I just went through the same thing, I think I saw my fps max out at 200fps now that I upgraded. I do keep my settings low as I think it gives me an advantage for seeing skulks. I think it was down to about 70fps in higher settings and adv around 105fps. I do have multicore enabled.
I went from 25fps to this when i upgraded this week.
If you can use old parts: case, psu, hdd, and os. All you really need is a mobo, cpu, ram, and video card.
I purchases the following: Gigabyte Z77X mobo Intel 3750k cpu 8gb ram Pny nvidia gtx 660 ti w/ 2gb ram
I also got a case, psu, and a 23" 2ms lcd. I reused my hdd and os. In all $800 after rebates from newegg. Btw i have no dvd in the case or other extras
<!--quoteo(post=2042080:date=Dec 8 2012, 03:00 PM:name=godrifle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (godrifle @ Dec 8 2012, 03:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042080"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Requirement: At least 30 fps in NS2 at all times, occasional hiccups forgiven, but during hectic combat, 30 fps is a must. I know you don't actually have the rig to see if you're getting 30 frames with it, so a bit of guessing is a given. Computer must be as cheap as possible. Just the rig, no other peripherals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2042998:date=Dec 10 2012, 01:46 PM:name=upperdemoon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (upperdemoon @ Dec 10 2012, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042998"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What would this settup give as FPS on low-high? (sorry too lazy to read further in thread if it has been posted before):
- Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 - i5 3570k - 16GB RAM
If not, what should i change? Thanks in advance :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm guessing about 100fps without an overclock. Not sure how it would fair late game in big fights though, may deep too close to 60 for comfort. If you want to cheapen, try a 560ti and 8GB of cheaper RAM, would result in the same fps.
<!--quoteo(post=2042122:date=Dec 9 2012, 08:19 AM:name=pRiNcEkAhUnA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pRiNcEkAhUnA @ Dec 9 2012, 08:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042122"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=2042105:date=Dec 9 2012, 07:43 AM:name=godrifle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (godrifle @ Dec 9 2012, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I meant never dropping below 30FPS, so it should have way more frames then that early/mid game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> HahahAhahaha. Good request. That is something us gamers on some of the best hardware cannot achieve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow dude, way to speak out of your a$$, I get 60fps+ at ALL stages of the game, maybe drops to 55 for a split second as it goes up and down. (Yes I'm at 1080p)
I have an i5 and use a 570 GTX and get about 70 FPS at all times, so GTX570 is a solid card for it. I just bought my brother a 660GTX and he runs it just as well.
<!--quoteo(post=2043014:date=Dec 10 2012, 07:14 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 10 2012, 07:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2043014"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm guessing about 100fps without an overclock. Not sure how it would fair late game in big fights though, may deep too close to 60 for comfort. If you want to cheapen, try a 560ti and 8GB of cheaper RAM, would result in the same fps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, thank you very much, and i will be very happy with 60FPS in big fights, since now i have 20FPS just at the start of a round :'c
Why all the recommendations of the i7? The only difference between the i5, and the i7 is the amount of cores. And since NS2 (and most other programs) can't use the multiple cores, for running a single application there is no need to get an i7.
If you were running several things, then I would whole heartedly suggest the i7, or if you were doing video editing. But not in this case. If you're going for an intel core, don't go higher than an i5.
<!--quoteo(post=2043324:date=Dec 10 2012, 10:53 PM:name=Haplo_64)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Haplo_64 @ Dec 10 2012, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2043324"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why all the recommendations of the i7? The only difference between the i5, and the i7 is the amount of cores. And since NS2 (and most other programs) can't use the multiple cores, for running a single application there is no need to get an i7.
If you were running several things, then I would whole heartedly suggest the i7, or if you were doing video editing. But not in this case. If you're going for an intel core, don't go higher than an i5.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are some other differences, but yes i7s yield the exact same fps as i5s in almost all cases, no they all have 4 cores unless it's those older crappy models. Only notable difference other than hyperthreading is the cache size. If you are just building a system and thinking about i7s for gaming though, you might want to use that money to get a better video card or something as that will give you better performance than spending another $100 for a higher cache and hyperthreading. It all depends on money and where you spend it. One time I saw a really sweet deal on TigerDirect and the difference between an i7 and i5 was only $50, in that case I would definitely grab the i7 instead.
The difference between all i5 and i7 isnt just cores. And last time I checked, NS2 wasn't a single threaded application. And the notion that nothing uses multi threads is also dying very fast these days, more and more dev's are designing for multi threaded applications. And with the new Windows 8 Pro, threads are handled exceptionally better than Win7.
This is the exact reason why I stuck with AMD for my budget gaming upgrade. I went from a ###### 2.8ghz quad core from 2007(i think), that couldnt get over 20fps in NS2 after 10 minutes, to a 130 dollar CPU that gives me all the leg room I need with a GTS450. I figured, sure AMD may be slower per clock vs Intel, but when you are using multithreaded applications, you are only talking about a difference of ~10 seconds for time related tasks, and maybe less 30fps less than an i7. But if I can run at over 75FPS anyways...I dont really care for running at 100+FPS. My FX6300 doesnt compete directly with todays i7, although it does with previous generations, but its more than enough especially for its price point.
