Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Building a Mid-High Range Rig, Need Some Advice.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 3, 2010 7:34:36 PM

Hello if some of you remember me i was the kid building a rig with the GPU question a while back like maybe 7 days ago, i have my money now to order but just cant make up my mind im stuck what do you guys think?


Please remember my Budget is 1100$.

NOTE I PLAY AT, 1680x1050 (HDMI)

Ok So i need help choosing which rig will help me in gaming (I only game)

Both Rigs use the following.

CASE: COOLER MASTER Storm Scout Price: 79.99
PSU: XFX P1-650X-CAG9 650W Price: 89.99
RAM: G.Skill 4GB (2x2GB) 1333 Price: 54.99
CPU Cooler: Coolmaster Hydro Plus Price: 29.99


Now Then The Choice and Thoughts on what i Should go with
_______________________________________________________________________

RIG 1: AMD, 6850 Formula

GPU: 2x (HIS Radeon HD 6850 1GB ) in Crossfire Price: $379.98 (189.99 Each)
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Deneb 3.5GHz Price: $185.99
Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair IV Formula AM3 AMD Price: $219.99

Total (Including The Item Stated Up Top and Shipping): $1038.92

_______________________________________________________________________


RIG 2: Intel, GTX 460 P55 200

GPU: Gigabyte GTX 460 SLI KIT 1GB (in SLI) Price: $369.99
CPU: Intel i5 750 2.66GHz Price: $199.99
Motherboard: EVGA P55 FTW 200 SLI Price: $249.99

Total (Including The Item Stated Up Top and Shipping): $1089.97


________________________________________________________________________

Questions:

1) Which One Would You (yourself) Pref?
2) Taking into consideration Data, Benchmarks, and Facts, Which Would Give me Best FPS in Games And Service?


* FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY CHANGES OR EDIT TO THIS RIG TO MAKE THEM "BETTER" JUST NOTE IT CANNOT PASS 1100$

Last question, I have a 3gb/s HDD 650GB on my current Computer is there a way to set that up when i finally make my choice with this computer?






SORRY FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS THIS IS MY FIRST RIG AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DONT REGRET MAKING A CHOICE BUT IN THE END SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING (way to contradict myself there :D  )
a c 592 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 8:12:51 PM

An Intel Core processor is better at gaming. The GTX460's are basically even with the 6850's, but offer PhysX. SLI is also more stable and works much better 'as is' than Crossfire. You can't go wrong with an Intel/Nvidia setup.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 8:40:30 PM

If your resolution is only 1680x1050 then you really should not be looking at starting with a multicard setup. It is simply not necessary.
Score
0
Related resources
December 3, 2010 8:46:40 PM

from what I've heard

Crossfire and SLi adds 50%-~80% improvement from just using 1 card.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 9:11:21 PM

Yes, but your resolution is not high enough to make it matter. A single HD6850 or GTX 460 would be excellent for that resolution. If you really want some overkill then get an HD6870 or GTX 470 but the multicard setups you are talking about are basically a pointless waste of money at that resolution.
Score
0
December 3, 2010 9:30:02 PM

Wow, This is why i ask questions. I can not begin to express my thankfulness for that information you have just said, with that said and done would a 5870 or 6870 out preform a GTX 470?
Score
0

Best solution

a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 9:48:59 PM

Those three cards are quite close in average performance. Here is a performance chart for your resolution;

But to pick out the right card for you I would look at actual benchmarks. When looking at benchmarks keep in mind that in general for first person games average frame rates over about 40 are going to give you smooth gaming and above that doesn't matter too much. Also most LCD monitors have a refresh rate of 60hz which means anything over 60 frames per second cannot actually be displayed by most monitors.
You could go with a single HD6850 or GTX 460 and really for 1680x1050 there are only about two games where they will struggle some at maxed settings; Crysis and Metro 2033 and even in those it will just be a matter of turning down anti-aliasing basically, maybe slightly more in Metro 2033.
Share
a c 105 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 11:07:34 PM

I used to game At that resolution. There was more than one time I needed over a gig of memory on a card. I'd go for a GTX470 at minimum or get a 480/580 if I could. People that say you don't - don't really know. I run a GTX260 with the 1792bit memory in one machine and once in a while wished I had gotten one for another machine. Not the fastest card I own but probably the best inre to what I wrote prior. No stutter or skips in any game. I own a 5850 and it's not as good and it's faster.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 11:18:46 PM

If you recommend a GTX 470 at minimum for 1680x1050 you have insane standards.
Score
0
a c 105 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 11:28:38 PM

jyjjy said:
If you recommend a GTX 470 at minimum for 1680x1050 you have insane standards.



Up where I said this "People that say you don't - don't really know."...... insert YOUR name there!
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 3, 2010 11:56:21 PM

Right. Please educate me kind sir. I often see all the people out there buying useless 1gb cards for use at 1080p on this message board and have yet to see one return and say the card they bought has insufficient memory. Yet apparently their cards aren't even good enough for 1680x1050! :ouch: 
It must be a conspiracy. They got burnt so they stay silent so others make the same mistake as well and they can feel better about it. All the while the evil engineers at AMD keep making high end cards with only 1gb of memory that are actually only good enough for 1280x1024 and below. They market these cards to the unsuspecting public by paying every tech site in existence to publish false benchmarks showing their cards are actually extremely capable at high resolutions. :( 

On a second thought I think I'll go with you don't have a clue. No offense.
Score
0
a c 105 U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 12:08:37 AM

I'm not going to get in an argument with you. I can see you read my post where I said @ 1680x1050 sometimes 1gig of memory isn't enough. You can post all the benchmark charts you want but until YOU try a ton of different cards for yourself will truly never know what works and what doesn't. I like to have smooth game play and sharp edges. I hear people say idiotic things like I play at high res so I don't need AA...... total BS. There is a difference. I'm trying to point the OP in the right direction. In the end it's up to him.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 12:24:13 AM

So there's are *select* people that wont be satisfied unless they have 32X AA enabled and 60fps while most others can be fine with 4X AA and 30fps, big deal.

