PC Discussion Thread II - All PC related discussion goes here.

[cjgsicknote 10]

I have a similar set up to you and went for the asus gtx 560ti cuii, moderately priced and runs arma, bf3, skyrim etc really well. 500w psu should suffice but you might want to consider giving yourself some headroom and upgrade that also.

[kotov12345 10]

Take one with big fans - or may be with several big fans - so not will so noisy.

Take a look on test and you can see which one approx will be faster.

http://www.ixbt.com/video/itogi-video/1211/itogi-video-cr4-wxp-aaa-1920-pcie.html

Full tests here:

http://www.ixbt.com/video3/i1211-video.shtml

Sorry on russian - but most important things in english.

I'm not recommend anything below 570/6970.

[Laqueesha 474]

At least a GTX 560 Ti. Anything below that is rubbish for running ArmA 2. Ideally, you'd want a GTX 580 or a GTX 590.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

500 W ...

6970 is the card you wanna get.

[batto 17]

At least a GTX 560 Ti. Anything below that is rubbish for running ArmA 2. Ideally, you'd want a GTX 580 or a GTX 590.

Hi. I recently got new computer with MSI GTX 560 Ti. I increased resolution to 1920x1200 and disabled antialiasing. I left the rest of gfx settings on defaults (almost everything on high). Most of time I run on 60fps (60Hz LCD). I wanted MSI GTX 580 Lightning but they're all sold out worldwide. But now I'm happy because 5-10fps difference isn't really worth 270$ difference (560Ti ~ 260$, 580~ 600$).

EDIT: According to some review MSI GTX 560 Ti can be easily OCed to match reference GTX 570.

Edited January 17, 2012 by batto

[domokun 515]

At least a GTX 560 Ti. Anything below that is rubbish for running ArmA 2. Ideally, you'd want a GTX 580 or a GTX 590.

Avoid the fanbois and see for yourself:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/4

[Laqueesha 474]

Avoid the fanbois and see for yourself:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/4

Heck, I'd be a happy man if I had 50 FPS as my maximum. :eek:

[Flash Thunder 10]

I don't get it my GPU only uses about 900MB at max in Arma 2, how would you get the game to use more than 2GB if you got one of those new beasts of a video card?

[Laqueesha 474]

I don't get it my GPU only uses about 900MB at max in Arma 2, how would you get the game to use more than 2GB if you got one of those new beasts of a video card?

I'd like to know this too. I know ArmA 2 only uses 2047 MB of CPU processing power, though, but I'm not sure how it would work with GPUs.

[Przemek_kondor 14]

I'd like to know this too. I know ArmA 2 only uses 2047 MB of CPU processing power, though, but I'm not sure how it would work with GPUs.

Isn't there something like cache used internally by graphic card? Games don't have access to it directly, but whenever resource (mostly textures) is freed, it's not really errased from memory but kept to be loaded faster next time.

[PuFu 4600]

I don't get it my GPU only uses about 900MB at max in Arma 2, how would you get the game to use more than 2GB if you got one of those new beasts of a video card?

It is dependent on your gfx settings, especially the monitor resolution. try running the game @200%, see if you can see an increase

I'd like to know this too. I know ArmA 2 only uses 2047 MB of CPU processing power, though, but I'm not sure how it would work with GPUs.

CPU processing power is not measured in MBs, not even in GHz. The 2047 is RAM...:annoy:

[Pyronick 21]

Isn't there something like cache used internally by graphic card? Games don't have access to it directly, but whenever resource (mostly textures) is freed, it's not really errased from memory but kept to be loaded faster next time.

There's a framebuffer or VRAM which is accessible via D3D or OpenGL and on the more modern GPU's there is low-level cache which cannot be accessed by regular D3D or OpenGL but rather through OpenCL, DirectCompute, nVidia CUDA/AMD Stream or assembler.

However it wouldn't surprise me if the GPU drivers "cheat" using that low-level cache as a buffer for the framebuffer.

It's very complex these days. I only know a few bits about CISC/RISC processors but not about GPU architectures which completely change every year.

[Laqueesha 474]

CPU processing power is not measured in MBs, not even in GHz. The 2047 is RAM.

