How good is GTX 770 for this game?

[Hister]

My geforce 550 ti can't run the game any more in a satisfactory manner (some Market Garden scenarios drop fps to only 8 without shaders and shadows!).

I know FPS drop is mostly related with GPU since if I rotate camera away from the high density towns and/or where most units are I get "normal" FPS again.

Thus I need to upgrade my GPU. I was thinking about GTX 770.

Does anyone have it and can give me feedback about it's performance?

Would I be able to run biggest available scenarios with shadows and shaders on together with best texture and model quality? Or is having all in-game settings turned to best, shadows, shaders and anti-aliasing turned on on huge maps with battalion size units on each side even manageable by any GPU?

If that question can't be answered then what gpu or gpu family is considered to enable a smooth gameplay (more then 25 FPS's) on highest settings by this community?

I don't wanna spend lots of money to be then in turn disappointing by non satisfactory result. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!

[c3k]

That's a can o' worms. The tech forum may be better suited to get an answer for you. However, I think a LOT depends on the rest of your rig. It'd be best to find someone with a comparable setup but a better video card; that way you could see if the video card is the chokepoint, or something else. (Like RAM, CPU, etc.)

Ken

[Hister]

c3k, thank you for taking the time to help me out.

Well, I did post in the proper thread but looks like nobody is reading those threads 'cos I haven't got an answer in a long time. So I decided to post this here 'cos I have a bigger chance of someone answering like you just proved.

Martin from the devs (tech help) didn't know the answer so he pointed me to the forum saying I should ask here.

I already know my video card is a choke point (game plays smooth but when I pan the camera to where lots of buildings are and where lots of action is going on I get much lower FPS's) - there is no sense figuring this out 'cos it's already figured but since you asked here we go:

HARDWARE

OS: Windows 7 64bit

CPU: AMD FX-6300 BOX 3,5 GHz

Mainboard: Asus AM3+ M5A97 (970 ATX)

RAM: DDR3 1600 8GB CL8 Corsair 2x4GB Vengeance

Graphics card: Geforce 550 Ti (MSI)

Graphics memory: 1Gb

Hard Disc (SSD): Samsung 840 Pro 128GB (CMBN installed on it)

Native resolution: 1680x1050

All at vanilla settings, nothing over-clocked.

So does really noone have GTX 770 or GTX 590 or GTX 680? They all belong to roughly the same level performance.

What GPU do you sport c3k? Are you satisfied with the performance you get out of it for this game?

I would just like to finally purchase the damn thing so I can resume my gaming.

[Pete Wenman]

I'm no whiz when it comes to things computer, but I run with a GTX 550 ti and can run pretty much any map to date at the highest setting without issue.

I'm not sure what level of FPS I get, but it's good enough not be an issue.

i7-2700k CPU @ 3.50GHZ

8GB RAM

Windows 7 - 64 bit

HTH

P

[c3k]

Nice setup.

I have one close to yours: AMD 1090T, (I -think- I have it running at 3.5ghz, but I forget..), 8Gb Ram, HD6870 gpu.

It runs the game very well. (I have another, newer, computer with a 4Gb GTX670; it, too, is very smooth.)

Yet another runs with an HD6850 gpu (I include that because it is very close to your 550ti in performance see http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=647&card2=636 ) I think it is smooth, but it is running an old, small monitor (768).

I'd hate to think you'd spend money and see no improvement. The GTX590 is a bit long in the tooth, no? A 6xx or 7xx card would be my recommendation. Or an R7/R9 from amd if the bitcoiners stop driving up demand.

[Ithikial_AU]

I use a GTX690 with a i7 3.5 ghz CPU and 16GB of RAM (@2400 mhz). Can't recall the motherboard at this time but when I upgraded a year ago it was generally top of the line at that time.

I don't get a magic 60 FPS or anything like that if that's what you are asking. I usually get around 25 FPS when I'm at lower camera or close the the action but speeds up to about 35 FPS as a pull away. Game is still playable by a long mile but smoother FPS would be great. Also get the occasional stutter. Upgrading my GPU didn't really give me a big performance boost.

I'd also look at the dedicated Nvidia Performance thread for the full story including some common test results on different rigs.

[Buzz]

Hi Hister,

Below are the links to my outlier Mac rig using a EVGA GTX 760. They may be of use or not. The straight PC guys may be better sources for you.