These days, I feel like most users will be satisfied will AMD's new Vishera's CPUs, avoid the FX4300 like its the plague tho, they severely crippled that chip in many ways, a lot of people think that it shouldn't be only $10 cheaper(maybe should be $25 cheaper) than the FX6300. The FX4300 has a crippled L3 cache, and for having half the modules disabled it should have came in a smaller TDP package than 95W but doesn't. the FX8300 is only capable of competing with newer i7's in <b>very</b> specific multi threaded tasks that take advantage of AMD's architecture. Other than those specific tasks, most of the Vishera chips are on par with an i5.(except the FX4300)
NS2 doesn't multicore properly, in fact I'm not sure if multiple cores even matter in NS2 at all since it's always at 25% CPU use for me, but it's really not worth thinking about as all CPUs have 4 or more cores these days. Personally I don't think AMD is worth it unless it's on the most budget of systems because of the performance and "future proof". I scoffed at "future proof" myself 6 years ago when I bought my Q6600, but looking back it was totally worth it as I can run above 40fps almost all the time in NS2 on a 6 year old processor that has a stock clock of only 2.4ghz, and 60fps in almost every game including the newly released FarCry 3. I don't think any AMD CPU from back then can come close to that now at the original pricepoint.
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
<!--quoteo(post=2042122:date=Dec 9 2012, 08:19 AM:name=pRiNcEkAhUnA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pRiNcEkAhUnA @ Dec 9 2012, 08:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042122"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->HahahAhahaha. Good request. That is something us gamers on some of the best hardware cannot achieve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I get avg 80fps and never drops below 45fps in the most crazy infested battles of 24 players. Dunno why people faster rigs are having issues.
Intel Core i5 with GTX 670 8Gb of ram
cheap mobo, cheap hdd everything else cheap low end
NS2 uses up to about 30-45% average on my hexacore, and in the 70s on my old Phenom x4, that makes me assume that it supports multiple cores decently. 1 core is around 18% for hexcores. And I haven't found AMD hardly worth it until I got a FX6300, it changed my perspective on things thats all. The only real cpu intensive thing that I ever do that matters is gaming, and the FX6300 showed in benchmarks that it is capable of 75+FPS gaming in all modern games. Who really needs any more than 60-75FPS in their video games? That is just how I chose to look at it now-a-days.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2043324:date=Dec 10 2012, 06:53 PM:name=Haplo_64)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Haplo_64 @ Dec 10 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2043324"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why all the recommendations of the i7? The only difference between the i5, and the i7 is the amount of cores. And since NS2 (and most other programs) can't use the multiple cores, for running a single application there is no need to get an i7.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For gaming only, an i5 will suffice. The only exception is livestreaming, which does benefit from the extra cores/higher cache of an i7. <!--quoteo(post=2043352:date=Dec 10 2012, 07:54 PM:name=ZeroAnimated)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZeroAnimated @ Dec 10 2012, 07:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2043352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 uses up to about 30-45% average on my hexacore, and in the 70s on my old Phenom x4, that makes me assume that it supports multiple cores decently. 1 core is around 18% for hexcores. And I haven't found AMD hardly worth it until I got a FX6300, it changed my perspective on things thats all. The only real cpu intensive thing that I ever do that matters is gaming, and the FX6300 showed in benchmarks that it is capable of 75+FPS gaming in all modern games. Who really needs any more than 60-75FPS in their video games? That is just how I chose to look at it now-a-days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm curious if you've tried livestreaming with your FX6300? Its a heavily multithreaded process which leads me to believe it could match or even exceed Sandy/Ivy Bridge performance.
I use the catleap 2560x1440 120hz IPS display. In most games I shoot for 60hz min, with average 120hz+. For something more competitive (like quake live), I shoot for 120hz min at all times. (I also have a 120hz 1080p display with lower pixel lag TN panel for those cases).
3930k + water nv 680 32 gigs ram SSD (Not SLIing this time around, as I decided it's better to wait for the 780s since few games I play really tax a single 680).
In NS2 I have to knock-down the graphics settings a bit to hold on to decent FPS. Feels like I run into the 40's on a regular basis in mid/end game.
(I haven't measured, but I can feel it dipping, but not too bad. Usually I start to feel it around 60hz, and around 45hz it becomes a distraction, and I get distracted time to time by my fps dips. I can measure if anyone wants to know what my specific hardware+settings performs at.)
IIRC AO is off. Don't remember if blur or DOF were options, but if they were then they're off. Most other settings are maxed.
I'm not terribly good at this game, but I've been toying with the idea of putting more effort into it. If I did, I'd just knock down the graphics as low as need-be until my fps holds around 120hz min.
