Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is my pc just amazingly good or what?

Last response: in Systems
Share
October 11, 2012 9:46:30 PM

Okay, so my uncle builded a pc for me, it's an e8400 that runs at 3 ghz and when needed climbs to 3,6. Has 8 gb ram and a radeon 5770. My uncle is really good with building pcs and stuff and he sold me this one for 250 in an antec 900 case.

I am running Battlefield 3 on ultra settings on 1920x1080 without any lag at all.

My brother wants the same pc but my uncle is kinda busy at the moment so I decided to look on the internet for him. The prices are crazy, I have seen a couple of pcs for 800-900 dollar and even they say you need like a graphics card of 400 dollar to run bf3 on ultra, if so then how can my 250 dollar pc run this game so smooth?

Are people exaggerating or is BF3 really such a heavy game?

More about : amazingly good

a b B Homebuilt system
October 11, 2012 9:56:36 PM

You're not running BF3 on Utra with decent FPS on that rig and that's a fact. Maybe you're okay 20-30 FPS though.
October 11, 2012 9:59:31 PM

That's an entry level, basic pc and you aren't running BF3 on ultra.
Related resources
October 11, 2012 10:03:47 PM

e8400 is junk. your ddr 2 is junk as well.
October 11, 2012 10:05:49 PM

Just cecked fps, couldnt make a screenshot but its 40 fps @ windowed mode, but really, I don't have any lag whatsoever so what difference will I notice if I buy a 900 dollar pc?
October 11, 2012 10:18:55 PM

blackscell said:
Just cecked fps, couldnt make a screenshot but its 40 fps @ windowed mode, but really, I don't have any lag whatsoever so what difference will I notice if I buy a 900 dollar pc?

You're lying. Go ask in AMD customer support, and they will tell you that BF3 ultra settings 1080p is not playable with your Graphics Card
a b B Homebuilt system
October 11, 2012 10:21:23 PM

See what FPS you get at full screen.

-Wolf sends
October 11, 2012 10:22:33 PM

Here is a screenshot in windowed mode with turbo boost on, in fullscreen its around 32 fps but like I said before I don't see any abnormalitys/lag its all smooth so whats the difference between 30-40 fps and around 100?

Why would one pay 900 dollars just to get higher fps but not notice any difference?

http://tinypic.com/r/mvqhk5/6
October 11, 2012 10:23:16 PM

I do notice on the top right of my screen that my cpu is using 100% its getting 52 degrees, that wont cause any problems will it?
October 11, 2012 10:25:34 PM

crowz9 said:
You're lying. Go ask in AMD customer support, and they will tell you that BF3 ultra settings 1080p is not playable with your Graphics Card


Everything what AMD says must be true? See picture for proof. And why on earth would I lie that im running a game at 30 fps lol..
a b B Homebuilt system
October 11, 2012 10:33:08 PM

Eh OK you're running it at 35 FPS windowed in a menu screen, fine. How about a 64 player multiplayer map in the middle of action fullscreen please?
October 11, 2012 10:36:40 PM

FinneousPJ said:
Eh OK you're running it at 35 FPS windowed in a menu screen, fine. How about a 64 player multiplayer map in the middle of action fullscreen please?


I only play these games for the SP, so that wont matter much to me anyway. But would that make a big change? And also, for that little thing would u pay a nice 800 dollar extra just U can play multiplayer for a couple of months and then gt bored of it lol?

Game is downloaded so dont care about the multiplayer anyway ( yes I do help te developers and will buy this game since I enjoy playing it ) but how much difference would the multiplayer be with very good net?
a b B Homebuilt system
October 11, 2012 11:00:34 PM

Well what is your FPS in heavy firefights in SP? And yes it makes a huge difference.
October 11, 2012 11:01:20 PM

FinneousPJ said:
Well what is your FPS in heavy firefights in SP? And yes it makes a huge difference.


Ill check
October 11, 2012 11:11:05 PM

Restarted pc without any programs loading ( nod32 and superantispyware ) getting stable 45 fps now on window mode

http://tinypic.com/r/2ugp07s/6

in a shooting mission
October 12, 2012 1:59:40 AM

blackscell said:
Everything what AMD says must be true? See picture for proof. And why on earth would I lie that im running a game at 30 fps lol..


