 240 and has an upgraded cooler

[KnightExemplar]

I only have done research on NVidia cards. >_< I know AMD makes good cards too, but I'm just not accustomed to them.

[screen317]

Why not pay 299$ for a GTX 660?

[wumpus]

Why not pay 299$ for a GTX 660?

If you are overclocking, an AMD7950 might do a little better: http://hardocp.com/article/2012/08/23/galaxy_gtx_660_ti_gc_oc_vs_670_hd_7950. I doubt you would go wrong with either. You could pay a lot more, but the differences (especially if you decide to crank up the clockrate) will be small.

Warning: The linked test used a carefully chosen 7950 that is over $300. This dual fan job only gets down to $300 after rebate (and before shipping) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102989 . I know nothing about the linked graphics card aside from checking the chip on it and counting the fans. The linked testing is done at higher than stock voltages (no reason to believe this board is capable of such control), however the board should last longer if you leave the voltage and rely on the extra fan to help keep the whole thing cool.