$1000 maximum fps gaming

[ehanger]

I want a gaming rig that will give me the most fps possible for the money (around $1000). Here is a system I've planned out, how does it look?

CPU/RAM combo: Intel i3 2100/corsair 8GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.968903
Mobo: ASUS 1155 board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131835
Video card: EVGA GTX 680 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130768
PSU: Antec Earthwatts 650W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371044
Case: Antec Gaming series one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129181
Optical: ASUS 24x sata dvd burner http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204
Storage: Western Digital 1TB 6GB/s Hardrive http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533

Total: $1031

I game at 1920x1080 by the way.

 

[insanitys]

i feel like the cpu is bottle necking the gpu. or maybe my eyes are just set on high end things..

 

[nekulturny]

Thats a horrible balance. And why are you so concerned about FPS? If your computer monitor is only 60hz, your video card could be sending 9001 FPS to the monitor, you'll only ever see 60 of them.

Seriously, spend less on the video card and more on the CPU, thats an extremely lopsided system.

Get something like a GTX 570 or a Radeon 7850 and get an i5-2500K/2400/3450, etc.

I mean, its your computer, if you want to go ahead, but don't say I didn't told you so when you try to play BF3 Multiplayer and the system falls flat on its face in a 64 man map.

 

[lazyboy947]

ASUS Direct CU II 7850, and i5 3570k, a little higher than 680gtx and i3 2100, but big improvement on cpu
i5 $220 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504&Tpk=3570k
7850 $260 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121623

 

[maxalge]

I want a gaming rig that will give me the most fps possible for the money (around $1000). Here is a system I've planned out, how does it look?

CPU/RAM combo: Intel i3 2100/corsair 8GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.968903
Mobo: ASUS 1155 board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131835
Video card: EVGA GTX 680 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130768
PSU: Antec Earthwatts 650W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371044
Case: Antec Gaming series one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129181
Optical: ASUS 24x sata dvd burner http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204
Storage: Western Digital 1TB 6GB/s Hardrive http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533

Total: $1031

I game at 1920x1080 by the way.

Newegg:

Replace the 680 with a gtx 670.

Replace the cpu and mobo with this combo: 3570k + asrock z77 extreme 4

Corsair tx650 + 8 gb corsair ddr3 1600 ram combo.


Same price, much more balanced and you basically loose nothing once you overclock the 670.

 

[wondermonkeys09]

I never thought I would say this, but cut back on your gpu and upgrade you cpu. get an i5 3570K and a gtx 670. Or cut back on gpu even more and go with an i5 2500K with a gtx 570. Then do what maxalge said an switch your motherboard for the asrock z77.

 

[z_4]

Your build look unbalanced i3-2100 with GTX 680? not recommended. Instead get a GTX 670, priced lower performs alightly less than GTX 680. Also all the GTX 680 seem out of stock.

Here's a build incorporating these changes with an 128GB SSD within the budget. Have a look:

CPU & Optical Drive: $226- i5-2500K & Asus

Motherboard & HDD : $155- Biostar TZ77B & Samsung Spinpoint 500GB

PSU & RAM: $105- Corsair CX600 & Corsair Vengeance 8GB( 600 watt PSU is more than enough unless you plan to add another GPU)

SSD: $80- OCZ Vertex 3 128GB(Great SSD, also cheaper due to the ShellShocker deal, get this before the deal goes off)

Cooler: $30- CM Hyper 212+(For your overclocking needs)

GPU: $400- EVGA GTX 670

Case: $40- NZXT Source 210

Total(Excluding Rebates): 1026 USD

Rebates,promos: ~$35

 

[fallen_glory]

CPU: upgrade to and i5 3570k
GFX Card: Get and Nvidia..... I personally think they are waaaay better than AMD... and get a GTX 670.... barely a downgrade from the 680.. I also like the ASUS GTX card alot more than EVGA... buts that just personal preference....

 

[ehanger]

Really? I know the i3-2100 isnt the fastest cpu out there but i mean the sandy/ivy bridge processors are so fast that gtx 680 sli won't be bottlenecked by even an i5. Why would an i3 bottleneck a single gtx 680 then. You guys are acting like i selected a pentium 4 or something, haha. And i know i could go for an SSD but im not looking for a balanced system, just something that will give me the most fps for the money, period. SSD just affects load times so isn't that important to me. So basically it comes down to i5/gtx 670 or i3/gtx 680. Obviously the former is a better "balance" but for purely gaming which one would provide the higher avg fps?

 

[z_4]

Really? I know the i3-2100 isnt the fastest cpu out there but i mean the sandy/ivy bridge processors are so fast that gtx 680 sli won't be bottlenecked by even an i5. Why would an i3 bottleneck a single gtx 680 then. You guys are acting like i selected a pentium 4 or something, haha. And i know i could go for an SSD but im not looking for a balanced system, just something that will give me the most fps for the money, period. SSD just affects load times so isn't that important to me. So basically it comes down to i5/gtx 670 or i3/gtx 680. Obviously the former is a better "balance" but for purely gaming which one would provide the higher avg fps?

Will it matter to you if a game renders at say 79 fps with GTX 680 and 74 fps with GTX 670?

The performance difference between GTX 680 & GTX 670 is with 4-6%. In gaming it won't matter much.

Read this it will help you get a better idea
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-review,3200-6.html

 

[ehanger]

Will it matter to you if a game renders at say 79 fps with GTX 680 and 74 fps with GTX 670?

The performance difference between GTX 680 & GTX 670 is with 4-6%. In gaming it won't matter much.

Read this it will help you get a better idea
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-review,3200-6.html

Yes.

