Video card; RAM and processor recommendations?

[Apache]

Have posted a couple of specs of new PC options for views but rather than post endless details it may be better if I were able to get a handle on what kind of spec would be needed to eat CM:BfN, but not necessarily eat the current tranche of mega process intensive titles such as Crysis which I don't play.

I figure the most important components are the three I've listed above. Any guidance in terms of of RAM needs (e.g. 4, 6 or 8), processor speed (and AMD or Intel) and video cards (maybe with a couple of examples) in the good and best categories (brand, model and whether I need 1GB etc or not) would be VERY VERY useful.

I'm keen to get a good machine but not waste mega-bucks on a top end gaming machine where 70% of it's power (which I will be paying for) will sit dormant.

Any help appreciated.

[Erwin]

Consider getting an SSD for exclusive use by your OS.

[c3k]

Off the top of my head, I'd think i5/i7 or AMD's equivalent (or their 6 core CPU, if you have some extra...). Quad core is almost standard at this point. I'd think for CM series that CPU speed is important. 3.4 Ghz should do for some decent grunt power.

Depending on the CPU and mobo, my preference would be either 8 or 12 Gb of RAM.

Video card is where you can save some money with CM. The mid-level cards should do very well, meaning GTX460 1Gb for nvidia, or something along the line of the HD6850. (Either would be under $200 US these days.)

(Video card choice assumes relatively simple display: 1920 by 1080 (or 1200) or so. They could drive larger screens, especially with CM's engine, but may bog down with other games, especially if you go with some sort of triple screen setup. )

Happy shopping

[Erwin]

An SSD may speed up your computer more than some other more expensive items.

This is a part of a recent discussion re SSD's at BoB:

"I feel that the SSD prices have come down far enough to treat my PC (and myself ) to one. The most promising one seems to be the "Intel X25-M G2 Postville 80GB" which costs slightly less than 200 Euro.

80 GB seems enough for the OS and the main programs - the data will stay on the normal HD.

Now I would have to install this SSD into my PC myself and install Windows XP on it. Unless I can use an image of my current HD installation.

I have experience with that particular drive. It was a snap to install and configure and is lightning fast bringing windows up. I put a pair into a machine destined to be a video work station and was surprised to find that after the Windows spashscreen windows was up and fully painted and ready for work as fast as the monitor could click into it's working resolution.

I installed on Windows 7 and there was very little tweaking involved. I understand that with XP there may be a little more involved. There are some good guides available on ocz by googleing "installing windows xp on ssd." THose are tweaks to change the way prefetch and datacache work.

One thing that works way too well not to do is set up your system to use AHCI. That and the Intel TRIM drivers will allow the drive to work as fast as it can shove data into the bus (and kind of work more like SATA or SCSI than IDE). To do that you need to turn AHCI on on your motherboard AND install the AHCI drivers (most likely in your chipset, RAID or drive controller drivers for your motherboard) while installing XP (as it's not native to XP.... just like using SATA drives during the XP pre SP1 days). If you have a floppy or USB drive it's easy enough to put the drivers on one and F6 during the XP install and add those drivers. If not you could always set up a slipstream disk and install that way."

[Apache]

Thanks. I was contemplating this system. I will have a look for any that come with an SSD though:

EZCool A200D Case

650W EZCool PSU

Core i3 530 overclocked to 4GHz

Asus P7H55-M/USB3 USB3 Motherboard

8GB PC3 10666 DDR3 Memory

500GB SATA II Hard Disk

2 x 24X Sony DVD-RW Drive

Nvidia GeForce GTS 450 1024MB Video Card

Windows 7 HP 64 Bit

24" BENQ G2420HDBL Widescreen TFT Monitor #19676

Logitech MK250 Cordless Keyboard and Mouse

The video card is a GTS 450 but is 1GB, I've doubled the RAM from 4GB to 8GB and added a slave optical drive and a 24" screen instead of the supplied 22. If that will do the job and do it well I may go for that (depending how the search for an SSD machine goes). It saves over £250 on another machine I was looking at. Be nice to order in a couple of days as, in their sterling efforts to get even more money out of us, VAT here goes up by 2.5% on the 4th!!!

