Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming rig good enough for high-end games?

Last response: in Systems
Share
November 15, 2012 10:49:21 AM

Hey guys! I am looking at different things to put into a new gaming rig to be able to play high-end games. I just want you guys to check if this rig would be able to play BO2 or Crysis 2 or BF3 on full settings and also I want to know if I should get a SSD or a HDD as a primary drive. Thank You!

The rig:
PSU: Corsair Gaming Series GS800 80+
CPU: Intel Core i5 3570K 3.4Ghz Overclocked to (4 x 4.5GHz)
Cooling: Corsair H100 Cooler with NZXT LED High Performance Fans
Mobo: ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 LGA 1155 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 MB
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz
GPU: MSI Twin Frozr GTX 680 2GB 256bit DDR5 Overclocked Card
Either a SSD or a HDD as a primary drive

EDIT:

I was also wondering if I should go with Air Cooling rather than water cooling and if I go with water cooling, would the H100 easily break?
November 15, 2012 11:12:54 AM

wouldn't get a sabertooth board.

Get a 128/256 primary ssd for OS and some games and a HDD for storage and games you don't need quick loads on.

Other than that your good to go :) 
m
0
l
a c 278 4 Gaming
November 15, 2012 11:13:43 AM

It looks fine and go with a min 120-128GB SSD as boot drive with an HDD for storage.
You do not need 800watts unless you are planning to SLI in the future.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 15, 2012 11:14:37 AM

i would get a gtx670 not a gtx680

near enough the same performance but a lot cheaper

use the savings towards an ssd
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 15, 2012 11:19:19 AM

How many monitors? and what resolution?

Get a 256gb ssd.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 15, 2012 11:26:54 AM

Get the 256gb ssd they are correct on that otherwise your build will be able to run most games at max settings.
The sabertooth board is fine but you could get something for the same price that is a little better, maybe a gigabyte board.
f you plan on one monitor the GPU is fine, if you plan on 2 or 3 you may want to run SLI etc.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 11:52:19 AM

Build looks good. I also recommend an SSD, a 256GB if you can afford one. You can probably back down to a 670 and use the money you save. Either way, it will play all the newest games on the highest settings in 1080p and probably even up to 1440.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 1:14:20 PM

iFrostLite said:
Hey guys! I am looking at different things to put into a new gaming rig to be able to play high-end games. I just want you guys to check if this rig would be able to play BO2 or Crysis 2 or BF3 on full settings and also I want to know if I should get a SSD or a HDD as a primary drive. Thank You!

The rig:
PSU: Corsair Gaming Series GS800 80+
CPU: Intel Core i5 3570K 3.4Ghz Overclocked to (4 x 4.5GHz)
Cooling: Corsair H100 Cooler with NZXT LED High Performance Fans
Mobo: ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 LGA 1155 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 MB
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz
GPU: MSI Twin Frozr GTX 680 2GB 256bit DDR5 Overclocked Card
Either a SSD or a HDD as a primary drive


The 680 will literally obliterate any GPU based game on the market right now and probably for the next couple of years. The 600 series is the first to have some type of really advanced lighting feature and a new anti-aliasing technique called TSAA. I forget what the lighting is called, but neither of these features will be mainstream until the new consoles come out at least in my opinion. Problem you might run into would be due to your CPU, certain games, like WoW, that have huge draw distances, or tons of independent objects loaded at once, can stress a CPU and lower frames. It never made much sense to me, but it always seems that games, that you wouldn't think would crush the CPU and frames do. Games like ARMA 2 crush your frames, but look like ***, GTA 4 crushes frames, and also isn't impressive. I'm not sure if anyone said this, but it may be better to go for a lower end graphics card (GTX 670, 660 TI) in order to get a better processor. Processors don't get outpaced nearly as quickly as graphics cards, and they also tend to be more expensive. Up to you tho.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 1:38:26 PM