In general, I was very impressed with the overall improvement (everything set at best) with this GTX 760 GPU on a Mac. The recent 10.9.2 upgrade seems to have degraded my ability to use some stock Mac Bundle scenarios. Not sure why (drivers?) but I submitted a help desk ticket in hopes of sorting that out.

Your CPU: AMD FX-6300 BOX 3,5 GHz is a considerable + factor for your rig. I am running at 2.26 GHz but my card does a fine of rendering Hi Res Mods with everything on Best, shaders, shadows, etc.

I do hope CMRT brings the FPS counter option we see in the pre release vids.

Best of luck getting the gaming experience you need.

PC (non-EFI) Graphics Card in Mac Pro playing CM

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112909

Downsampling CM on Mac

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113620

CMSF Mac 10.9.2 PC (non-EFI) Graphics Card

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113845

[c3k]

I don't think it's a gpu horsepower issue. But, I could be wrong.

[Buzz]

"I don't think it's a gpu horsepower issue. But, I could be wrong."

2.26 GHz on an old Mac surely trumps 3.5 GHz on a PC

I suspect the GTX 770 will be plenty of PC-GPU for Mr. Hister.

Whatever the purchase it would be helpful to know how it runs CM.

[Erwin]

To clarify, which gives more bang for the buck: More CPU power, more RAM or a better Video Card?

What is an optimal amount of video card RAM? (IIRC only the first couple of MB VIDEO RAM are useful. Is that correct?)

Also, IIRC CM2 only supports single core. So, is it better to go with a single core machine for max speed?

[Macisle]

I haven't tried the larger MG maps yet, but I have a 550 Ti 2 GB card and it seems to run CMBN well with settings maxed out. The rest of the rig is made up of an i7-950 at 3.07, 6 gigs of RAM and a Sabertooth X58 Mobo on W7-64 Ult.

For the longest time, CM patches never boosted my performance, but the latest one was mega.

People tend to poo-poo the difference between 1 and 2 GB of VRAM, but it seems to make a difference. I know it does in Arma2/Iron Front. When I tweak the settings to take advantage of the extra video memory, I see a big leap in performance in those.

[Splinty]

I use a GTX 760, and usually only get some minor stuttering when I pan across big maps with lots of units.

[c3k]

To clarify, which gives more bang for the buck: More CPU power, more RAM or a better Video Card?

That's a wide open question. If you're starting with an existing system, it all depends on what you've got. If you're clean-sheeting a new build, then your budget would (imho) dictate the best components, based on a balanced build philosophy. Then again, maybe a budget build is just a stepping stone to a future medium/high end system. That would change hardware recommendations. CM stresses CPU FAR more than other games.

What is an optimal amount of video card RAM? (IIRC only the first couple of MB VIDEO RAM are useful. Is that correct?)

I wouldn't buy less than 1gb of video ram, and that'd be for a single monitor with a resolution of 1920x1080. Anything more, and the extra ram can help. (There's a point when it doesn't, but it depends on your monitor(s), AA settings, games, etc.) 2gb is common. Higher end cards have 3gb or 4gb. (An argument exists that 4gb is overkill.)

My preference is for a minimum 2gb card.

Also, IIRC CM2 only supports single core. So, is it better to go with a single core machine for max speed?

I would NEVER go for a single core. That is obsolete. You're correct that CMx2 runs a single thread. Well, is your machine doing anything else while CM is running? (Hint: the answer rhymes with "Bess".) A single core machine, in this day and age, is not a good strategy.

The price for quad/hexa/octa cores are pretty low. The debate gets into AMD vs. Intel. I have 2 homebuilts of each. They each have pro's and con's.

Don't buy a single core.

All the above is purely my opinion. (I've been building pc's for 15 years. I've learned a few things and forgotten more. There are far smarter people out there on other websites to offer better advice.)

[c3k]

I use a GTX690 with a i7 3.5 ghz CPU and 16GB of RAM (@2400 mhz). Can't recall the motherboard at this time but when I upgraded a year ago it was generally top of the line at that time.

I don't get a magic 60 FPS or anything like that if that's what you are asking. I usually get around 25 FPS when I'm at lower camera or close the the action but speeds up to about 35 FPS as a pull away. Game is still playable by a long mile but smoother FPS would be great. Also get the occasional stutter. Upgrading my GPU didn't really give me a big performance boost.