I suspect that at 1080p, my system could sustain a pretty good minimum.
OP < If you want an easy fix, I'd recommend grabbing the cheapest AMD/ATI 7970 GHZ edition graphics card available. If you have an i7 2500k or better CPU, and are on 1080p, you should be in very good shape.
FPS wise, it's as fast as the fastest non-sli/xfire rigs you can get. But doesn't have a ton of $ wasted on fancy names or items that barely affect FPS.
Total : $1355
Note : i5 3570k and the i7 3770k are essentially the same CPU. Both have 4 physical cores, but the i7 adds 4 more virtual cores. TBH it's not a feature that will help you in the vast majority of cases. When it does help, it's usually a small difference.
You are A-OK on the stock CPU cooler if you're not gonna overclock. Don't waste your money. 99% of all users are on the stock cooler at stock speeds and the computer gets thrown away years later with the stock cooler still humming along.
If you want to OC a moderate amount, add one of these instead of the included cpu cooler :
Cooler : small water : H60 : $60 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181015" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835181015</a> or Cooler : small water : H80 : $85 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181016" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835181016</a> or Cooler : big air : D14 : $80 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835608018</a>
The big air works very well. Little water is usually as good as big air, or a tad worse.
But...
Take a look : D14, <a href="http://techgage.com/reviews/noctua/nh_d14/noctua_nhd14_09.jpg" target="_blank">http://techgage.com/reviews/noctua/nh_d14/...ua_nhd14_09.jpg</a> D14, <a href="http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/796/img1338s.jpg" target="_blank">http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/796/img1338s.jpg</a> D14, <a href="http://www.topreviewshop.com/graphics/noctua_nh_d14_fan_over_memory_slots.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.topreviewshop.com/graphics/noct...emory_slots.jpg</a> vs H60, <a href="http://img.hexus.net/v2/cooling/Corsair/H60/H60-8-big.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.hexus.net/v2/cooling/Corsair/H60/H60-8-big.jpg</a> H80, <a href="http://derekwattphotography.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/PCBuild/IMG_9162.jpg" target="_blank">http://derekwattphotography.co.uk/wp-conte...ld/IMG_9162.jpg</a>
If you need to swap a PSU and unplug the mobo 8 pin, or change ram, which of these coolers do you want to deal with? If you are a masochist, get big air. But if you are going to fix it yourself, and cherish your time, get small water.
It's worth noting that the H60/H80 also can be detached from the chassis and swung out of the way. Big air sometimes requires partially disassembling your system to get at certain things.
I dunno, $1355 seems like way too much for a computer to me. Personally I'd just get a $200 card after all my GTX460 can run any game perfectly, when it doesn't I can just spend another $200 and by that time the 7970 will be outperformed by the new $200 card. I've never really spent more than $250 on a card and I'm happy for it, as I remember spending that much on a 9800GTX+ which is nothing now. $85 on a cooler is okay, but I find if you spend that extra money on an awesome case like my Thermaltake Element T which has 3 fans that are larger than 12" you can get some really awesome cooling going on. From what I've heard though the Corsair Hydro series is the way too go for CPU cooling. It seems to perform up to the level of some full stock LC kits.
<!--quoteo(post=2043888:date=Dec 12 2012, 08:18 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 12 2012, 08:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2043888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dunno, $1355 seems like way too much for a computer to me. Personally I'd just get a $200 card after all my GTX460 can run any game perfectly, when it doesn't I can just spend another $200 and by that time the 7970 will be outperformed by the new $200 card. I've never really spent more than $250 on a card and I'm happy for it, as I remember spending that much on a 9800GTX+ which is nothing now. $85 on a cooler is okay, but I find if you spend that extra money on an awesome case like my Thermaltake Element T which has 3 fans that are larger than 12" you can get some really awesome cooling going on. From what I've heard though the Corsair Hydro series is the way too go for CPU cooling. It seems to perform up to the level of some full stock LC kits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I spent $400 on my GTX570 D: was the 460 new when u bought it? Because damn that's cheap.
It's important to remember that the "price vs performance curve" is rather logarithmic in nature.
When things are cheap, adding a few bucks gives you a lot of performance. When things are expensive, adding a lot of bucks gives you a little performance.
And the inverse is true too.
When things are cheap, you have to give up a lot of performance for very few bucks saved. When things are expensive, you have to give up a little performance for a lot of bucks saved.
There is generally a 'sweet spot' in the 'price vs performance' curve. Where you're not overpaying for small bumps in speed. And you're not sacrificing gobs of speed for a couple bucks.
A lot of the parts I listed are already very close to the bottom price point within their "class".
You can save a few bucks on PSU - but you might regret it later if you need to replace the whole things to get more watts. You can save a few bucks on mobo - but you might regret it later if you need more expansion slots. But regardless, the savings to be had with these sorts of changes are very minimal. You won't even buy one tank of gas with what you can save on PSU/Mobo.