[Erwin]

Holy cow... How much will VAT be then??? Over 20%??!!

My only comment I learned when I bought my new machine is that you may get more bang for the buck by getting a (small) SSD for exclusive use by the OS rather than spending many hundreds of dollars on a slightly faster processor etc. But, am not a techie, so...

[gibsonm]

The other thing I'd mention is that CMx2 doesn't take advantage of multiple CPUs so don't spend a bomb on quad core or whatever thinking it will run CM:SF / CM:A / CM:BF any "better" / "faster", etc.

Not to say that other software that you use may well take advantage of this.

[Apache]

Thanks for you help. Just one final query, for CM etc is 8GB of RAM needed/worth it or is it just an extravagance?

After COUNTLESS searches and options I THINK I might go for the below which seems to be quite a reasonable spec. Only concern is the video card (is it up to the job) and RAM (which I can increase at a cost), unless of course there is anything else that I've missed?? On the video card front there is also the option of a 1GB Nvidia GTS 450. Part of me feels happier with Nvidia (rightly or wrongly - just what I've always had) but these two are the only modern (ish) 1GB options. The lack of a dedicated sound card is a concern but I only use a 2.1 speaker set up (Creative I-Trigue 3400) so may not be problematic.

Of particular interest is that it does include a 60GB SSD, a reasonable 25" monitor and two optical drives (useful given my experience with my current Dell and its LG optical drive!) one of which I shall likely downgrade from a Blu Ray (I never watch movies on a PC!!). Total cost about £750.

CPU: NEW! Intel Core i5 760

Operating System: Microsoft® Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Motherboard: Asus P7H55-M

Memory: 4GB DDR3 1333mhz (2x 2GB) (I could up the cost of this for £48)

Hard Drive NEW! Corsair 60GB Force SSD

Second hard drive: 500GB S-ATAII 3.0Gb/s

Optical Drive: 22x DVD±RW DL S-ATA

Second optical drive: 6x Blu-Ray ROM S-ATA

Graphics card: ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB or Nvidia GTS 450 1GB

Sound card: Onboard 7.1 Audio

Keyboard and mouse: Keyboard, mouse and speakers

Monitors: NEW! 25" Widescreen LCD

Case: Piano Black ATX

PSU: 500W PSU

Warranty: 3 Year Bronze Warranty

[Schrullenhaft]

CMSF and CMBN are both 32-bit programs, which means that they can't see any more than 4GB of RAM. Under Windows this actually gets reduced even further and most 32-bit programs cannot address more than 2GB of RAM (Windows overhead, other limitations, etc.).

So purchasing 8GB of RAM will not necessarily help CMSF or CMBN perform any better since these programs will only use, at the most, 2GB of RAM. However, for other purposes, 8GB of RAM may be helpful depending on what sort of tasks you perform on the computer. Windows Vista and Windows 7 also tend to use unallocated memory as disk cache, to help speed up reads from the disk system. How helpful that may be can vary. Purchasing 8GB of RAM isn't a necessity. It can be helpful at times and at other times you may not notice any performance difference.

[Apache]

Thank you. The desktop Windows PC is only used for CM, some Total War and ripping CDs to FLAC for our Sonos system. Photos and 'office' type apps are all run on Mac laptops so I may just go for 4 GB knowing I can up it to 8 if I need. I really want to keep the spend down on this system simply because that's all it's used for. Quite happy to spend mega bucks on a system IF it will be used, but don't want to pay for power when 70% of its RAM, CPU, video card performance just sits there.

[Apache]

Nearly there, thank god!! Final couple of questions.