I'd also look at the dedicated Nvidia Performance thread for the full story including some common test results on different rigs.

Hister, look at his specs. (Very close to one of my machines, but with a better GPU. His is GTX 690, mine is GTX 670.) Same ram and speed. SSD as well? My experience is similar, as you'd expect.

The bolded is good advice.

The game DOES slow down when rotating a large number of units into view. But it's very playable. No framerates available atm.

If you have extra cash, buy a video card and let us know if it helps. If you're not eager to spend the money, I'd spend some time looking at background processes or other software that may be taking resources away from CM.

Just my .02.

Ken

[Pak40]

I wouldn't buy less than 1gb of video ram, and that'd be for a single monitor with a resolution of 1920x1080. Anything more, and the extra ram can help. (There's a point when it doesn't, but it depends on your monitor(s), AA settings, games, etc.) 2gb is common. Higher end cards have 3gb or 4gb. (An argument exists that 4gb is overkill.)

My preference is for a minimum 2gb card.

This is an absolute YES, especially if you're running above 1080

I would NEVER go for a single core. That is obsolete. You're correct that CMx2 runs a single thread. Well, is your machine doing anything else while CM is running? (Hint: the answer rhymes with "Bess".) A single core machine, in this day and age, is not a good strategy.

The price for quad/hexa/octa cores are pretty low. The debate gets into AMD vs. Intel. I have 2 homebuilts of each. They each have pro's and con's.

Don't buy a single core.

Do they even sell single core CPUs for PC anymore???

The real question is do you spend your money on a high core with low clock speed or lower core with high clock speed? If your only concern is running CMBN and other games that utilize single core then you're certainly better off with a lower core & high clock speed. The latest i5 CPUs are perfect choices - affordable, fast clock speeds, and you still get 4 cores.

[Erwin]

Thanks guys. Am planning a new machine and can afford good components. But, am still confused re the trade off between (say) 2 core and 4 core when my primary game is CM (altho' sure I would like to be able to run high end flight sims etc as well).

Also the trade off between RAM and video ram.

What clock speeds are optimal right now. My strategy has always been to get 90% of bleeding edge as the last 10% can cost twice as much or more (and is obsolete by the time I finish this post).

The one thing I do know is that my primary HD will be an SSD. I have 240GB SSD in my laptop and the laptop seems to perform at least as well and maybe better than my more powerful desktop.

[Blazing 88's]

Before making the purchase see if this might help: http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html

I found out about Razor Game Booster at another site Wings: Over Flanders Fields (a great WWI air combat simulator). To fly properly you need good FPS to run it. Game Booster supposedly helps for FPS, shutting down background programs the eat away at cpu power (FPS). I haven't tried Game Booster for CM2 as I haven't needed to tweek CM2 to run properly. I think I will give it a try with CM2 though just to see what it will do for me.

My rig is a Cyberpower Workstatiom 16 gb DDR3 RAM, GTX 650 Ti, Asus motherboard AMD 8150MX eight core. (I use to have a GTX 550 Ti card on this system and it ran CM2 fine).

Heck, my Samsung gaming laptop i7-2630QM cpu @ 2.0GHz 2.0GHz, 6GB RAM, GeForce GT 540 M runs CM2 just fine as well (very large maps with lots of units does stutter a bit, usable though). I haven't tried Game Booster on it yet though... gonna give it a go and see what it does for me on my laptop.

Have you also tried running in Windows Basic, this supposedly helps with getting more cpu power and FPS as well. It does for WOFF which I mentioned above.

[Jock Tamson]

I run a quad core i5 2500k overclocked at 4.7Ghz, with a 4GB GTX 680. This will run CM quicker than a newer CPU (say, 4770) running at its stock speeds.

If I swapped out the 680 for my older GTX580 with 1.5GB, the same would still be true. CM, and frankly most sims or games that I have played, is not GPU bound, once you have a relatively modern GPU installed.

So my advice would be that you don't need to go high end/this generation for either CPU or GPU, you need to get the best out of the CPU and get a half decent GPU. Overclocking a 2500k or a 2600k is trivial and only requires a reasonable heatsink and fan. At most, I would get an Ivy Bridge CPU - say i5 3570k. That will overclock easily to the mid 4s.