You can go with a cheaper CPU. A non-K variant will save a couple bucks, but you lose a lot of OC potential - which means that later you can't OC much, so you will need to replace the CPU sooner. Any cheaper and you'll be sacrificing meaningful performance (or simply longevity of usefulness) for what is maybe cash for one tank of gas.
Smaller HDD can save a few tens of dollars.
Generally, most of the system specs don't have much room for savings. You can force savings in there, but you'll feel the performance loss more than you'll feel the cash loss. IMO. Basically, most of the system is in the "sweet spot" of "price vs performance".
However, the GPU and SSD's are an exception - They dig into the "lot more cash for a little gain" region (but not as much as buying a 680 would).
The GPU and SSDs are the only place you can get big savings without making big sacrifices.
SSDs : I included SSDs because they help with "hitching". Little pauses when the system does any load-on-demand type work. This isn't important for average FPS, but it can eliminate some of the little 'halts' that happen now and then when new stuff appears. Not necessarily a big deal for NS2. I mean in general, SSDs help with load-on-demand.
The OP expressed interest in specifically maintaining minimum FPS, so I added SSDs.
Dropping the SSDs ($-110 each) $-220 total with no SSDs, and no real impact on steady FPS, and only a nominal impact on minimum FPS.
That already drops the price to $1135.
Then the GPU options :
The 7970 ghz edition is the value winner over the 680, within the tip top segment - but it's still outside the 'price vs performance' 'sweet spot'.
You could instead go with : regular 7970 ( $380 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150596" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814150596</a> ) ($-70) or regular 7950 ( $290 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161400" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814161400</a> ) ($-160) or ghz edition 7870 ( $230 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125418" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814125418</a> ) ($-220)
IMO, the 7870 ghz edition is in the turn-key sweet spot. And the 7950 is in the "I plan to overclock" sweet spot.
Note : If you're gonna go for a 7950, I'd opt for a 7950 with a stout cooler, such as (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125414). However that's +$10 over the cheapest 7950 option.
Also, you can bios flash or OC vanilla editions to the ghz edition stats.
So potentially you could get it down to : $1135 with no SSDs Then : $1065 with a vanilla 7970 $975 (or $985) with a vanilla 7950 ($+10 for a variant with a better cooler) $915 with a ghz edition 7870
Note : This build leans towards saving money without sacrificing much performance, when compared to the fastest options available.
I honestly would be wary of buying much cheaper than the $915 price point. You'll start to cut off big wads of performance for small amounts of cash saved - which imo devalues what you get out of the money you still spent.
Example : (Sillyness of buying too cheap) 10 for $10 vs 5 for $9 Worth saving a dollar? No, not really.
Example : (Sillyness of buying too expensive) 10 for $100 vs 11 for $200 Worth buying one more? No, not really.
Also, this all assumes that the OP would want an intel system.
You could save probably another $100 or $150 by going with AMD CPU + mobo. You would generally have less CPU power available - but the GPU does most the work anyways so it's not that big of a deal. But you'd also give up some longevity of usefulness, and the next upgrade would come sooner. Then again, AMD upgrades are cheaper anyways...
Also, if the OP can post his current hardware specs, we can calculate a nominal 'best buy'.
A = his NS2 FPS set B{} = Candidate hardware NS2 FPS
C = Cost of upgrade
For all B{i} Value = (B{i} - A) / C
So you look for a B{i} with the largest Value result.
The results can be surprising, and often an "expensive" GPU does better than you'd think.
Example:
OP might have 20 fps.
GPU X might have 25 fps and costs $100 So the value would be (25-20) / 100 = 5/100 = +0.050 fps per dollar spent
GPU Y might have 35 fps and costs $200 So the value would be (35-20) / 200 = 15/200 = +0.075 fps per dollar spent
GPU Z might have 60 fps and cost $500 So the value would be (60 - 20) / $500 = +0.080 fps per dollar spent - Which is actually a better buy than the other two options - even though you could have assumed that it's overpriced.
Point being, with benchmarks, you can calculate your 'best buy'.
True, the sweet spot I have found to be about $900 or so. Some factors: you don't need a 80% grade PSU and you can take the risk of mathematically assessing it or just get a higher wattage one on sale. You can also find other stuff on sales, for example on TD sales I can usually save as much as 40% <b>total</b> (about $400 !) if all the parts are on sale. For CPUs it depends on how long you think you will have them for, for example my Q6600 now is doing just fine running at 3.4ghz and it can most likely outperform older i-series CPUs in gaming at stock clocks which shows the power of saving money by overclocking. You can also save money with SLI/X-fire by buying a cheaper card and getting a second one of those later for like $100 and boosting your GPU power by almost x2, or you can just instead of buying a $600 monster now buy a $200 card, then when that card doesn't perform get another for $200, as the only thing you need to replace a GPU is another GPU, unlike replacing a CPU and having to spend money on almost everything else.