The fact is at 1680*1050, 1GB can satisfy 95+% of games for 95+% of people. Maybe you do have abnormally high standards with games; but I wouldn't trust the words from someone who refers to memory in bits too much.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 12:26:42 AM

swifty_morgan said:
I'm not going to get in an argument with you. I can see you read my post where I said @ 1680x1050 sometimes 1gig of memory isn't enough. You can post all the benchmark charts you want but until YOU try a ton of different cards for yourself will truly never know what works and what doesn't. I like to have smooth game play and sharp edges. I hear people say idiotic things like I play at high res so I don't need AA...... total BS. There is a difference. I'm trying to point the OP in the right direction. In the end it's up to him.

So you are saying all the benchmarks are useless basically? What do you mean by "smooth game play" if not exactly what is presented by those benchmarks? Minimum frame rates perhaps? I actually agree that those are more useful than average but there are a number of sites that include those.
Trying to "point the OP in the right direction" when that direction is the exact opposite of common knowledge on the subject with nothing to back up what you say is useful to no one. The performance of video cards isn't some mysterious subject but rather one that is analyzed to an almost absurd degree on dozens of sites by professionals who publish their findings for all to read and comment on. If you want to contribute come up with something better than "other people just don't know what I do" followed by "by that I meant you" when someone questions you.
Score
0
a c 235 U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 12:37:06 AM

xfirefly1x said:
from what I've heard

Crossfire and SLi adds 50%-~80% improvement from just using 1 card.



it really depends on the game, sometimes the improvement is 0% or below what you can get with just the single card.
Score
0
a c 235 U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 12:40:49 AM

swifty_morgan said:
I used to game At that resolution. There was more than one time I needed over a gig of memory on a card. I'd go for a GTX470 at minimum or get a 480/580 if I could. People that say you don't - don't really know. I run a GTX260 with the 1792bit memory in one machine and once in a while wished I had gotten one for another machine. Not the fastest card I own but probably the best inre to what I wrote prior. No stutter or skips in any game. I own a 5850 and it's not as good and it's faster.


looks like all the people who other posters label as "in the know" state that you "don't know"...is that irony, circumstance or poetic justice?

...an ATI 5850 is not as good as GTX 260...and I prefer Nvidia :pfff: 
Score
0
a c 105 U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 3:07:37 PM

Food for thought. All these "professional" reviews...... how many are automated and how many do you think people actually sit behind a computer and play ? And when stuttering or drop in "performance" ( I go by playability not processor speed ) happens, ( is it noticed on automated benchmark ? ) do you think anybody would say- " hey, how's about if I put a video card with more ram on it to see if that takes care of that problem" ? I've been through it. I know the difference. I actually play games...... I actually sit behind the computer and play, I actually swap out cards when I notice the difference..... whatever it may be. I come to conclusions about what the problem/s is/are. I don't need fancy charts.... that, by the way, sometimes I disagree with. ( Tom's too ) There's more than numbers on pretty graphs that tells the truth. If you guys are happy with what you got, fine. Don't tell me I don't know!
( myth-more ram means more FPS )
Score
0
a c 592 U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 7:28:20 PM

Hardocp.com is the only review website I'm aware of that places a focus on playable settings, instead of just pure framerate. They show the GTX 470 allowing extra AA settings for the same gameplay experience as the GTX460 without.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 7:36:50 PM

jyjjy said:
If you recommend a GTX 470 at minimum for 1680x1050 you have insane standards.


I agree that the GTX 470 is more than you need for 1680x1050. I recommend a GTX 470 for 1920x1080 as you can play High settings at 60FPS. Which I demand.

swifty_morgan said:
Up where I said this "People that say you don't - don't really know."...... insert YOUR name there!


Guess it depends on what settings you have to have. But a GTX 470 is not a minimum for 1680x1050 in my opinion. Frankly, I don't really see much beyond 4x or 8x AA settings anyhow, so what's the point? LOL

To the OP: You don't need two video cards for your current monitor. A single GTX 460 1 GB or ATI 6850 will do fine. You can then add a second card later as games become more demanding in the future, or if you upgrade your monitor later. Use that saved money to get a better Power Supply brand, or a Blu-Ray drive, or just save the cash for later.

Or, you can get a GTX 470 for about $239 right now @ NewEgg.com after mail in rebate. :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 7:43:53 PM

As for your CPU options: Both processors are great choices to be very honest. The Intel i5 / i7 CPUs generally are the best option from a pure performance standpoint. The i5-750 for example, out performs the Phenom II chips clock for clock. In other words, an AMD chip must run at a faster speed (Mhz, Ghz) in order to perform the same as an i5 or i7.

The i5-750 is what I chose when I last upgraded. I haven't regretted it since. My CPU overclocked to 4Ghz very easily on my Gigabyte motherboard, and has been flawless for me.

But you can't go wrong with the AMD chip either, as it should perform just as well over all.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 8:14:06 PM

It really comes down to how much you want to spend. I think you have gotten some good advice and don't need to spend $1100 at the resolution you have. Perhaps you just want the extra umph! :) 
Score
0
a c 592 U Graphics card
December 4, 2010 8:21:53 PM

In my opinion, overkill is exactly what we should be trying to achieve.
Score
0
December 5, 2010 2:35:20 PM

Best answer selected by xfirefly1x.
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
December 5, 2010 8:55:11 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!