Newer Intel CPUs have concentrated on improving onboard video (Haswell), the actual raw CPU performance has barely changed since 2011. I expect my PC to still be at the front of performance in 3 or 4 years, there is nothing to suggest that Intel will bring out a new generation of CPUs with a step change in Ghz clocks.

Also, do yourself a favour and get a 64Bit OS and at least 8GB of RAM. Even if you don't have any 64 Bit apps, your 32 Bit ones will benefit from increased address space. Some would find my 4GB of VRAM overkill, but it allows me to play all my games downsampled from 2880*1620.

Also the trade off between RAM and video ram.

What trade off?

[Erwin]

Unfortunately, most of the stats are a bit double dutch to me. FYI: My old machine specs says 920@2.67GHz; 6GB RAM; 64 bit OS; NVidia GTX 295.

For the new machine which I expect will cost me around $3K-4K (from XI Computers who build all my stuff) I don't want to waste money on unnecessary high tech. So, is there any point in 12GB RAM vs 8GB? What will a videocard with 4GB ram do that one with 2GB can't?

I do swear by SSD's based on my experience with my superb laptop which is also about 3 years old now.

[Hister]

First I have to thank you all for taking your time to chime in! Thank you!

Now onto specifics...

I'm no whiz when it comes to things computer, but I run with a GTX 550 ti and can run pretty much any map to date at the highest setting without issue.

Whoa, that's a valuable piece of info! Could mean I have a non GPU related bottleneck. BUT, all the components are rather newish except from the old HD which is still in until I swap it with a bigger SSD (I ahte the noise it makes vs no noise with SSD).

Nice setup.

I have one close to yours: AMD 1090T, (I -think- I have it running at 3.5ghz, but I forget..), 8Gb Ram, HD6870 gpu.

It runs the game very well. (I have another, newer, computer with a 4Gb GTX670; it, too, is very smooth.)

Yet another runs with an HD6850 gpu (I include that because it is very close to your 550ti in performance see http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=647&card2=636 ) I think it is smooth, but it is running an old, small monitor (768).

I'd hate to think you'd spend money and see no improvement. The GTX590 is a bit long in the tooth, no? A 6xx or 7xx card would be my recommendation. Or an R7/R9 from amd if the bitcoiners stop driving up demand.

Thank you for info c3k!

Whoa, you for sure don't spare any computer with CM! Valuable insight. I suppose the game would be running smooth if I would have 768 native resolution. I opt to get myself a 1080 one in near future which seems to be the standard resolution for gaming now thus I get an adittional incentive for the GPU upgrade.

I mentioned GTX 590 'cos it's performance is similar to newer GTX 770 - not that I would want to buy it.

According to this venerable list in performance class GTX 770 belongs price-wise no Radeon product should be bought (value for money). Do oyu have any other non price related reasons for your Radeon preference?

I use a GTX690 with a i7 3.5 ghz CPU and 16GB of RAM (@2400 mhz). Can't recall the motherboard at this time but when I upgraded a year ago it was generally top of the line at that time.

I don't get a magic 60 FPS or anything like that if that's what you are asking. I usually get around 25 FPS when I'm at lower camera or close the the action but speeds up to about 35 FPS as a pull away. Game is still playable by a long mile but smoother FPS would be great. Also get the occasional stutter. Upgrading my GPU didn't really give me a big performance boost.

I'd also look at the dedicated Nvidia Performance thread for the full story including some common test results on different rigs.

Whoa, you sport the most expensive and fastest GPU available at the moment - you must be a real enthusiast eh!?

This info worries me a lot. Having best hardware one can have and getting only 25 FPS's in return when closed in the action plus the stutters is, hmmm, I better don't say anything. What the heck!? How can other users say they get a smooth gameplay? Anything below 25 frames my ayes perceive as not smooth at all. Below 20 FPS is a game ruin-er for me.

I remember one user who had Titan GPU and reported abysmal FPS's so looks like top-**** GPU's and CM might not get together well. I don't care if it's GPU drivers fault (like suggested from the devs) or CM not being optimized well for those high range GPU's (which devs would say is not the case but I remain suspicious here). Don't even know if it's like that to all the users who sport bad ass GPU's so I can't really make such generalizing statements, can I?

