Taking the dive into PC building

[Raydeus]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Edit > Ouch the problem with having one card 16x and another 8x is that it will downgrade the performance of the faster card if you do it that way. It may not matter much for older cards, but on new cards you need 16x PCIe.

[Etra]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Ah, ok it should support both Crossfire and SLI so you can choose whichever cards you like the most.

I don't know how you can tell that it supports both. >< I'm so nubcake-y.

[Armando]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

What I personally do is buy a generation behind. For instance right now it's the HD7000 series for AMD, so I bought heavily discounted pair of 6950 for crossfire.

This basically sums it up. The top end cards are always going to be disproportionately expensive compared to the performance of the next best thing.

Personally I would stay away from Crossfire/SLI. I've known people that have had problems getting it set up, and it doesn't always give you x2 performance. Using a single card is simpler and it's less heat you have to push out of the case. I'd only ever recommend it if you wanted to go beyond the performance of the best cards out there, but that's expensive and excessive as hell.

[Raydeus]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

I made an edit. <_<;

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 PM ----------

PS > Crossfire gives you around 1.5x to 1.8x performance. Depends on what you are running and what you are doing, but the improvement is very noticeable. Setup is as easy as installing a single card nowadays unless there's something set incorrectly in the BIOS.

The main reason to stay away from dual cards is power consumption and microstuttering. Power can't really be fixed but triple gpu setups are awesome and have no noticeable microstuttering.

---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------

PPS > That Intel chipset supports both 16x and 8x versions, so you really need to see if your mobo is accepting 16x or if it only has a PCEe 16x connector but it's running 8x. Normally 8x is shorter than 16x so you wouldn't be able to install a regular card. Unless there's foul play involved.

---------- Post added at 08:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

PPPS > For normal use though, it wont really affect you if you are using dual cards in 8x or 16x. So don't worry much about it unless the cards don't fit.

[Aeni]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

IMO most of the mid-tier to mid-high-tier cards ($200 to $300) offer the kind of performance that would be viable for 2-3 years (which is really the life span of most modern day pcb boards & capacitors) and that can handle majority of applications. The only reason why you'd want a fast, high end or multiple card solutions is: (a) e-peen (b) 3D rendering (c) intensive mathematical computation and/or modeling (d) e-peen.

[Raydeus]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

So I take you've never played a game at max settings and a solid 60+ fps?

Because you do need a good card if you want to run many games like that. But like I said, it depends on the games and the budget, which is the first thing we mentioned.

[Etra]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

So I take you've never played a game at max settings and a solid 60+ fps?

Because you do need a good card if you want to run many games like that. But like I said, it depends on the games and the budget, which is the first thing we mentioned.

There is no budget. I'd just rather have a good card, but doesn't need to be from the newest generation of cards. Which is why I'm asking when the new ones get released and the old ones get marked down. ;p

Also, which of the two (nvidia / ati) is better off right now.

[Aeni]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

So I take you've never played a game at max settings and a solid 60+ fps?

Because you do need a good card if you want to run many games like that. But like I said, it depends on the games and the budget, which is the first thing we mentioned.

No game needs to run at max settings and 60+ fps. If the option is there, it only exists because the developers were too lazy to design the game efficiently (hence why majority of games are "bloatware") Look at the console games and try to argue that you require a high end rig in order to derive the most pleasure from your $60 copy of a game that should run just fine on half or less than half that budget ...

Edit: I would concede your point if you can show me your $500 game to go along with your $15,000 rig.

[Raydeus]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

There is no budget. I'd just rather have a good card, but doesn't need to be from the newest generation of cards. Which is why I'm asking when the new ones get released and the old ones get marked down. ;p

Also, which of the two (nvidia / ati) is better off right now.

Yeah, a generation behind would work pretty good for most current games. And considering many are multiplatform the current trend seems to be designing for the lowest common denominator and only adding DX11 effects for PC. That doesn't include mods though, and games like Fallout3/NV and Skyrim can get a massive facelift (and a performance hit if you are not ready) through HD mods.

The other alternative would be seeing if it would be cheaper to go yet another generation back with 2 cards in SLI/Xfire but there are nice deals out there for past gen cards. And about whether which brand is better that's just a big can of worms filled with fanboyism and hatred. Personally I only buy AMD but the main reason for it is I've been more lucky overclocking those cards than nVidia, plus I'm boycotting nVidia due to their Physx scam. But performance-wise there's such a huge range of cards with performance awards going both ways, so it's more about whether you like Pepsi or Coke really. <_<;


Edit > TL;DR just pick a price point and we can do some research to see what you can get for that amount.

No game needs to run at max settings and 60+ fps. If the option is there, it only exists because the developers were too lazy to design the game efficiently (hence why majority of games are "bloatware") Look at the console games and try to argue that you require a high end rig in order to derive the most pleasure from your $60 copy of a game that should run just fine on half or less than half that budget ...

Edit: I would concede your point if you can show me your $500 game to go along with your $15,000 rig.

Oh please. XD

If playing at console resolutions and frame rates is good enough for you that's fine, but to claim anything above that is just e-peen, bloatware and lazy design is just ridiculous.

It's kinda like the guys who like to criticize your great looking date when they wish they could be with her themselves. Best part is having a good looking date and/or a good computer only requires you to think a little and be smart about it to get it. No need to spend the big bucks or be "special" to get either.