Oops, had a brain fart there. :pet1:

Edited January 22, 2012 by Laqueesha

[Flash Thunder 10]

@PuFu

current resolution is 1680x1050 3D res at 120%

I changed the video memory setting from Very High to Default

This seems to have increased my FPS even more and my video memory sometimes gets up to 1900MB usage! So almost a full load of the dedicated Vram.

I hope that's not because of a memory leak.

I also put SSAO on Post process set to Very High and increased View distance from 3200 to 4500.

Typically get around 25-40fps, when in helicopters usually get 50 to 60fps.

This is with an older CPU too its great performance I couldn't imagine it with an i7 2600k @ something better than 2.4ghz (my current frequency) :)

I tend to do smaller missions though with no heavy scripts running besides ACE 2 functions, I can't get good FPS in any campaign missions on these settings and I doubt i would if I had more than 30 AI in my missions.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Flash Thunder

[SPQR_Semaj 1]

Hey all, interjecting with my own question. I'm building my own computer for the first time, and I'm pretty ignorant all around when it comes to hardware and what to look for. I've done a bit of research, but all too often I'm getting conflicting information on what to look for, or what not to look for. I want to get started on building this computer sooner rather than later, and my benchmark is to be able to run ARMA 3 on high settings, at about 60-100 FPS, with a 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Since the game isn't out, I know no one will be able to offer definitive answers, but any recommendations as to how I can improve efficiency and whether or not you think it will likely be able to pull this off is what I'm looking for. I got this build from HERE. It's in my price range($1,000, give or take $200), and it is based around the i5 2500k, which seems to be the best all around CPU when it comes to performance and price.

Motherboard: EVGA P67 Micro SLI, LGA 1155, Intel P67 chipset

CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K, 3.3 GHz (3.7 GHz Turbo), Quad-Core, 6 MB L3 Cache

Memory: Mushkin Enhanced Redline 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) 240-Pin DDR3-1600 Kit, Dual-Channel Desktop Memory Kit

Graphics: 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX 460 1 GB, 1 GB in SLI

Hard Drive: OCZ Vertex Series 30 GB SATA II SSD, 30 GB, SATA 3Gb/s and Western Digital Caviar Black 750 GB, 7200 RPM, 32 MB Cache SATA 3Gb/s

Not going to bother listing the cooling, case, power, or optical unless it really matters. I'm probably going to go with 8 GB of memory since it's so cheap, but I haven't done much research on what to look for when getting it. Thanks for any and all critiques and advice.

[froggyluv 2136]

@spqr: Thats pretty much the system I have (except 16gigs ram for RamDisk) but who knows how it's gonna handle Arma3. 60-100fps?

Works great for Arma2 tho I'm almost certain I'll upgrade to a higher Vram video card as Arm3 draws nearer.

[Nicholas 5]

Hey all, interjecting with my own question. I'm building my own computer for the first time, and I'm pretty ignorant all around when it comes to hardware and what to look for. I've done a bit of research, but all too often I'm getting conflicting information on what to look for, or what not to look for. I want to get started on building this computer sooner rather than later, and my benchmark is to be able to run ARMA 3 on high settings, at about 60-100 FPS, with a 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Since the game isn't out, I know no one will be able to offer definitive answers, but any recommendations as to how I can improve efficiency and whether or not you think it will likely be able to pull this off is what I'm looking for. I got this build from HERE. It's in my price range($1,000, give or take $200), and it is based around the i5 2500k, which seems to be the best all around CPU when it comes to performance and price.

Motherboard: EVGA P67 Micro SLI, LGA 1155, Intel P67 chipset

CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K, 3.3 GHz (3.7 GHz Turbo), Quad-Core, 6 MB L3 Cache

Memory: Mushkin Enhanced Redline 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) 240-Pin DDR3-1600 Kit, Dual-Channel Desktop Memory Kit

Graphics: 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX 460 1 GB, 1 GB in SLI

Hard Drive: OCZ Vertex Series 30 GB SATA II SSD, 30 GB, SATA 3Gb/s and Western Digital Caviar Black 750 GB, 7200 RPM, 32 MB Cache SATA 3Gb/s

Not going to bother listing the cooling, case, power, or optical unless it really matters. I'm probably going to go with 8 GB of memory since it's so cheap, but I haven't done much research on what to look for when getting it. Thanks for any and all critiques and advice.