I was an active contributor in the Nvidia performance thread but thank you nevertheless for pointing it out - might be helpful to someone who didn't know it exists. Those tests were made prior to the latest patches and MG module so are a bit outdated and thus not reliable. On top of this number of units and the size and detail of the map is small-ish in comparison to huge maps delivered with CW and MG. Regardless I re-run the test 10 times now with different settings and got similar results like when I had lover native resolution screen so latest patches probably improved performance for me. Bigger and more detailed MG maps probably made me an impression game got slower with latest patches but I was obviously wrong aka applied wrong reasoning.

Hi Hister,

Below are the links to my outlier Mac rig using a EVGA GTX 760. They may be of use or not. The straight PC guys may be better sources for you.

In general, I was very impressed with the overall improvement (everything set at best) with this GTX 760 GPU on a Mac. The recent 10.9.2 upgrade seems to have degraded my ability to use some stock Mac Bundle scenarios. Not sure why (drivers?) but I submitted a help desk ticket in hopes of sorting that out.

Your CPU: AMD FX-6300 BOX 3,5 GHz is a considerable + factor for your rig. I am running at 2.26 GHz but my card does a fine of rendering Hi Res Mods with everything on Best, shaders, shadows, etc.

I do hope CMRT brings the FPS counter option we see in the pre release vids.

Best of luck getting the gaming experience you need.

Thank you Buzz! While I for sure can't directly apply your provided info due to two diferent platforms in question it's still an interesting insight! Hope you sort your issues soon - since I never owned any Mac hardware I really can't be of much help on that front.

I don't think it's a gpu horsepower issue. But, I could be wrong.

Well, it could be CPU then. BUT it's still ranking quite high (relatively) in the gaming CPU hierarchy list. Thus I don't really think it could be the culprit. Note on that site how going over i5 3550P for gaming reasons is an overkill especially when prices get into the equation. Interesting and very useful money saving observation for people deciding what components to buy for their new rig.

I suspect the GTX 770 will be plenty of PC-GPU for Mr. Hister.

Whatever the purchase it would be helpful to know how it runs CM.

I guess there is only one way to find out for sure, isn't it.

I will definitely let you guys know when I get it. Just checked and looks like my MSI GeForce GTX 770 GAMING OC edition is not available any more with the retailer I wanted to buy it from (can get it for crazy low price). Darn. I wanted MSI especially 'cos it's reported to be one of the most quietest of them all. Double darn. Oh well.

To clarify, which gives more bang for the buck: More CPU power, more RAM or a better Video Card?

It depends from game to game but I would like to know this answer to regarding CM in particular. Since any of the components can be a bottleneck for the other I don't think a definite answer can be given but an approx. one would be possible, right? Guess only some of the devs know for sure.

I haven't tried the larger MG maps yet, but I have a 550 Ti 2 GB card and it seems to run CMBN well with settings maxed out. The rest of the rig is made up of an i7-950 at 3.07, 6 gigs of RAM and a Sabertooth X58 Mobo on W7-64 Ult.

For the longest time, CM patches never boosted my performance, but the latest one was mega.

People tend to poo-poo the difference between 1 and 2 GB of VRAM, but it seems to make a difference. I know it does in Arma2/Iron Front. When I tweak the settings to take advantage of the extra video memory, I see a big leap in performance in those.

Well, as an owner of 550 Ti if I currently turn on shadows and shaders I get sub 20 FPS on medium sized maps... Baffled about the discrepancy here but one more hint my current GPU might not be behind abysmal game performance... Question remaining would be on what native resolution do you/did you play/ed it with 550 Ti?

I use a GTX 760, and usually only get some minor stuttering when I pan across big maps with lots of units.

Guess I now know what I should expect. Still, for someone minor stuttering actually means non playable. That's the bitc* of all this - subjectivity/personal tastes in play.

Hister, look at his specs. (Very close to one of my machines, but with a better GPU. His is GTX 690, mine is GTX 670.) Same ram and speed. SSD as well? My experience is similar, as you'd expect.

The bolded is good advice.

The game DOES slow down when rotating a large number of units into view. But it's very playable. No framerates available atm.

If you have extra cash, buy a video card and let us know if it helps. If you're not eager to spend the money, I'd spend some time looking at background processes or other software that may be taking resources away from CM.