As someone who has been using SLI [whenever available] since voodoo2, I can say that it can be really great.
If it's between '1 card' or '2 cards that are "one down speed-wise" ', I think the 2 cards is a better value.
Personally, I'd SLI at the beginning, rather than buying a second card later when the new gen is out. Buying another older card later feels weird... like you could be better off selling your first older card, and putting the 'second card money' into the pot to buy a single better modern card.
However, SLI is not without its pitfalls.
1) Microstutter 2) inconsistent scaling.
Microstutter is hit and miss. Sometimes it only affects some games, or only on some hardware combinations. Some people can't see it, others are sensitive to it.
Inconsistent scaling is a funny thing. Sometimes more cards runs slower. Particularly when you're not using extreme resolutions.
Plus you add lag when using AFR (you queue frames, and the queue depth is equal to the number of cards beyond 1. So 4 cards has a 3 frame lag). If that's 60hz, quad sli makes 3 x 16.6ms = 50ms lag. IMO 50ms on top of network lag, is not insignificant. Not much of an issue with 2 card sli, as that's only 16.6ms.
I haven't really had to deal with microstutter, as I've only had microstutter when using mis-matched bus speeds - which is a simple fix in the bios or by re-shuffling some cards.
I suspect that : If you can pack-in a crap ton of fps, then I would say that it all runs together into a nice stream. With lower fps, the gaps should be larger and more visible.
But like I said, I don't have too much experience with it. There are forum threads dedicated to it where you can get proper info. Check guru3d or anandtech or hardocp or other places like that.
IMO what's worse than microstutter is when games have asynchronous mouse/kb input. They end up having this slight input lag that drives me nuts.
<!--quoteo(post=2044000:date=Dec 12 2012, 12:39 AM:name=scheherazade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scheherazade @ Dec 12 2012, 12:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044000"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, if the OP can post his current hardware specs, we can calculate a nominal 'best buy'.
A = his NS2 FPS set B{} = Candidate hardware NS2 FPS
C = Cost of upgrade<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your posts are scaring me but I'll do as you say!
AMD II X4 635, Quad Core 2.9 Ghz 4 Gigs of Ram Nvidia GTX460, 1 Gig No SSD
I get a minimum of 15 frames in intense firefights (ouch) and 45 fps average.
Comments
I went from 25fps to this when i upgraded this week.
If you can use old parts: case, psu, hdd, and os. All you really need is a mobo, cpu, ram, and video card.
I purchases the following:
Gigabyte Z77X mobo
Intel 3750k cpu
8gb ram
Pny nvidia gtx 660 ti w/ 2gb ram
I also got a case, psu, and a 23" 2ms lcd. I reused my hdd and os. In all $800 after rebates from newegg. Btw i have no dvd in the case or other extras
- Nvidia GeForce GTX 680
- i5 3570k
- 16GB RAM
If not, what should i change? Thanks in advance :3
Computer must be as cheap as possible. Just the rig, no other peripherals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103888" target="_blank">AMD Sempron 145 Sargas 2.8Ghz Socket AM3 45W Single-Core Desktop Processor</a>
<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157204" target="_blank">ASRock N68C-S UCC AM3/AM2+/AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a Micro ATX AMD Motherboard</a>
thats a nice solid base, rock hard oc'ing , and will get your pwning nubs in no time
- Nvidia GeForce GTX 680
- i5 3570k
- 16GB RAM
If not, what should i change? Thanks in advance :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm guessing about 100fps without an overclock. Not sure how it would fair late game in big fights though, may deep too close to 60 for comfort. If you want to cheapen, try a 560ti and 8GB of cheaper RAM, would result in the same fps.
I meant never dropping below 30FPS, so it should have way more frames then that early/mid game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HahahAhahaha. Good request. That is something us gamers on some of the best hardware cannot achieve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow dude, way to speak out of your a$$, I get 60fps+ at ALL stages of the game, maybe drops to 55 for a split second as it goes up and down. (Yes I'm at 1080p)
Ah, thank you very much, and i will be very happy with 60FPS in big fights, since now i have 20FPS just at the start of a round :'c
<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157204" target="_blank">ASRock N68C-S UCC AM3/AM2+/AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a Micro ATX AMD Motherboard</a>
thats a nice solid base, rock hard oc'ing , and will get your pwning nubs in no time<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't think that system would stand a chance of maintaining 30+ fps in late game combat..
If you were running several things, then I would whole heartedly suggest the i7, or if you were doing video editing. But not in this case.
If you're going for an intel core, don't go higher than an i5.
If you were running several things, then I would whole heartedly suggest the i7, or if you were doing video editing. But not in this case.
If you're going for an intel core, don't go higher than an i5.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are some other differences, but yes i7s yield the exact same fps as i5s in almost all cases, no they all have 4 cores unless it's those older crappy models. Only notable difference other than hyperthreading is the cache size. If you are just building a system and thinking about i7s for gaming though, you might want to use that money to get a better video card or something as that will give you better performance than spending another $100 for a higher cache and hyperthreading. It all depends on money and where you spend it. One time I saw a really sweet deal on TigerDirect and the difference between an i7 and i5 was only $50, in that case I would definitely grab the i7 instead.