Don't even bother with a 30GB SSD. Buy something like a 256GB SSD. Or at least 120GB. 30GB will not offer enough room, even if you're only installing the OS and ArmA.

I would highly recommend not upgrading until ArmA III has been released.

Also, 60-100FPS on High Settings....I for some reason doubt it will be possible. Maybe 60FPS when staring at the ground or a wall with no AI around.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Nicholas

[Pyronick 21]

I would highly recommend not upgrading until ArmA III has been released.

This.

There is always chance on a regression which makes the projected requirements invalid that will not be fixed until 2013/2014.

For all you know you could buy a top of the bill nVidia GPU to find out it sucks in ArmA 3.

[kmossco 9]

Not to mention that the first or second driver from both Nvidia/Ati, after ArmAIII is out, can bring improvements and determine which flavour of graphics to buy.

Happened before with ArmaII.

[4 IN 1 0]

I've finally ready to get rid of my increasing problematic Windows XP 32 bit and move on to Win 7 Ultimate 64bit version (I know! I Know! XP is great, but sometime things have to move on, and with more then 3 GB of RAM now I have more chance to crash anyways)

Now I have a few question to ask before I upgrade to Win 7

A. Should I slipstream my box version of Win 7into WIN 7 SP1 like I used to with XP?(which is OH so more complicated then it used to in XP era)

B. And if so, how to?

C. Am I be able to put it on Bootable USB like I used to with XP?

D. Is there anything I have to be aware of other then the most usual stuff?

E. What should I do with my Steam install?

BTW I go back to ATI side of the display card war with 7970 now, is the offical driver ready? Or is there any 3rd modified driver available yet?

Edited February 1, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[bangtail 0]

A: Just install Win 7 and use the updater or get a MS ISO that has SP1 integrated (http://forum.notebookreview.com/windows-os-software/604187-legal-download-digitalriver-windows-7-sp1-13-languages.html).

C: Yes, http://www.pendrivelinux.com/universal-usb-installer-easy-as-1-2-3/, MS has their own tool http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/html/pbPage.Help_Win7_usbdvd_dwnTool but I prefer the former because it has a ton of other options.

D: Not really, Win 7 installs are usually very quick and simple.

E. Just back it up and restore it under your new install (Back up the whole steam directory and when you reinstall, install Steam and then restore your old Steam install over the fresh one.

The 7970 is on it's second post release driver.

Make sure you get the driver for the 7970 and not the 12.x drivers as they do not support the 7970.

Here is the latest one:

http://downloads.guru3d.com/AMD-Radeon-HD-7900-driver-8.921.2-RC11-download-2844.html

(The drivers for the 7970 are x64 only so you need to be running a 64bit version of Windows 7).

Edited February 1, 2012 by BangTail

[4 IN 1 0]

I actually find that I have many things needed to resolve with upgrading, mainly to find out all the things need to backup because I can foresee the file structure be very different then XP, I also might have to preform a full check on the disk partitions and try to remove any bad sector developed over years of operation......oh well, every thing have a paid off it seems...

I am switching to 64bit system anyway so won't be too much problem with 64bit drivers. However I do plan on running a water cool system later, since my cpu is already running a cheapy cheapy toy water cool set, I plan on running a separate cycle with the display card untill the next major overhual on MB, CPU and RAM, but it seems that no 7970 compatible component on the market yet, is that correct?(I admin I am a bit too nerdy here):p

Edited February 2, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[bangtail 0]

Emm, I think there is but I'll have to get back to you on that as the closest I get to liquid cooling is the Corsair H Series :)

[4 IN 1 0]

Ok, after a review seems my PSU have to go as well, and or though my PC case can house this bigass card I don't have the room for all the fan and stuff... So in the end of the day I might just upgrade the hold goddamn system as well .......

Even with the government refund covering the card and windows cost there still a lots of money when down the drain at once FPDR

Edited February 2, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[rangerpl 13]

If anyone's interested or pays attention to such things, Newegg has a wonderful deal on Intel 320 Series SSDs:

$119 for an 80GB drive, with the mail-in rebate this price drops to $70.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167047