Just my .02.

Ken

Well, this is not good in my book, not good at all. Hope 3.0 upgrade will bring notable improvements on this front!

Would 25 FPS on huge maps with battalion sized units, close to the ground where lots of action is, for best currently available hardware, be considered normal? Would any less frames by less powerful rigs be considered normal? If yes then my expectations for the game are simply too high and I need to scale down so that I don't get disappointed.

I keep my background processes to bare minimum.

The latest i5 CPUs are perfect choices - affordable, fast clock speeds, and you still get 4 cores.

Yes, going i7 is overkill when it comes to gaming alone. See this article.

Thanks guys. Am planning a new machine and can afford good components. But, am still confused re the trade off between (say) 2 core and 4 core when my primary game is CM (altho' sure I would like to be able to run high end flight sims etc as well).

Also the trade off between RAM and video ram.

What clock speeds are optimal right now. My strategy has always been to get 90% of bleeding edge as the last 10% can cost twice as much or more (and is obsolete by the time I finish this post).

The one thing I do know is that my primary HD will be an SSD. I have 240GB SSD in my laptop and the laptop seems to perform at least as well and maybe better than my more powerful desktop.

Yeah, it would be cool if we could have an offical rough game customer guide as of what hardware combos would be best for their game (what to aim for if on budget, what is the optimal build dollar wise, etc.).

For this month (yeah suggestions change on monthly basis which by all accounts sucks) I would suggest you the following components for general gaming (dunno which would be best for CM thus I started this thread):

If you go with Intel CPU then get yourself Intel Core i5-3350P. Buying stronger CPU's will net you diminishing returns as per this up to date performance per dollar scale.

Similarly, Geforce GTX 770, which I have my sight on, currently offers the most for the bucks.

Not 100 % sure about RAM but 8 gigs is considered a norm while going over that is considered an overkill for gaming alone. You need to be careful about latency speed (lower is better) but if you go with Intel CPU higher frequencies net you better results. In my case since I own AMD CPU I had to pick RAM with lowest latency possible while frequency wasn't as important. it's this little nasty detail that can screw us amateur rig builders if you don't inform yourself enough prior to purchasing pieces.

SSD nets you quicker loading times in games and not higher FPS count. Of course OS starts much quicker then on HD and copying files/installing games is much faster to.

Don't know what one needs to be aware of when it comes to motherboards besides the obvious compatibility with other components and their built quality.

PSU should be of at least tier 3 quality and provide enough power to all other components. Special sites exist on the net which help you calculate how powerful PSU you would need for any given combo of components. While GTX 770 supposedly needs 600 minimum Watts my 550W FXF Core PSU would be perfectly capable of sustaining it in my rig if I decide to buy it.

I haven't tried Game Booster on it yet though... gonna give it a go and see what it does for me on my laptop.

Yeah, would be interested to learn if you manage to squeeze additional FPS out of your machine using this program. Let us know!

I run a quad core i5 2500k overclocked at 4.7Ghz, with a 4GB GTX 680. This will run CM quicker than a newer CPU (say, 4770) running at its stock speeds.

If I swapped out the 680 for my older GTX580 with 1.5GB, the same would still be true. CM, and frankly most sims or games that I have played, is not GPU bound, once you have a relatively modern GPU installed.

So my advice would be that you don't need to go high end/this generation for either CPU or GPU, you need to get the best out of the CPU and get a half decent GPU. Overclocking a 2500k or a 2600k is trivial and only requires a reasonable heatsink and fan. At most, I would get an Ivy Bridge CPU - say i5 3570k. That will overclock easily to the mid 4s.

Newer Intel CPUs have concentrated on improving onboard video (Haswell), the actual raw CPU performance has barely changed since 2011. I expect my PC to still be at the front of performance in 3 or 4 years, there is nothing to suggest that Intel will bring out a new generation of CPUs with a step change in Ghz clocks.

Also, do yourself a favour and get a 64Bit OS and at least 8GB of RAM. Even if you don't have any 64 Bit apps, your 32 Bit ones will benefit from increased address space. Some would find my 4GB of VRAM overkill, but it allows me to play all my games downsampled from 2880*1620.