Cool link: <a href="http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyperthreading-in-games" target="_blank">http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyperthreading-in-games</a>
This is the exact reason why I stuck with AMD for my budget gaming upgrade. I went from a ###### 2.8ghz quad core from 2007(i think), that couldnt get over 20fps in NS2 after 10 minutes, to a 130 dollar CPU that gives me all the leg room I need with a GTS450. I figured, sure AMD may be slower per clock vs Intel, but when you are using multithreaded applications, you are only talking about a difference of ~10 seconds for time related tasks, and maybe less 30fps less than an i7. But if I can run at over 75FPS anyways...I dont really care for running at 100+FPS. My FX6300 doesnt compete directly with todays i7, although it does with previous generations, but its more than enough especially for its price point.
These days, I feel like most users will be satisfied will AMD's new Vishera's CPUs, avoid the FX4300 like its the plague tho, they severely crippled that chip in many ways, a lot of people think that it shouldn't be only $10 cheaper(maybe should be $25 cheaper) than the FX6300. The FX4300 has a crippled L3 cache, and for having half the modules disabled it should have came in a smaller TDP package than 95W but doesn't. the FX8300 is only capable of competing with newer i7's in <b>very</b> specific multi threaded tasks that take advantage of AMD's architecture. Other than those specific tasks, most of the Vishera chips are on par with an i5.(except the FX4300)
I get avg 80fps and never drops below 45fps in the most crazy infested battles of 24 players. Dunno why people faster rigs are having issues.
Intel Core i5 with GTX 670 8Gb of ram
cheap mobo, cheap hdd everything else cheap low end
clean win 7 x64 bit latest nvidia drivers.
Edit: typo, I meant 17% for 1 of 6 cores.
For gaming only, an i5 will suffice. The only exception is livestreaming, which does benefit from the extra cores/higher cache of an i7.
<!--quoteo(post=2043352:date=Dec 10 2012, 07:54 PM:name=ZeroAnimated)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZeroAnimated @ Dec 10 2012, 07:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2043352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 uses up to about 30-45% average on my hexacore, and in the 70s on my old Phenom x4, that makes me assume that it supports multiple cores decently. 1 core is around 18% for hexcores. And I haven't found AMD hardly worth it until I got a FX6300, it changed my perspective on things thats all. The only real cpu intensive thing that I ever do that matters is gaming, and the FX6300 showed in benchmarks that it is capable of 75+FPS gaming in all modern games. Who really needs any more than 60-75FPS in their video games? That is just how I chose to look at it now-a-days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm curious if you've tried livestreaming with your FX6300? Its a heavily multithreaded process which leads me to believe it could match or even exceed Sandy/Ivy Bridge performance.
In most games I shoot for 60hz min, with average 120hz+.
For something more competitive (like quake live), I shoot for 120hz min at all times. (I also have a 120hz 1080p display with lower pixel lag TN panel for those cases).
3930k + water
nv 680
32 gigs ram
SSD
(Not SLIing this time around, as I decided it's better to wait for the 780s since few games I play really tax a single 680).
In NS2 I have to knock-down the graphics settings a bit to hold on to decent FPS.
Feels like I run into the 40's on a regular basis in mid/end game.
(I haven't measured, but I can feel it dipping, but not too bad. Usually I start to feel it around 60hz, and around 45hz it becomes a distraction, and I get distracted time to time by my fps dips. I can measure if anyone wants to know what my specific hardware+settings performs at.)
IIRC AO is off.
Don't remember if blur or DOF were options, but if they were then they're off.
Most other settings are maxed.
I'm not terribly good at this game, but I've been toying with the idea of putting more effort into it.
If I did, I'd just knock down the graphics as low as need-be until my fps holds around 120hz min.
I suspect that at 1080p, my system could sustain a pretty good minimum.
OP < If you want an easy fix, I'd recommend grabbing the cheapest AMD/ATI 7970 GHZ edition graphics card available. If you have an i7 2500k or better CPU, and are on 1080p, you should be in very good shape.
My mid-budget-but-99%-as-fast-as-the-fastest build would be :
GPU : 7970 ghz ed. : $450 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150632" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814150632</a>
CPU : i5 3570k : $215 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819116504</a>
mobo : asrock z77 extreme 3 : $110 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157330" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813157330</a>
ram : gskill 2x4gig (upgradable to 4x4gig) : $50 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231460" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820231460</a>
case : antec 300 : $60 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129042" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16811129042</a>
PSU : TT 850 : $90 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153106" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16817153106</a>
SSD : M4 (2x, a:OS, b:Game) : 2x $110 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148442" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820148442</a>
HDD : Segate 3tb : $160 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148844" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822148844</a>
FPS wise, it's as fast as the fastest non-sli/xfire rigs you can get.