Quote:
The 680 will literally obliterate any GPU based game on the market right now and probably for the next couple of years. The 600 series is the first to have some type of really advanced lighting feature and a new anti-aliasing technique called TSAA. I forget what the lighting is called, but neither of these features will be mainstream until the new consoles come out at least in my opinion. Problem you might run into would be due to your CPU, certain games, like WoW, that have huge draw distances, or tons of independent objects loaded at once, can stress a CPU and lower frames. It never made much sense to me, but it always seems that games, that you wouldn't think would crush the CPU and frames do. Games like ARMA 2 crush your frames, but look like ***, GTA 4 crushes frames, and also isn't impressive. I'm not sure if anyone said this, but it may be better to go for a lower end graphics card (GTX 670, 660 TI) in order to get a better processor. Processors don't get outpaced nearly as quickly as graphics cards, and they also tend to be more expensive. Up to you tho.



You do know that the 3570 is at the moment one of the best gaming cpus out there, right? Furthermore, a gpu bottleneck is more often a problem than a cpu bottleneck AND high end GPUs are more expensive than high end consumer CPUs.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 1:53:26 PM

cobot said:
You do know that the 3570 is at the moment one of the best gaming cpus out there, right? Furthermore, a gpu bottleneck is more often a problem than a cpu bottleneck AND high end GPUs are more expensive than high end consumer CPUs.

The point is a 680 is overkill for anything at 1080p, maybe Witcher 2 with ubersampling all the way up might slow it down a little bit. I have a GTX 560, and I run BF on all Ultra setting 2xMSAA and get 55 fps at 1080p. His card is far superior to mine. I run max payne 3 (which is a very intensive game) everything max at 1080p (no msaa) with zero hiccups. I'm just giving advice from the fact that when I bought a gaming laptop in 2007 my core duo was quickly inadequate to run any modern games by 2009. And in regards to price I'm prett sure the top of the line hex core goes for about 1200$ and the 690 goes for 1k so you're wrong. And ,graphics card technology moves way faster than CPU chip tech., A great CPU will last you 5 years, a great graphics card might be trivial in 3.

Again, I thought it was obvious by my previous post that most games are GPU dependent, but a top of the line 680, or right under top of the line, really isn't needed right now because no games can utlilize that type of power at 1080p. if you running on a super high res monitor you may get some use out of something like that but otherwise, no. I recommended the 670 (which is still a beast) or a 660 TI (best performance to price/ratio). Only game I can see on the horizon that might hurt a card like the 680 is ARMA 3, and GTA5 and the reason will be because they will be horribly optimized just like their predeccesors.

Edit: They actually are around the same price according to NewEgg. I still think even a low end i7 ill be relevant longer than the 680, Still, you can't deny the fact that processors just last infinitely longer than GPUs in terms of competitiveness. A top of the line GPU is generally outdated in about 3 years, while a top of the line CPU could last you like 7. Take the example of my 560, how old is that card probably 2 and a half years at least? It only cost about 140$ and can play pretty much any game on the current market at close to max settings. The games just simply don't evolve fast enough to make top of the line GPU worth the price in my opinion. I'll upgrade the 560 in a year to the 660ti and I'll be able to smoke everything for the next two years after that.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 2:42:39 PM

i'd recommend getting another cooler, the noctua NH-C14, for example. i'm personally not a fan of close-loop liquid coolers because you can get similar, if not better, cooling from air coolers at a similar or cheaper price. the corsair series isn't real water cooling and i've heard that the H100 can get really really loud
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 3:17:04 PM

darth pravus said:
wouldn't get a sabertooth board.

Get a 128/256 primary ssd for OS and some games and a HDD for storage and games you don't need quick loads on.

Other than that your good to go :) 


Which mobo would you suggest which performs well and is inexpensive?
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 4:54:52 PM

Quote:
The point is a 680 is overkill for anything at 1080p, maybe Witcher 2 with ubersampling all the way up might slow it down a little bit. I have a GTX 560, and I run BF on all Ultra setting 2xMSAA and get 55 fps at 1080p.