Most machines seem to be Quad Core now. If I get a 3.4 Quad will I actually experience worse performance than a 3.4 Dual if CM can't use 2 cores?

Also, is there much difference between the Nvidia 430, 450 and 460 GTS cards and if so, what would be the minimum to consider (most machines offer spec options and I'm a bit lost) and the Radeon equivalent (albeit I feel safer with Nvidia)?

[Schrullenhaft]

For video cards I would suggest the GeForce 450 as the minimum with what you have presented. The 460 is even faster and would probably be the one I would recommend out of your three choices.

For the AMD/ATI Radeons here is a fairly useful graphics card hierarchy chart. The comparisons are roughly accurate, but not completely accurate in all situations or for all games.

If both the dual-core and the quad-core run at 3.4GHz, then they're ROUGHLY equivalent (these are all Intels, I assume). That may not be a completely accurate description though if your comparing two different CPU manufacturers or even CPU 'families'. Another thing to look at is the amount of L2 and L3 cache each CPU has (compare it on a 'core by core' basis). The CM series is only going to use one core at this point, so a faster core with more L2 cache will really make a difference and the L3 cache also helps at times. The quad-core is probably going to have the larger L3 cache compared to the dual-cores that do have L3 cache. That may not be much of a difference for CM.

The other difference is the 'overclock-ability' of the cores. With all four cores on the quad running, you will not be able to get as high of an overclock. Intel compensates for this by turning off some of the cores to allow one or two cores to reach higher possible overclocks. The dual core can probably overclock a tad bit easier, just for the simple fact that it is pulling less current than the quad core would be (running three or more cores). I'm not sure if the dual core and the quad core that you're looking at vary much in regard to their overclocking ability. That's something that you may have to check reviews on (and individual experience can vary).

If you do a lot of re-coding to FLAC, depending on what program you use, it can benefit from the quad core and perform much better than the dual core.

[Apache]

Thanks. Really great help. Thanks for taking the time. Really I HATE PC upgrade time

Machines I was looking at seem to have 4MB L3 cache (am i correct in assuming it's either one or the other, L2 or L3, not both?????). The processors are Intel Core i3 530, 2.93 overclocked to 4; Intel Core i3 540 and Intel Core i5 760. I'm not sure how I'd work out how much each core as but assume if it's a dual core with 4MB it's 2MB each. I do wish they would say in the name if it's dual or quad!!! I have just seen a write up about an i5 760 and of course it's not that easy. It says Cache: L1: 128KB (each core), L2: 512KB (each core), L3: 8MB (shared). Now I'm not sure this applies to ALL i5 760s or whether they vary Sometimes I hate computers!!!

I'm quite happy going for an AMD/ATI or Radeon combo as I've had them in the past buy part of me thinks Intel/Nvidia is the safer bet. I may be wrong these days and AMD/ATI seem to offer more for the buck.

If I go with Nvidia I'll go for a 450 at least, preferably a 460.

[vincere]

Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here with a related question.

A while ago I bought NVIDIA 9800GT and CM zipped along on full graphics. Just lately it's stuttering during fire fights at times. Any ideas?

Also I have 3GB ram on a vista, is it true that any more than 4 GB ram isn't much use on a Vista machines?

[Apache]

Right. Done I think!!! Decided to up the budget a little and go for this:

Chillblast Fusion Swift

Intel Core i7 870 Processor overclocked to 3.6GHz

Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Cooler

Asus P7P55D-E LX Motherboard with USB 3.0

GeForce GTX 460 1GB Graphics Card

EZCool A200D ATX Case

4GB PC3-10666 DDR3 Memory

Samsung Blu Ray ROM / DVD-RW Combo Drive

1000GB SATA 7200rpm Hard Disk

500watt FSP PSU

Onboard High Definition Audio

Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit OEM

All in about £970. Did look at building it myself but costed it all out and it was about £80. So busy at the moment I can't be asked!! It would also be my first build so a little unsure!! So, subject to any adverse comment I'll order this tomorrow. In fact it was the first system I listed on a different thread!! Need to trust my gut instinct next time maybe and save DAYS of research!!!