But doesn't have a ton of $ wasted on fancy names or items that barely affect FPS.
Total : $1355
Note : i5 3570k and the i7 3770k are essentially the same CPU. Both have 4 physical cores, but the i7 adds 4 more virtual cores. TBH it's not a feature that will help you in the vast majority of cases. When it does help, it's usually a small difference.
You are A-OK on the stock CPU cooler if you're not gonna overclock.
Don't waste your money. 99% of all users are on the stock cooler at stock speeds and the computer gets thrown away years later with the stock cooler still humming along.
If you want to OC a moderate amount, add one of these instead of the included cpu cooler :
Cooler : small water : H60 : $60 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181015" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835181015</a>
or
Cooler : small water : H80 : $85 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181016" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835181016</a>
or
Cooler : big air : D14 : $80 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16835608018</a>
The big air works very well. Little water is usually as good as big air, or a tad worse.
But...
Take a look :
D14, <a href="http://techgage.com/reviews/noctua/nh_d14/noctua_nhd14_09.jpg" target="_blank">http://techgage.com/reviews/noctua/nh_d14/...ua_nhd14_09.jpg</a>
D14, <a href="http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/796/img1338s.jpg" target="_blank">http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/796/img1338s.jpg</a>
D14, <a href="http://www.topreviewshop.com/graphics/noctua_nh_d14_fan_over_memory_slots.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.topreviewshop.com/graphics/noct...emory_slots.jpg</a>
vs
H60, <a href="http://img.hexus.net/v2/cooling/Corsair/H60/H60-8-big.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.hexus.net/v2/cooling/Corsair/H60/H60-8-big.jpg</a>
H80, <a href="http://derekwattphotography.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/PCBuild/IMG_9162.jpg" target="_blank">http://derekwattphotography.co.uk/wp-conte...ld/IMG_9162.jpg</a>
If you need to swap a PSU and unplug the mobo 8 pin, or change ram, which of these coolers do you want to deal with?
If you are a masochist, get big air.
But if you are going to fix it yourself, and cherish your time, get small water.
It's worth noting that the H60/H80 also can be detached from the chassis and swung out of the way.
Big air sometimes requires partially disassembling your system to get at certain things.
-scheherazade
I spent $400 on my GTX570 D: was the 460 new when u bought it? Because damn that's cheap.
When things are cheap, adding a few bucks gives you a lot of performance.
When things are expensive, adding a lot of bucks gives you a little performance.
And the inverse is true too.
When things are cheap, you have to give up a lot of performance for very few bucks saved.
When things are expensive, you have to give up a little performance for a lot of bucks saved.
There is generally a 'sweet spot' in the 'price vs performance' curve.
Where you're not overpaying for small bumps in speed.
And you're not sacrificing gobs of speed for a couple bucks.
A lot of the parts I listed are already very close to the bottom price point within their "class".
You can save a few bucks on PSU - but you might regret it later if you need to replace the whole things to get more watts.
You can save a few bucks on mobo - but you might regret it later if you need more expansion slots.
But regardless, the savings to be had with these sorts of changes are very minimal. You won't even buy one tank of gas with what you can save on PSU/Mobo.
You can go with a cheaper CPU.
A non-K variant will save a couple bucks, but you lose a lot of OC potential - which means that later you can't OC much, so you will need to replace the CPU sooner.
Any cheaper and you'll be sacrificing meaningful performance (or simply longevity of usefulness) for what is maybe cash for one tank of gas.
Smaller HDD can save a few tens of dollars.
Generally, most of the system specs don't have much room for savings.
You can force savings in there, but you'll feel the performance loss more than you'll feel the cash loss. IMO.
Basically, most of the system is in the "sweet spot" of "price vs performance".
However, the GPU and SSD's are an exception - They dig into the "lot more cash for a little gain" region (but not as much as buying a 680 would).
The GPU and SSDs are the only place you can get big savings without making big sacrifices.
SSDs :
I included SSDs because they help with "hitching".
Little pauses when the system does any load-on-demand type work.
This isn't important for average FPS, but it can eliminate some of the little 'halts' that happen now and then when new stuff appears.
Not necessarily a big deal for NS2. I mean in general, SSDs help with load-on-demand.
The OP expressed interest in specifically maintaining minimum FPS, so I added SSDs.
Dropping the SSDs ($-110 each)
$-220 total with no SSDs, and no real impact on steady FPS, and only a nominal impact on minimum FPS.
That already drops the price to $1135.
Then the GPU options :
The 7970 ghz edition is the value winner over the 680, within the tip top segment - but it's still outside the 'price vs performance' 'sweet spot'.
You could instead go with :
regular 7970 ( $380 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150596" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814150596</a> ) ($-70)
or
regular 7950 ( $290 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161400" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814161400</a> ) ($-160)
or
ghz edition 7870 ( $230 : <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125418" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814125418</a> ) ($-220)
IMO, the 7870 ghz edition is in the turn-key sweet spot.