I do agree that the 680 is overkill for 1080p right now. Furthermore, I think it's a royal waste of cash - but mostly because the 670 is so close in performance.

What made me confused it that you recommend a slower GPU in order to get a faster CPU than the 3570k.

For gaming there is no better choice right now than the 3570k.
There is little to no advantage in getting an i7 instead if the only thing you do is play games.
Even the $1000 17-3970X is just barely faster in games.

Compare the old i5-750 with the i7-920. They are both a few years old but still perform pretty much equally.

Just as you stated, GPUs become obsolete faster than CPUs, but for me that would be a good reason go get a nice high-end card with a decent price-performace ratio (like the 670 or the 7970) in order for it to last a while. The argument that the games don't evolve fast enough doesn't really make any sense as with a high-end gpu, that means you would just keep it longer than you would a mid-range gpu.


And about the prices - we were talking about gaming and consumer hardware. The i7-3970X is by no means a piece of consumer or gaming hardware. It is a workstation cpu aimed at for example professional video editing and rendering. Once you move into that area, the prices become completely different:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...





m
0
l
November 15, 2012 5:47:11 PM

cobot said:
I do agree that the 680 is overkill for 1080p right now. Furthermore, I think it's a royal waste of cash - but mostly because the 670 is so close in performance.

What made me confused it that you recommend a slower GPU in order to get a faster CPU than the 3570k.

For gaming there is no better choice right now than the 3570k.
There is little to no advantage in getting an i7 instead if the only thing you do is play games.
Even the $1000 17-3970X is just barely faster in games.

Compare the old i5-750 with the i7-920. They are both a few years old but still perform pretty much equally.

Just as you stated, GPUs become obsolete faster than CPUs, but for me that would be a good reason go get a nice high-end card with a decent price-performace ratio (like the 670 or the 7970) in order for it to last a while. The argument that the games don't evolve fast enough doesn't really make any sense as with a high-end gpu, that means you would just keep it longer than you would a mid-range gpu.


And about the prices - we were talking about gaming and consumer hardware. The i7-3970X is by no means a piece of consumer or gaming hardware. It is a workstation cpu aimed at for example professional video editing and rendering. Once you move into that area, the prices become completely different:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Ha, that card is insane. I think you may be right. My recommendation came from my experience with PC gaming over the years. When I was younger, around the time that Half-Life 2 came out, I bought a new graphics card. Low and behold when I finall install the sucker I only get a slight performance gain. Turns out my CPU was just as dated as my GPU and therefore was bottlenecking my system. Fast forward to 2007, I got a 2500 gaming laptop, with a pretty nice card in it, for a laptop, and two years later the duo core processor won't even allow me to boot up some games. (Spinter Cell: Chaos Theory). Your argument is correct because almost no games utilize even the full power of 4 cores let alone the 6? in hex cores. But with the advent of new consoles the industry always takes a giant leap (I think they may comes as early as fall 2013). Games utilizing hex cores might not be as far off as you think.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 6:30:02 PM

Hehe, well, when i started building my own computers i had just the exact opposite experience. I got a high end cpu and skimped out big time on the GPU. Man, was I disappointed with the rubbish performance. :) 

Quote:
Games utilizing hex cores might not be as far off as you think.

You're probably right. When the ps3 was released with the cell, I actually thought the evolution into more cores would go faster than it actually has.

Still, what makes me doubt this a little bit, is that the gaming industry risk alianating their less computer-savvy customer base if this happens before hexcores become commonplace in mid-range prebuilts.

My apologies to the OP for kidnapping his thread. :) 
m
0
l
November 16, 2012 4:12:46 AM

envy14tpe said:
How many monitors? and what resolution?

Get a 256gb ssd.


1 Monitor, 1080p
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
November 17, 2012 11:26:14 AM

This topic has been moved from the section CPU & Components to section Systems by Mousemonkey
m
0
l
!