Whether you like it or not you can't run it smoothly in full HD with your GPU.
Benchmarks prove it.

http://www.abload.de/img/y7kt.png
Take a look at the CPU used for testing. It is way better than yours.
Take a look at the very poor performance of the HD 6870, which is by far a better GPU than yours.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/P/313585/original/amd%20...
The HD5770 can't go past 40 FPS in ultra settings.
October 12, 2012 11:37:01 AM

crowz9 said:
Whether you like it or not you can't run it smoothly in full HD with your GPU.
Benchmarks prove it.

http://www.abload.de/img/y7kt.png
Take a look at the CPU used for testing. It is way better than yours.
Take a look at the very poor performance of the HD 6870, which is by far a better GPU than yours.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/P/313585/original/amd%20...
The HD5770 can't go past 40 FPS in ultra settings.


Well, I can run it at 40 fps stable in windowed mode and at some parts at 50 fps, I don't have to proof anything and those benchmarks can say all they want but I got the living proof in here.

Ill just let me uncle build the exact same pc will save me alot of money while running it smooth ( even though 90% of you guys mention its impossible )

Well, thanks for all the replies anyway guys!
a b B Homebuilt system
October 12, 2012 1:17:30 PM

every screenshot I see is in windowed mode taking up less than half your screen, so I'm going to guess it might be 1024x768, maybe 1280x800 or 1366x768, which your system will do fine with.

those images aren't 1920x1080, or it would be the whole screen.

my desktop (seemy sig) manages 45 fps on medium/high at 1680x1050 in SP, about 35 in MP, which is playable, but not huge.
October 12, 2012 2:29:34 PM

blackscell said:
Don't know if I can post links out in here ;

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=battlefield...

But there are plenty of people playing with my graphic cards on ultra crown so your benchmark aint just right?


Okay, let me explain this to you. There are other variables aside from "playing on ultra" and "my graphics card". For example, you may be able to play on ultra in a lesser resolution than 1080 and get great fps. That's what i used to do for a lot of more demanding games before I got my nice computer. Also, you can do like you are and game in a smaller window, which I also used to do for sc2 when I was playing it on a 27" imac. Or, you could do a combination, and game at a lower resolution, taking up only part of the screen, which is what I bet you are doing.

So you see, there are other people that may be able to play BF3 on ultra with reasonable FPS that have your GPU, but they are most certainly NOT playing at 1080 resolution, and neither are you.
a b B Homebuilt system
October 12, 2012 2:30:56 PM

Quote:
Whether you like it or not you can't run it smoothly in full HD with your GPU.

Quote:
Well, I can run it at 40 fps stable in windowed mode and at some parts at 50 fps...


What parts of these two statements are you not getting? In windowed mode, your system does not need to work as hard to produce the same frame rate as in full screen HD mode. Therefore, you are able to get better frame rates.

In answer to your original question, no. Your system is not that amazingly good. Your Uncle sold you a used computer (at a family discount no less) for $250. When that system was new, it cost close to if not over $800. So why are you even trying to make the comparison? Anyone that is trying to sell a computer with components as old as yours for more than $300 is over pricing it and hoping for a sucker (or just doesn't know what they're doing) and you will not find a new computer with similar components for anywhere near that amount.

Let it go.

-Wolf sends
October 12, 2012 2:41:30 PM

Wolfshadw said:
Quote:
Whether you like it or not you can't run it smoothly in full HD with your GPU.

Quote:
Well, I can run it at 40 fps stable in windowed mode and at some parts at 50 fps...


What parts of these two statements are you not getting? In windowed mode, your system does not need to work as hard to produce the same frame rate as in full screen HD mode. Therefore, you are able to get better frame rates.

In answer to your original question, no. Your system is not that amazingly good. Your Uncle sold you a used computer (at a family discount no less) for $250. When that system was new, it cost close to if not over $800. So why are you even trying to make the comparison? Anyone that is trying to sell a computer with components as old as yours for more than $300 is over pricing it and hoping for a sucker (or just doesn't know what they're doing) and you will not find a new computer with similar components for anywhere near that amount.

Let it go.

-Wolf sends


Like I said, getting 30-35 fps in fullsreen mode and its running smooth for me so I do not care to buy a graphic card of 400 dollar for no reason.