[vincere]

If you are getting a 64 bit system why not more Ram, as Ran is supposed to be realtively cheap for performance?

[Apache]

Started a new thread as I've decided to build. I MAY go for more RAM but for what I do I think it will be little used. If anything I may go for 6GB.

[Erwin]

One day, you gonna regret not getting that SSD for your OS. (I know I do...) heh.

[Apache]

I have one bundled as a self build option now. I will likely go for it.

[Redwolf]

CMSF and CMBN are both 32-bit programs, which means that they can't see any more than 4GB of RAM. Under Windows this actually gets reduced even further and most 32-bit programs cannot address more than 2GB of RAM (Windows overhead, other limitations, etc.).

So purchasing 8GB of RAM will not necessarily help CMSF or CMBN perform any better since these programs will only use, at the most, 2GB of RAM. However, for other purposes, 8GB of RAM may be helpful depending on what sort of tasks you perform on the computer. Windows Vista and Windows 7 also tend to use unallocated memory as disk cache, to help speed up reads from the disk system. How helpful that may be can vary. Purchasing 8GB of RAM isn't a necessity. It can be helpful at times and at other times you may not notice any performance difference.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Of course in the specific case of CMx2 the whole game is happy with less than 3 GB of memory so the point is kinda moot.

But in general, a 32 bit program is limited to 3 GB (or 4 GB if run on a 64 bit OS) of virtual memory. That doesn't mean at all that 8 or more GB of RAM can't be used to keep data that it did map at some point in the past and will map again at some point in the future in RAM so that the future access doesn't hit the disk. All operating systems will do that, you don't need vista+.

Buying more memory (and a board that can take even more) is a much better move thank buying a fester harddrive.

[Redwolf]

If you want a cost-effective and fast machine for CMx2, here's what to do:

• Get the fastest per-core CPU you can get. A 3.4 GHz dual-core will outperform a 3.0 GHz quad-core. CM (all variants) only uses one core. In no event go for very low clock speed such as a 2.2 GHz CPU just because it has 6 cores. It will perform lousy in games like CM, and there are other single-threaded games, e.g. most MMORPGs. Your web browser is single-threaded,too. Unless you want to do lots of seti-at-home or something the many cores don't buy you much.
  
• Getting more RAM is the smarter move to not waiting on the disk than getting a faster disk. A SSD is of course better than a HD when used in a light context like gaming but the money is generally better spent in RAM and of course there is the capacity question.
  
• Get a mainboard that can hold even more RAM for future expansions. I can promise you memory demands will go up sharply and you will probably hit the end of the line on the PC you buy today because of lack of memory.
  
• Get a really good power supply.
  
• For a cheap and power-efficient graphics card check out the GT 240. Do not get a GTS 250.
  
• Consider getting a decent raid-1 solution, but don't use the onboard raid trash on e.g. NVidia chipset boards.
  
• Do not get Creative sound cards.
  

I am also firmly in the NVidia camp and think ATI will never do decent drivers but that point is kinda moot-ish.

[Erwin]

Re sounds card (and all else actually)... I agree with Redwolf... When I bought my system a year ago I was told that with modern tech. the onboard sound is now fine and no need for extra sound card for gameplaying. Have found that to be true.

And yes, a "more than you currently need" power supply will serve you well if and when you decide to get a more powerful video card or a 2nd one to match the first.

BTW: My philosophy re bang for the buck is to get the 2nd best system which gives me 95-99% of the best for a lot cheaper. So, I only have a 2.67 GHz single core, but it scores 7.0-7.6 out of a max of 7.9 on the windows key system performance scale.

Just curious: Folks who have 3+ GHz , what are your speed ratings?

[Apache]

Thanks. Any comments on the combinations on the 'New Build' thread?