[Aeni]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Oh please. XD

If playing at console resolutions and frame rates is good enough for you that's fine, but to claim anything above that is just e-peen, bloatware and lazy design is just ridiculous.

It's kinda like the guys who like to criticize your great looking date when they wish they could be with her themselves. Best part is having a good looking date and/or a good computer only requires you to think a little and be smart about it to get it. No need to spend the big bucks or be "special" to get either.

Leaving out the hyperbole, you never once brought up a good reason why one should get an expensive rig to play a $60 game. Do you honestly believe that just because you are prettying up your rendered frames that somehow you are magically experiencing the game differently than someone that is playing it at the intent of the developer?

Most games are developed for a certain level of performance and quality. Because if it weren't, no one would buy it, save for a relatively small handful of people who can afford to push the envelope.

You're arguing a fallacy which has been a mainstay of most discussions regarding this since the dawn of 3D computer graphics. The fallacy is that you can actually get something better from the software with a better hardware.

An extreme example of this is playing a PSX emulator and then thinking that those old titles are going to magically look better on a better PC running the emulator. But there are more subtle examples, like World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy XI or Guild Wars. Even within the first 3 years of its life, the hardware that was "awesome" when these titles first released became obsolete in that time frame, and the quality of the graphics barely improved.

Most popular games on the PCs are online based versus consoles where it's targetted to the single player/casual crowd. The limitations may be different in both cases, but the limitations remain ... games can only be developed for the weakest link. How weak of a link developers want to develop for is at their discretion, but it's a logical fallacy to assume that those games were developed for the "best rig" or the "rig that hasn't even come out yet".

[Raydeus]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Except no one is saying you are required to play it like that, so you may be projecting there. And I'm sorry to tell you this but yes, a good rig will make games run better, even older ones unless there's a compatibility issue with the current OS, but that would happen regardless of the power of your rig.

Anyone who has played upscaled PS and PS2 games on a PS3 knows they look better, so that happens even in consoles. And unless you are going to tell me you play your older games at a 800x600 resolution even if you can now display them at at least 1024 x 768 just because or something you have already experienced this yourself. So to say having a better rig has no benefits is just an excuse.

Like I said, if you are personally satisfied with lower specs that's good, but don't go around saying having a better rig is somehow a bad thing just because you don't like it. Because there's plenty of evidence out there, from KotOR HD to Crysis games to modded Fallout/Skyrim to prove having a better rig is always better. Whether that's worth the price tag and the research or not for you personally is another thing entirely.

[Armando]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

If playing at console resolutions and frame rates is good enough for you that's fine, but to claim anything above that is just e-peen, bloatware and lazy design is just ridiculous.

I don't know if this is the case for you but anyone that has a psychological need to put the settings on max on any game he/she plays has epeen issues. "Max" is relative to the game; a modern game's "minimum" is higher than Quake II's "max" settings. A sane person targets a certain level of visual quality, not some point in a slider in the configuration menu. There are games that look just fine at the medium settings.

Anyhow I think Aeni's point wasn't that the resolution doesn't matter, because it does. But no amount of resolution tweaking or anti-aliasing is going to change a game's polygon counts or textures. By increasing the resolution you get a sharper snapshot of the 3D models but if they're low-polygon models or have shitty textures no amount of resolution will save it. Also the effects of both higher resolutions and anti-aliasting have diminishing returns and you're really wasting a lot of power just to say you cranked the anti-aliasting to the max.

EDIT: To answer your question Etra, I haven't been keeping up with graphics card releases as of late but just buy whatever is sensible right now. Things move really fast in the PC world, it doesn't really matter if you choose to delay your purchase a couple of months for The Next Big Thing, something better will still pop up in a year and a half.

[Raydeus]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Obsession for the best of the best of the best performance is what you are talking about, but that's not it. Aeni wants to make it sound like having a game running at max settings and at a solid frame rate is a bad thing somehow. It obviously isn't.

Same with playing with medium or max settings, you will always want to play with the best settings possible for your current rig. There will always be limits, but no one in their right mind will downgrade their visual quality if there's no performance penalty for having eye candy on. That is different from obsessing over a 1% performance increase at the expense of $1000 bucks or something like that, but even that comes down to whether you can afford it and if that increase is worth it for you or not, rather than it being right or wrong.

[Aeni]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

Anyone who has played upscaled PS and PS2 games on a PS3 knows they look better, so that happens even in consoles. And unless you are going to tell me you play your older games at a 800x600 resolution even if you can now display them at at least 1024 x 768 just because or something you have already experienced this yourself. So to say having a better rig has no benefits is just an excuse.

Have you even try upscaling the resolution on a game like Xenosaga III, using the multi-core architecture (Some PS2 emulators have this feature) with maxed out settings? The game looks like complete S H I T. This is the same issues with trying to play SNES games on an emulator ... it isn't the same thing as playing the game on a CRT set.

Armando pretty much articulated what I wanted to say far more elegantly (plus I'm tired and want a nap so bad)

[Etra]

Re: Taking the dive into PC building

I'll just wait until the next gen cards come out (whenever that is) and do some research on it. >o>

I'll probably go with AMD. I've had the best performance with them all around and only had an issue once with them back in WoW for a raid boss (game would crash every time because it was a specific AMD card.) Dumb question, but motherboards can use any sort of card, right? I mean, brand-wise. Nvidia, AMD, either or?