I am not trying to make a comparing, I do not know from which post u've got this from I was just wondering why the need for a graphic card thats 2x more expensive then my pc just so U get an extra 20 fps?

And again, thanks for all the replies,I am not gonna spend another 800 dollar just so my bro can play @ 50 fps, I am sure 30 is fine for him and my wallet.

Thanks everyone

October 12, 2012 2:43:37 PM

ScrewySqrl said:
every screenshot I see is in windowed mode taking up less than half your screen, so I'm going to guess it might be 1024x768, maybe 1280x800 or 1366x768, which your system will do fine with.

those images aren't 1920x1080, or it would be the whole screen.

my desktop (seemy sig) manages 45 fps on medium/high at 1680x1050 in SP, about 35 in MP, which is playable, but not huge.


The game is @ 1920x1080 but in windowed mode, when I do fullscreen and take a picture with print screen it just shows a black screen.

But w/e I think its better to close this thread cause Ive already made a decision
October 12, 2012 2:47:48 PM

Am I the only one that laughed so hard I nearly fell off my chair when the 32FPS at full ultra was on the menu screen?
October 12, 2012 5:21:04 PM

wr6133 said:
Am I the only one that laughed so hard I nearly fell off my chair when the 32FPS at full ultra was on the menu screen?

I kinda Facepalmed, didn't laugh but Facepalmed.
October 12, 2012 5:30:00 PM

blackscell said:
Like I said, getting 30-35 fps in fullsreen mode and its running smooth for me so I do not care to buy a graphic card of 400 dollar for no reason.

I am not trying to make a comparing, I do not know from which post u've got this from I was just wondering why the need for a graphic card thats 2x more expensive then my pc just so U get an extra 20 fps?

And again, thanks for all the replies,I am not gonna spend another 800 dollar just so my bro can play @ 50 fps, I am sure 30 is fine for him and my wallet.

Thanks everyone

Cards do not cost 800 dollars. 300 hundred when the most.
Extra "20 FPS" means more than you could ever imagine.
Perhaps most people enjoy playing with framerates bigger than 45. Maybe you are fine with 30.
If you were so convinced that the game was running smooth for you and that you didn't need a new graphics card, why did you start this thread?
October 12, 2012 6:55:20 PM

crowz9 said:
Cards do not cost 800 dollars. 300 hundred when the most.
Extra "20 FPS" means more than you could ever imagine.
Perhaps most people enjoy playing with framerates bigger than 45. Maybe you are fine with 30.
If you were so convinced that the game was running smooth for you and that you didn't need a new graphics card, why did you start this thread?


Do you actually read my post? If not you should re-read them so could figure out why I was asking.

Basically I was asking if it really is necessary to spend so much on a videocard and if it really makes a big different.

And yes, I think I am quite used to 30-40 fps since I don't experience any lag whatsoever, but as you guys say the higher the fps the better the game, if I ever played at 60 fps I would probably notice a difference but that aint too much

I get 30 fps @ LoL on my student pc, around 120 on this one, the game runs alot faster but it's not bothering me compared to 30 fps.

Like I said, thread can be closed since I've already made a decision on what I am going to buy.
October 12, 2012 8:11:31 PM

You are asking if it is necessary to spend SO MUCH on a new videocard(what's your definition of so much?)
Yes it makes a huge difference from 30 FPS to 60 FPS.
That's why I lower my resolution to play BF3 on ultra.
It runs smoothly in 720p.
October 12, 2012 9:32:08 PM

crowz9 said:
You are asking if it is necessary to spend SO MUCH on a new videocard(what's your definition of so much?)
Yes it makes a huge difference from 30 FPS to 60 FPS.
That's why I lower my resolution to play BF3 on ultra.
It runs smoothly in 720p.


If it would be around 100 dollars and give a big improvance, then I could let me uncle build the same pc and just add another card IF i would notice a big difference.

But i am not willing to spend around 300 dollars just for the card
October 12, 2012 10:58:55 PM

If your mobo and PSU supports it, get another graphics card to crossfire(5770) It can reach the power of a 5850
a c 106 B Homebuilt system
October 14, 2012 9:52:02 AM

You are playing on a screen that's 1600x900 (If those screen-caps are your full screen resolution), and the game itself is running in only half of that.The menu may be saying 1920x1080, but since its windowed you are not actually doing that. I would roughly guess you are playing at 1066x675, a tiny resolution.