And the 7950 is in the "I plan to overclock" sweet spot.
Note :
If you're gonna go for a 7950, I'd opt for a 7950 with a stout cooler, such as (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125414).
However that's +$10 over the cheapest 7950 option.
Also, you can bios flash or OC vanilla editions to the ghz edition stats.
So potentially you could get it down to :
$1135 with no SSDs
Then :
$1065 with a vanilla 7970
$975 (or $985) with a vanilla 7950 ($+10 for a variant with a better cooler)
$915 with a ghz edition 7870
Note :
This build leans towards saving money without sacrificing much performance, when compared to the fastest options available.
I honestly would be wary of buying much cheaper than the $915 price point.
You'll start to cut off big wads of performance for small amounts of cash saved - which imo devalues what you get out of the money you still spent.
Example : (Sillyness of buying too cheap)
10 for $10
vs
5 for $9
Worth saving a dollar? No, not really.
Example : (Sillyness of buying too expensive)
10 for $100
vs
11 for $200
Worth buying one more? No, not really.
Also, this all assumes that the OP would want an intel system.
You could save probably another $100 or $150 by going with AMD CPU + mobo.
You would generally have less CPU power available - but the GPU does most the work anyways so it's not that big of a deal.
But you'd also give up some longevity of usefulness, and the next upgrade would come sooner.
Then again, AMD upgrades are cheaper anyways...
-scheherazade
A = his NS2 FPS
set B{} = Candidate hardware NS2 FPS
C = Cost of upgrade
For all B{i}
Value = (B{i} - A) / C
So you look for a B{i} with the largest Value result.
The results can be surprising, and often an "expensive" GPU does better than you'd think.
Example:
OP might have 20 fps.
GPU X might have 25 fps and costs $100
So the value would be (25-20) / 100 = 5/100 = +0.050 fps per dollar spent
GPU Y might have 35 fps and costs $200
So the value would be (35-20) / 200 = 15/200 = +0.075 fps per dollar spent
GPU Z might have 60 fps and cost $500
So the value would be (60 - 20) / $500 = +0.080 fps per dollar spent - Which is actually a better buy than the other two options - even though you could have assumed that it's overpriced.
Point being, with benchmarks, you can calculate your 'best buy'.
-scheherazade
If it's between '1 card' or '2 cards that are "one down speed-wise" ', I think the 2 cards is a better value.
Personally, I'd SLI at the beginning, rather than buying a second card later when the new gen is out.
Buying another older card later feels weird... like you could be better off selling your first older card, and putting the 'second card money' into the pot to buy a single better modern card.
However, SLI is not without its pitfalls.
1) Microstutter
2) inconsistent scaling.
Microstutter is hit and miss. Sometimes it only affects some games, or only on some hardware combinations.
Some people can't see it, others are sensitive to it.
Inconsistent scaling is a funny thing.
Sometimes more cards runs slower. Particularly when you're not using extreme resolutions.
Plus you add lag when using AFR (you queue frames, and the queue depth is equal to the number of cards beyond 1. So 4 cards has a 3 frame lag).
If that's 60hz, quad sli makes 3 x 16.6ms = 50ms lag.
IMO 50ms on top of network lag, is not insignificant.
Not much of an issue with 2 card sli, as that's only 16.6ms.
-scheherazade
Microstutter = inconsistent frame spacing.
1 2 [time gap] 3 4 [time gap] 5 6 [time gap] ... etc
I suspect that :
If you can pack-in a crap ton of fps, then I would say that it all runs together into a nice stream.
With lower fps, the gaps should be larger and more visible.
But like I said, I don't have too much experience with it.
There are forum threads dedicated to it where you can get proper info.
Check guru3d or anandtech or hardocp or other places like that.
IMO what's worse than microstutter is when games have asynchronous mouse/kb input.
They end up having this slight input lag that drives me nuts.
-scheherazade
A = his NS2 FPS
set B{} = Candidate hardware NS2 FPS
C = Cost of upgrade<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your posts are scaring me but I'll do as you say!
AMD II X4 635, Quad Core 2.9 Ghz
4 Gigs of Ram
Nvidia GTX460, 1 Gig
No SSD
I get a minimum of 15 frames in intense firefights (ouch) and 45 fps average.
Cpu: i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz
Graphics Card: Sapphire HD 7850 OC 1050 core 1450 mem
RAM: Kingston 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1866MHz HyperX XMP
Mobo: AsRock Extreme 4-M
plays at 100+ FPS, everythign on max, whilst streaming
Buy the parts off ebay and you get the best prices, just have to not rush into anything and wait for great deals.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NoONgFEUo8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NoONgFEUo8</a>
This video is a good cheap gaming rig, also check out their other videos for different rigs at varying budgets.
When I look at TigerDirect's prices and compare them to ebay.ca many times retail is actually cheaper.