Thank you for this valuable input. You might have provided the aswer we are looking for. The only question remaining now in this regard is what CPU and GPU performance tiers according to these two lists below would by your opinion do the trick?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

Unfortunately, most of the stats are a bit double dutch to me. FYI: My old machine specs says 920@2.67GHz; 6GB RAM; 64 bit OS; NVidia GTX 295.

For the new machine which I expect will cost me around $3K-4K (from XI Computers who build all my stuff) I don't want to waste money on unnecessary high tech. So, is there any point in 12GB RAM vs 8GB? What will a videocard with 4GB ram do that one with 2GB can't?

I do swear by SSD's based on my experience with my superb laptop which is also about 3 years old now.

Check my recommendations for you above when it comes to hardware for general gaming. As for your notion that you expect to spend up to 4.000 $ for your new rig that is way over the dodo since you can have a super rig for already 800 $!!!

Go with 8 gigs of RAM, 12 is overkill. 4GB GPU's are plausible buy if you intend to play your games on super-sized above 1080p screen. Otherwise it's definitely a no go.

I congratulate YOU for managing to going through this wall of text unscratched or sane!

[Buzz]

Good Luck Hister. BTW: The Apple 10.9.2 update borked the drivers. I am not the only Mac experiencing these issues and it is not related to the GTX 760. What a bad time to screw the drivers up as CMRT is soon to be released and Phil should not have to fix Apple's graphics faux pas to get CMRT out the door.

Lots of good advice above.

Phil Culliton ….FPS is only one part of the equation. Higher-end cards likely won't see a huge FPS improvement with our optimizations - the game still has to do a ton of work in total per frame, and the GPU is still going to be bottlenecked by that. What you may see is draw distance improvements, etc., as the rendering pipeline has to do less busy work and can be asked for a bit more in terms of image quality…..

Schrullenhaft -

The following will have little-to-no impact, STRICTLY on the performance of CM:

1. Multiple-cores.

2. Greater than 4GB of RAM

3. SLI/Crossfire multi-video card setups.

4. SSD loading performance.

Phil has heavily optimized the rendering pipeline. I am getting better image quality in CM2 - better shadows, better draw distance, better model quality - at *faster* frame rates than before. I am currently stuck with a slow CPU in my old Mac Pro. I opted for the GTX 760 with 4GB VRAM as to boost the performance I could and maybe use the card in a Hackintosh this year.

I also run at 2560 x 1440 Resolution and CM looks great with everything maxed out. I have plenty of headroom with 4GB VRAM for any current CM game with many GB s of Hi Res texture mods and I can run a sometimes needed 2nd monitor. I can scroll around the scenarios much more smoothly than before with this GTX 760 with 4GB VRAM power.

Jock Tamson's note…”you don't need to go high end/this generation for either CPU or GPU, you need to get the best out of the CPU and get a half decent GPU….” pretty much sums up what I understand as well. His quad core i5 2500k overclocked at 4.7Ghz, with a 4GB GTX 680…. should easily play all CM games but remember “FPS is only one part of the equation.” so don’t expect huge FPS in CM but smoother and more consistent scrolling (not jerky) around these HUGE maps were are getting loaded the huge numbers of forces.

Personally I am looking forward to 4K UHD*resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 pixels (8.3*megapixels,*aspect ratio*16:9) I have seen these displayed and they are very photo realistic impressive and immersive in minute detail.

[Erwin]

Wow. Thanks for the info Hister. (And yes I have a 30" monitor 2560x1600. So, would that benefit from more vid ram than 2GB? Um, GPU is vid ram, yes??)

[Macisle]

Hister, IIRC, in the early days of CM, there was a performance thread (I think you were part of that one/the OP?) where someone (you?) provided a test file and folks used Fraps to compare what FPS they were getting.

If you want to do something like that now, I'd be happy to run the file and tell you what I'm getting (and/or post a YouTube vid showing the FPS meter).

If my memory is correct, I was only getting like 1-3 FPS less than folks with much more powerful graphics cards.

Since the recent patch boosted performance so much, it might be a good time to test again.

[Bradley]

I have Nvidia GTX 770M and has been nothing short of flawless. Given I was coming from and old 9800GT, I can say that

[Erwin]

"4K UHD*resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 pixels (8.3*megapixels,*aspect ratio*16:9)"

When are these reckoned to be available? Worth waiting 4?