leakyD Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 My old Dell is getting long in the tooth, and wonder if anybody offers an off the shelf package suitable for the above. I see Dell offers computers for gamers, but I'm not sure I need alienware type stuff to make it happen. Any new PC should cover your needs. I'd suggest i5 processor (or equivalent), 4GB system RAM and 512mb VRAM minimum. Can be had for ~$7-$800US. That'd probably cover you for 3-5yrs for CM. (FPS gaming, different story). For those on older systems that can't upgrade entire PC, your best bang-for-the buck will be system RAM and video card. CM won't be multi-core aware for a while, so no huge need for a new rig just yet. Either 2x your current memory, or jump in technology (DDR1 to DDR2, etc). New HDD (5400rpm - 7200rpm, or 7200rpm - 10k-rpm) would help as well. You could probaly do RAM, video and HDD for less than $200US. I just went from DDR2 to DDR3 on my 2yr old Q9550 system (have both DDR2 and DDR3 slots), and went to a 10k HDD (from 7200). About $160US. Gaming difference is noticable. Smoother redraws and a bump up with textures, etc. Definitely more snappy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrock1957 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 This thread is interesting to me, as I know nothing about computers. I want to purchase a new new system that will play my old CMBB and CMAK games, but will handle the new Combat Mission game (and make them all scream, as well). Since I play only "We-Go" style Combat Mission (no time for other games), which of the above example is most important for purchasing a new system...? (Bear in mind, other than surfing the web, I don't use my computer for much else). My old Dell is getting long in the tooth, and wonder if anybody offers an off the shelf package suitable for the above. I see Dell offers computers for gamers, but I'm not sure I need alienware type stuff to make it happen. Thanks in advance, Ken I had an old Dell that I replaced also (P4 3.0 with 2gb ram and a Geforce 5200). I did some research and talked to a couple of young guys that use to work for me about my needs. I had always used Dell at home and at work, but Dell wouldn't provide a nVidia card in their high end 9100 machines. So I did some research and found where I could get a custom built machine with a full 3 year replacement warrenty and lifetime 24/7 tech support. I also got a custom Apeiva Case with the unit with a temp readout and the machine runs a cool 30.5C when cranking a Photoshop file or running a Visual Studio application. Apparently the SATA3 bus structure on the Motherboard and Hard Drives makes for almost double the read/write speed on the mirrored drives. I got the 16GB of Ram cause I do a lot of Photoshop work and this helps with the larger files. I would also suggest the nVidia graphics card, I got the GTX 560 duel head with 2GB of ram (which is an upgrade). I was told that the added ram would help improve performance on rendering and enhancing the textures, etc. plus this card still cost me less then a 580 with 1GB of Ram. Hmm that's interesting, my CPU is almost exactly the same, so I'm thinking my 4890 is definitely holding it back because it struggles with larger battles. In loading up the awesome RAMADI battle and it was almost instantaneous. I really think with all of the CM products the video card is the most important aspect of the machine... Some people like the Radeon and some like nVidia, plus the BFC tech support person said he was running a high end nVidia card So far I am really happy with my machine and I spent hundreds less then buying a Dell with similiar features. Hope this helps... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hi guys, Thanks for your help (and quick response). I forgot to ask... when I order my new rig, I want to get a new monitor, as well. I was happy with the 21" flat-screen monitor that shipped with my old Dell, other than it seemed to retain/bleed old terrain images over time. I am considering going bigger (if such a unit exists for the desk-top), but want to avoid any image retention on the screen. Can anyone weigh in with what they are happy with, or perhaps... what I should avoid...? Thanks again, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJJ Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I was happy with the 21" flat-screen monitor that shipped with my old Dell, other than it seemed to retain/bleed old terrain images over time. I am considering going bigger (if such a unit exists for the desk-top), but want to avoid any image retention on the screen. Can anyone weigh in with what they are happy with, or perhaps... what I should avoid...? Thanks again, Ken I use various 23-27" Dell monitors, Samsung, and Philips around the office and I'm pretty happy with all of them. If I had to choose only one, I'd probably pick the nice Samsung I have attached to my laptop at work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Turgidson Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Hope my ATI Radeon HD 3400 is up to the task... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatoichi Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 The thing I look for in LCD (or LED) monitors is their Response Speed - the quicker the better. 2ms is great, most 'budget' monitors have 5ms - this can result in more screen tearing when you quickly pan the camera around the screen, so I'd generally advise going for one with 2ms. But that's my personal view, there are some great monitors with 5ms response speeds, best to check the user reviews written by gamers when you find a model in your budget. But another important thing to bear in mind is the max resolution - 1920 x 1080 is pretty standard now on monitors over 20", you just want to make sure your graphics card will be happy playing the game at this resolution - obviously, the higher the resolution, the more pixels the gpu is having to move around at any one time. You can lower the resolution of the game of course, but then why buy a fancy new hi-res monitor! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Thanks for the input on the flat-screen monitor, guys. I need all the help I can get... Best regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Most mid-range setups should work fine. My system is no longer top of the line: Intel Q9550 (2.83 ghz), Gyga P35-DS3R, ATI radeon 4890, Dell 27" widescreen monitor @ 1920x1200, 8 g. DDR2 @800, 1tb WD Caviar black HD, X-Fi Fatal1ty, win 7 64bit ultimate. But I can all play CMSF, CMBN scenarios at best/best, 4xFSAA settings and very acceptable FPS. Obviously, it is possible to build a huge scenario which will bring any system to its knees, but a company size battle on a medium urban/Bocage map is no problem. I would say the most important component is the CPU, the more powerful the better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glukx Ouglouk Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Apparently the SATA3 bus structure on the Motherboard and Hard Drives makes for almost double the read/write speed on the mirrored drives. I got the 16GB of Ram cause I do a lot of Photoshop work and this helps with the larger files. I would also suggest the nVidia graphics card, I got the GTX 560 duel head with 2GB of ram (which is an upgrade). I was told that the added ram would help improve performance on rendering and enhancing the textures, etc. plus this card still cost me less then a 580 with 1GB of Ram. Two things worth pointing out: - SATA3 will not make any noticeable difference unless you're using one of the latest SSDs (like the OCZ Vertex 3 or the Crucial M4). No consumer hard disk drive out there can saturate a SATA2 bus. - for video memory, AFAIK, with current games, 2 GB of video RAM won't make any difference even in 2560x1600 resolution - let alone with lower resolutions. Unless things have changed very recently, I'd say it's usually better to go for a faster GPU with 1 GB of memory rather than a slower one with 2 GB (if they cost the same, of course). The thing I look for in LCD (or LED) monitors is their Response Speed - the quicker the better. 2ms is great, most 'budget' monitors have 5ms - this can result in more screen tearing when you quickly pan the camera around the screen, so I'd generally advise going for one with 2ms. But that's my personal view, there are some great monitors with 5ms response speeds, best to check the user reviews written by gamers when you find a model in your budget. One thing to keep in mind with response times is that it's just an average value, so it can be very different depending on how it's calculated - and the methods used by manufacturer don't always tell much about real world use... That's why it's better to trust good reviews rather than the manufacturers' data on this (though I wouldn't rely too much on users reviews - most users don't have a lot of screens to make comparisons, and obviously don't have the instruments to actually measure things like response times). Another thing to note is that displays with fast response times can very well have crappy colors and vision angles, so choosing based on response time alone can be a bit short sighted IMO... But it also depends on what you use your screen for, besides gaming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Thanks again, guys. I appreciate the input. Sincerely, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrock1957 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Two things worth pointing out: - SATA3 will not make any noticeable difference unless you're using one of the latest SSDs (like the OCZ Vertex 3 or the Crucial M4). No consumer hard disk drive out there can saturate a SATA2 bus. - for video memory, AFAIK, with current games, 2 GB of video RAM won't make any difference even in 2560x1600 resolution - let alone with lower resolutions. Unless things have changed very recently, I'd say it's usually better to go for a faster GPU with 1 GB of memory rather than a slower one with 2 GB (if they cost the same, of course). On the SATA3 I beg to difer with you... Read the following as published by the SATA association... SATA 3.0... I can attest to the difference in speed as I was at my former employers plant visiting old staff and we went through the differences on machines in the test lab... I chose the Segate Drives cause they are SATA3 registered and in a mirrored mode both will get 6GB's of transfer rate... and your right if your drives aren't SATA3 then you won't get the 6GB transfer rate on the bus structure.,, The graphics is two fold at 2560x1600 (which I use) if you want the screen to have all the detail say at a level 4 height in CM:SF (meaning windows, trees, underbrush, etc) the increased memory will help with that... if you want the screen drawing at say a Level 1 locked on to a BMP to keep up with the movement so that there is no visable drawing with the movement then the higher processor would come into play... I believe for my application the 560 processor was fast enough so I went with addtional memory... but you are correct in that function... At this point all I know is that CM:A and CM:SF have absolutely no issues on my machine at 2560x1600 even with big scenarios... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glukx Ouglouk Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Which Seagate drives are you talking about? AFAIK, they don't have any consumer-level HDD faster than the Barracuda XT, and that one definitely doesn't benefit much from SATA 3 (according to this test, or this one, or a bunch of others). Not that I'm not saying that this drive isn't fast - it definitely is, but it's pretty much as fast when plugged on a SATA 2 bus. To saturate a SATA 2 bus, you need to reach transfer rates of 300 MB/s (not counting overhead), and I just don't see any 7200 rpm drive reaching that kind of transfer rate very often, when their sequential speed tops out at around 140 MB/s for the fastest ones... BTW: you meant 6 Gb/s, not 6GB/s - there's an eight-fold difference. Also, that's the theoretical transfer rate of SATA 3 (which you'll never perfectly reach in real life, even with a drive that's fast enough), and 20 % of it is taken up by overhead anyway - putting the max theoretical transfer rate for SATA 3 at 600 MB/s of actual data. Anout video memory, I 100% agree that it depends a lot on how it's used - I was talking about "usual" gaming use, not knowing the specifics of the CMx2 3D engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ht-57 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Aye Fred, The SSD is bout 100 times faster then its mechanical counter part, No need for defrag, no moving parts. have a pair of them in my rig, one 4 the os, one 4 programs n such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrock1957 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Thanks for the input Glukx Ouglouk and ht-57 Much appreciated 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLaurier Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 I have the new computer. I just ordered the game. I am a happy camper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.