 

[nekulturny]

Really? I know the i3-2100 isnt the fastest cpu out there but i mean the sandy/ivy bridge processors are so fast that gtx 680 sli won't be bottlenecked by even an i5. Why would an i3 bottleneck a single gtx 680 then. You guys are acting like i selected a pentium 4 or something, haha. And i know i could go for an SSD but im not looking for a balanced system, just something that will give me the most fps for the money, period. SSD just affects load times so isn't that important to me. So basically it comes down to i5/gtx 670 or i3/gtx 680. Obviously the former is a better "balance" but for purely gaming which one would provide the higher avg fps?

I really don't care what you do. Just don't say you weren't warned. You're asking for our advice, and we gave it to you. Its a completely stupid way to build a computer, but good luck with it. I'm not going to argue with you about it. You have the right to do any thing you want to in this country, no matter how incredibly idiotic it may be.

If you want a computer that is purely for gaming, go buy an X-box, cus you are definitely not equipped to build a properly balanced computer system. As I tried to explain to you before, there is a limit to how important FPS is for gameplay, and you've crashed right through it to the point of absurdity.

 

[ehanger]

I really don't care what you do. Just don't say you weren't warned. You're asking for our advice, and we gave it to you. Its a completely stupid way to build a computer, but good luck with it. I'm not going to argue with you about it. You have the right to do any thing you want to in this country, no matter how incredibly idiotic it may be.

If you want a computer that is purely for gaming, go buy an X-box, cus you are definitely not equipped to build a properly balanced computer system. As I tried to explain to you before, there is a limit to how important FPS is for gameplay, and you've crashed right through it to the point of absurdity.

Wow dude no need to be so hostile, I mean does anyone even know the limits of the i3-2100? I haven't found any benchmarks where they tested the fastest gpu setup it could drive without bottleneck. A lot of people on this site throw out recommendations based on personal intuition of what they think will happen without backing it up with data from tests/benchmarks/etc. I'm not claiming definitively that an i3-2100 won't bottleneck a GTX 680, I honestly have no idea and would love to see link to a test done on it, or somebody's actual experience with this setup.


What do you mean by saying there is a limit to how important fps is... just because my monitor can't display anything faster than 60fps doesn't mean I don't want to have an average of higher than 60. If my avg fps is 60 then that means I'm going to have dips of much lower, maybe 40, 30, or even 20. But If my average is closer to 100 then my minimum will probably be higher as well.


Average/minimum fps is probably the most important aspect of smooth gameplay, and I can't see what's wrong with trying to get this number as high as possible, even at the expense of other components. After all, pretty much the only thing I'm going to be using this system for is playing games; I have my laptop for actual work tasks. How is getting a cheaper case/no SSD/under 700w psu/$100 motherboard/i3 chip going to detract at all from gaming experience?

Only if the cpu is too wimpy to drive the beastly 680 gpu, right? Okay, well I have all these people saying "get an i5 theres no way an i3 is fast enough", but no evidence to back it up. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything I just would like to see something that supports this claim.

Thank you for your time.

 

[nekulturny]

My apologies, but I seriously think you're making a mistake.

A lot of people on this site throw out recommendations based on personal intuition of what they think will happen without backing it up with data from tests/benchmarks/etc.

I can explain the reason for this, not to sound like an arrogant jerk, but some people just have certain technical knowledge, and to a degree do not require benchmarks to know.

But I can show you some benches that will give you an idea. Now this isn't going to be "perfect", but I think it reasonable enough for this example.

For all intents and purposes an i3-2300 is essentially half an i5-2400 as far as cores go. The clock speed of an i3-2100 is 3.1GHZ and so is an i5-2400. The i3 is a dual core, the i5 is a quad. In this test they used a 7970 which at the time was the most powerful video card on the market, safe to say the GTX 680 is much more powerful however.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-3.html

Pay particular attention to those two benches. Clearly the lacking 2 cores is limiting the FPS both average and minimum. Now you move on to Battlefield 3, but the benches there are only single player, and SP BF3 really doesn't care what CPU it is. I'm in a hotel room with my laptop, so I don't have my desktop with me, I had a link bookmarked about BF3 multiplayer, but I'll ask you to take my word for it, it indeed has been benched and BF3 multiplayer in ultra settings demands a quad core CPU.

Moving on to just cause 2, again you see both the minimum and average are affected.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-5.html

Starcraft II... 2 cores is holding the FPS back
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-6.html

Dirt 3 doesn't really care either way

Metro 2033 I've benched myself, the performance is all over the place, that has some really loopy coding, Russian made game.. what do you expect?

Now all of these differences aren't very substantial no, but if maximum FPS is your concern, again those benches were done with a weaker card than a gtx 680, the holdback on the FPS will be more profound.

What do you mean by saying there is a limit to how important fps is...

When you watch a movie in the theater, or on a DVD you're watching it at 24FPS. Now video games are a little bit different, but its reasonably fair to say that the human eye does run into a limit where he/she is no longer capable of noticing a difference. For example, the average person is not going to notice a difference between 80 and 100 FPS (assuming you had a monitor that could display that)

If my avg fps is 60 then that means I'm going to have dips of much lower, maybe 40, 30, or even 20. But If my average is closer to 100 then my minimum will probably be higher as well.

Thats not necessarily true. Go back to metro2033, even with powerful CPUs, its all over the place. It depends on how the game in question is coded.

Only if the cpu is too wimpy to drive the beastly 680 gpu, right? Okay, well I have all these people saying "get an i5 theres no way an i3 is fast enough", but no evidence to back it up. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything I just would like to see something that supports this claim.

I think I covered it pretty well in this post.

Edit: Another thing you have to consider is background programs and the affect they have on gaming. A quad core is going to be less likely to be bogged down by these programs while gaming (antivirus, open browsers, etc)