Your two examples so far are the options menu, and a sniper scope where half the game is black, and nothing interesting happening in what you can see. On Single Player no less. Hardly good examples of your machine under load (which it actually is, 100% usage on the CPU).

And you haven't even proven you have played at those settings. You could have just changed the settings and then screen-capped them.

If you want to make a point, download 3D Mark 11 Basic and run that. Post back here with your score. That will be far more convincing than what you have so far.
Or even a FRAPS benchmark while your playing, that will tell us your min, max and average FPS. Which is far more conclusive than your probably cherry-picked screen-caps.
October 14, 2012 10:22:47 AM

I got a headache just reading this thread and thinking about what, and how to respond to it... so I'll just make it short...

Your FPS and hardware only tells part of the story. Then there are settings like Antialising, physx, mods, resolution etc that all need to be factored in. If it was as simple as after spending "x" amount of dollars on "y" there is no point then there would never be disagreements in this community. It seems that you are trying to over simplify this complex topic to justify your purchasing decisions. The more you research and learn about these things the more you make these decisions yourself. You aren't even asking a question. You made a few vague statements followed by some weak claims and some pitiful attempts and arguing against those that are trying to answer your "question" and that was it. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you want someone to saw "You are right any computer over 250 dollars is a total waste of money and you would be a fool to spend that much."

Just like with most things in life there is diminishing returns on how much you spend. Is a Lamborghini a waste of money? For most of us yes, Will a geo metro satisfy our transportation needs? For most of us no. Most of us fall somewhere in between you have to figure out what you are sacrificing for what amount of money and figure out your idea of "bang for buck" You are settling for the Flintstones car and if that is fine for you, then so be it. But at least look at your options realistically.

Idk what happened to keeping it short... >.<
October 19, 2012 2:38:00 PM

monkeymonk said:
I got a headache just reading this thread and thinking about what, and how to respond to it... so I'll just make it short...

Your FPS and hardware only tells part of the story. Then there are settings like Antialising, physx, mods, resolution etc that all need to be factored in. If it was as simple as after spending "x" amount of dollars on "y" there is no point then there would never be disagreements in this community. It seems that you are trying to over simplify this complex topic to justify your purchasing decisions. The more you research and learn about these things the more you make these decisions yourself. You aren't even asking a question. You made a few vague statements followed by some weak claims and some pitiful attempts and arguing against those that are trying to answer your "question" and that was it. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you want someone to saw "You are right any computer over 250 dollars is a total waste of money and you would be a fool to spend that much."

Just like with most things in life there is diminishing returns on how much you spend. Is a Lamborghini a waste of money? For most of us yes, Will a geo metro satisfy our transportation needs? For most of us no. Most of us fall somewhere in between you have to figure out what you are sacrificing for what amount of money and figure out your idea of "bang for buck" You are settling for the Flintstones car and if that is fine for you, then so be it. But at least look at your options realistically.

Idk what happened to keeping it short... >.<


Hi, thanks for the time writing such a long message. But like I said, I do not notice any lag whatsoever on full screen so I don't see any reason to spend money from which I won't benefit.

Ye, there are people like you that prefer 120 fps whatsoever but I spend little time on playing these games and when I see no lag I am pleased already.

I've gotten another same pc for my lil bro for 150$ of my uncle, same specs as mine and it run fine for him too.

And tbh, I do have a life instead of photoshopping pics to increase my fps, haha.

October 19, 2012 2:54:53 PM

Solution 1: Buy second hand PS3.

Solution 2: Look around for used PCs.

I've laughed and facepalmed my way through this thread and this is where you are at. To buy your current system new would have cost about $800, not $250 (alley deals aside).
a b B Homebuilt system
October 19, 2012 6:08:50 PM

Jay-Z said:
Solution 1: Buy second hand PS3.

Solution 2: Look around for used PCs.

I've laughed and facepalmed my way through this thread and this is where you are at. To buy your current system new would have cost about $800, not $250 (alley deals aside).



I had a similar system, new, for about $800...in 2008
Related resources
!