Computer Build Resource Thread - Page 1406

On March 07 2013 06:27 Ropid wrote:

For overclocking, money required goes up quite a bit. I am guessing at least 50 EUR in Europe. You should buy a better motherboard (idk which one's the cheapest that's enough), you need a cpu cooler as Intel's isn't good enough (hyper 212 evo or true spirit 120 are very good for their price), and you need the 3570k instead of something cheaper. But it can actually get you a lot in SC2 regarding the FPS in some 200/200 battle.

EDIT: Going from 4 GHz to 4.5 GHz adds 50 W power consumption, so that's another thing that can mean more money required for a different PSU.

On March 07 2013 02:26 MrCon wrote:

Look at the config I posted just above, replace the i5 2500K by something like an i3 3220 (about 110$), or for a longer term CPU an i5 3570 (about 60$ more), I was exactly in your price range, and I'm also a big PCSX (1 and 2) user, and a big Dolphin user (in fact for the last few weeks I spend all my free time playing the various Fire Emblems on GC and Wii :p), and it works perfectly (emulation speed 100% for PS2, PS1, Wii/Gamecube emulators).

Without the need for a graphic card you change my 4go ram for 8go, choose a case you like and a good 450-500W power supply (important, power supply is a part you can't afford to buy noname) .
I didn't follow hardware for some years, but as I just bought the kind of setup you're looking for, I read and asked a lot about that so it's the period can help on this =)

On March 07 2013 10:03 Shai wrote:
Ok, I must be really ignorant, can you explain why the graphics card is so bad? See, I just look at 2GB RAM on it and say, that's plenty ram on a GPU. I tried looking on the OP of the thread to see if it could explain to me why the GPU was bad.

I've googled and consensus is that the HD 7570 is bad, I just don't know why!

EDIT: This is just for my information. I still plan on building my own PC, just curious.

On March 06 2013 14:37 upperbound wrote:

Yes, as above, a 670 is a solid choice within the budget, and leaves performance room if you decide to get a normal 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 monitor now, and then upgrade to a more expensive 2560x1440/1600 later: you have plenty of performance room to get there. It's a solid upgrade route with noticeable results without having to revamp an entire system.

Overclocking is basically a 25-33% increase in performance per core over all 4 cores for about a 40% increase over the Microcenter price, and 33% increase over the internet market price. In some CPU-capped games, such as SC2, this will directly translate to an increase in frame rates, from about 25 minimum to up to about 40 minimum frames in large-scale battles -- a 50% performance increase in what you see on-screen at a framerate where that 50% increase makes the most difference in what you see (way more important to the eye than, say, going from 75 frames to 110, or for most people even 50 to 75). This increase is even more important when you have a quality video card that will cap you less often in even graphics-intensive games. While I don't know how the battle engine separate from the graphics will work in Rome, it seems possible that they could implement calculations that are significantly lower scale than the battalion level on a lot of modern technology, which would require a lot of processing capability.

If you're honest about having a $1200 budget for just the hardware, and understand that having a better system also incentivizes a better monitor (the Eizo monitor that Myrm quoted last page has remarkable response times for an IPS panel), then it's worth it. If you realize that you'd be cutting into a monitor budget now, and don't plan on upgrading the monitor again soon after grabbing a new one, it might be better to maximize your current gaming experience with a higher-quality monitor now and crossing the "next upgrade path" bridge when you get to it.

These are all things to consider; there's no correct answer here per se because it depends heavily on your plan and your preferences.