Why does this build suck/not suck?

[veladem]

My specs are as listed:

AMD 8120 OC'd to 4GHz
XFX Radeon HD 6670
Antec EarthWatts 650W PSU
Corsair Vengeance Black 1600 2x4GB RAM
2TB 7200RPM 6GB/s HDD

For some reason everyone I see says my card is crap and that it can't game? However when I show them my Battle Field 3 with maxed settings they gawk and stare thinking I must have done something to trick the game into saying it's on ultra high settings.

My question is;

#1 Why do I score P1396 on 3DMark 11 and everyone says that's bad?
#2 If this is a bad build for a budget build than, why does it game so well?

 

[swifty_morgan]

ever see the movie My Cousin Vinny ? Mona Lisa Vito is on the witness stand and the judge asks her............ why is that a trick question ?...............

 

[Onus]

First, I'm going to take a wild guess that your resolution is something like 1280x1024 or 1368x768. At that resolution, your card would do pretty well.
Second, you have some decent RAM, and enough of it.
Third, you do have a PSU capable of running a much more powerful card, should you ever upgrade your monitor. You'd have no trouble with a HD7970 or GTX670. For that reason, I'd say you did a good job incorporating some future-resistance into your build from the outset.
In any case, if you are happy with your settings and performance, obviously you aren't suffering, and can safely ignore the crowds who think one "has to have" a $400 video card to play games.

 

[manofchalk]

What FPS are you getting on Ultra?
Just because its on Ultra means nothing, you can get any machine to do that.
This will explain a a bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBN5MNpYWlY

Anyone with knowledge of the Radeon naming scheme will know that's a low end card, from the last generation.

And that score is fairly low, this is what my mid-range system is getting (with the 12.11 Catalyst Beta driver)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/4740914

All relative as to what "well" is, maybe you just have lower standards than others. Possibly your playing on a low resolution.

 

[veladem]

Oh sorry, I should have said I'm using my 1080p HDTV @ 2560x1600 it's a 52". Really should have mentioned that.

Should have also said I'm using FRAPS to show me my FPS and I'm getting 55+. Sorry for all the edits . . .

 

[whooleo]

Oh sorry, I should have said I'm using my 1080p HDTV @ 2560x1600 it's a 52". Really should have mentioned that.

Should have also said I'm using FRAPS to show me my FPS and I'm getting 55+. Sorry for all the edits . . .

Stupid trolls..... 1080p TV @ 2560x1600 that's where you messed up.

 

[manofchalk]

Now I'm getting really skeptical.
My system wouldn't be able to play BF3 ultra settings at a min of 55FPS at 1080p.No idea how yours would.

According to this bench, a 6670 would get 25FPS on High quality 1680x1050.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/613
BF3 result is about halfway down.

 

[veladem]

Stupid trolls..... 1080p TV @ 2560x1600 that's where you messed up.

Huh?

 

[veladem]

Ohk, I see the FPS, but Batman Arkham City GOTY runs at least double that of what is there, at least 50+. I would think it runs higher than BF3 since BF3 is more intense. But I haven't tested it.

And Skyrim is definitely 55+ for me, tested that. It maxed out at like 60 or something.

So back to my question, how the heck does it do it?

 

[Deleted member 217926]

Oh sorry, I should have said I'm using my 1080p HDTV @ 2560x1600 it's a 52". Really should have mentioned that.

Should have also said I'm using FRAPS to show me my FPS and I'm getting 55+. Sorry for all the edits . . .

Someone is not very bright.

 

[manofchalk]

Think everyone is pointing out that you have a 1920x1080 TV, and you are trying to run it at 2560x1600. Not sure myself but I suspect this will default the resolution to something fairly low.

Set your resolution to 1080p.

 

[whooleo]

Are you guys finally catching on....

 

[ArcticWonder]

Huh?

1080p means 1920 x 1080, and you said it's a 1080p hdtv @ a higher resolution, which is impossible, Einstein

 

[veladem]

This is my tv ---> http://reviews.us.samsung.com/7463/LN52A550P3FXZA/samsung-ln52a550-reviews/reviews.htm

And specs Are ---> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-DYIeuGMZw5g/p_305LN52550/Samsung-LN52A550.html

So am I out putting my Res to high for my TV? Should I instead run it at 1920 x 1080? Cause I guess that is the max for the TV but my PC says the recommended is 2560x1600???

But even so why are the games running so high of FPS, not complaining, it's actually good. But how the . . . does that work?

 

[manofchalk]

By all accounts it doesnt.

 

[sonicers]

It's funny because Samsung states that the resolution of that TV s 1920x1080.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN52A550-52-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B001415EMI

It even says 1920x1080 on your own link.

I'm surprised you got so many people to respond, nice one veladem, nice one.

 

[veladem]

It's funny because Samsung states that the resolution of that TV s 1920x1080.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN52A550-52-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B001415EMI

It even says 1920x1080 on your own link.

I'm surprised you got so many people to respond, nice one veladem, nice one.

I think you miss read what I previously stated. I realized that it had the resolution posted on the site cause I finally looked up my model on Google. But my windows 7 personalization of resolution when I right click says recommended @ resolution of 2560x1600.

 

[sonicers]

I was thinking exactly what manofchalk said, it's probably really putting out something lower. It's still not really plausible that you'd be able to run BF3 50 fps at true 1080p either way.

 

[veladem]

Kk. Maybe it was out putting to 720? I just don't understand why Windows said I needed the wrong Res . . .