Galacticruler Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Just wondering Lenov, could my suggested build take Arma 2 at all?If it can take that at any setting, i'd be pleased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Just wondering Lenov, could my suggested build take Arma 2 at all?If it can take that at any setting, i'd be pleased.Can you specify which build, as a couple have come by?Also, it is worth checking benchmarks with the specific hardware and game mentioned. Just search Google with the chip name, game name and the word benchmark, test or something similar. If this fails, Youtube often has recordings of people playing with similar hardware. This was you can see whether the performance is what you'd expect.To be honest, Arma 2 has quite low system requirements and it is easy to make recommended settings and much more. I'd expect is to run pretty nicely on anything but the slowest hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfx Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) Since i like cold hard facts and not here-say when it comes to this stuff.Here is a nice comparison tool, I have it pre set for the FX 6350 vs A10 6800K.It will do most planned and all current CPU and show you there stats no bias. Taa daa. I prefer Anands tool, more detailed benchmark comparison: 6800 is not in yet.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=699Just wondering Lenov, could my suggested build take Arma 2 at all?If it can take that at any setting, i'd be pleased.Forget ARMA "recommended specs" - the game is a resource hog par excellence. You need a good intel CPU and depending on your view distance and graphic settings a very good GPU.These are average fps (not minimum) on the first SP map with zero action.made by http://www.hardware.fr/articles/897-21/cpu-jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html Edited June 15, 2013 by Leonov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exerminator2000 Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 A lot of people use them for their OS. Boot times on windows drops dramatically, but thats all in the nature of flash memory. With a big enough SSD you can put programs and tihngs of that nature on it making them boot/run very quickly as well. I mean booting in 4 seconds flat is nice and all, but after that i dont seem to think they are worth the price yet. With the market for SSDs changing so quickly ill wait to get one.im just getting an ssd to supplement the hd, maybe put the os and my primary games on their, and when im not playing them, i can just put them on the hd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galacticruler Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Can you specify which build, as a couple have come by?http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Galacticruler/saved/1Lbm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Galacticruler/saved/1LbmLike I said, I think I prefer the one with the AMD X4 965 in it. It is a venerable CPU. Not the newest, but it has proven decent for games, especially if you are on a budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Jenkens Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Hmmm I got my PC quite a while ago so i'm not sure how good it is. CPU: Intel Core i3 2100 3.10GHzRAM: 12.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 686MHzGPU: 1024MB GeForce GTX 550 TiI'm hoping to upgrade the CPU to an Intel Core i5 3570S 3.10GHz and the GPU to a 1024MB GeForce GTX 650 Ti but have no idea how much better these components are and whether they are even compatible in the same slots. :S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coakleythegoat Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Current Rig:Chipset: Intel Ivy Bridge i5-3570k CPU 3.40ghzRAM: Corsair DDR3 32 GB 1600mhz VengeanceMotherboard: Asus P8Z77-V Pro/Thunderbolt Z77 1155Cooler: Cooler Master TPC812 CPU CoolerPower Supply: Corsair Professional Series 1200W SLI 80 Plus Gold Modular ATX PSUGraphic Cards: EVGA SuperClocked 02G-P4-2682-KR GeForce GTX 680 2gb (2) in SLIHard Drives: Samsung 256GB 2.5†SSD 840 Pro Series (2)Disc Drive: Asus DRW-24B3ST/BLK/G/AS 24x SATA Internal DVD DriveCooling: (4) 200MM Blue LED NZXT fan, (4) 140MM Blue LED NZXT fanCase: NZXT Phantom 820 Case WhiteMonitor: Samsung PN51E8000 51-Inch 1080p 600Hz Ultra Slim PlasmaOS: Windows 8 64-bit1TB External backup, HDDExtras:Razer Tiamat 7.1 Surround Sound Gaming HeadsetRazer Anansi Gaming KeyboardRazer Nage Elite MMO Gaming MouseBattery Backup: APC Black-UPS XS 1500 VA tower UPS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonov Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 -snip- Well, You are on Socket 1155. This is good as there are tons of good CPUs for that slot. You have a choice between the 3570S(70W)3570(77w)and the 3570K(77w)All three are good CPUs with little monetary difference (~$1USD Difference across the three).The 3570S is under clocked to cut its wattage.The 3570 and 3570K are nearly the same accept the 3570K has an unlocked multiplier which makes it Overclockable, well more Overclockable than the 3570.The GTX 650 Ti is an upgrade from the GTX 550 Ti and will fit into the same slot. What kind of PSU are you running?, you may need to upgrade that aswell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexspaceboom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Would This System Be Any Good http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1352918AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz Six-Core CPUMSI AM3+ 970 MotherboardSPECTEK 8GB MEMSAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7770 1GBSeagate 1TB HDDLG 24X DVD BurnerCOOLER Master 500W PSU + CaseAs in could i upgrade it down the road and is it a good price Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonov Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Would This System Be Any Good -snipty snip snip- That is a heck of a deal. All the parts look good, Especially in that price range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexspaceboom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 That is a heck of a deal. All the parts look good, Especially in that price range.Thank you for your input:cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexspaceboom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Darn the part deal expired yesterday at 12would this be a good substitutehttp://pcpartpicker.com/user/rstaehly/saved/1OuG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonov Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Darn the part deal expired yesterday at 12would this be a good substitutehttp://pcpartpicker.com/user/rstaehly/saved/1OuGFull size Graphics Card, Looks good to me. I updated your list. That PSU was a rip off, Added a CX600M PSU from Corsair, lower price, higher wattage, and an overall better quality part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexspaceboom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Full size Graphics Card, Looks good to me. I updated your list. That PSU was a rip off, Added a CX600M PSU from Corsair, lower price, higher wattage, and an overall better quality part.Thank you for your input and starting this thread you have been a great help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asken Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 On monday, I'm probably going to buy an new computer and I saw an great computer but the only thing that's kinda worrying me is that the graphics card is (as the title says) Amd Radeon HD7860. And I've been searching all over the internet but could only find some websites (like 3) that sells them :/ So I'm not sure if the website that sells the computer wrote wrong or something, or if it's just not that much information about it wroten on the internet. So I'm just wondering if any one knows anything about this card! Because I would love a review or some gameplay with the card. :3/Asken PS. Sorry if my grammar isn't the best I'm from sweden! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thermobaric Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 do you mean the 7870 or the 7850? the one you said doesnt exist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asken Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Hmm, wierd because it clearly says: "Graphics: AMD HD8760 2GB - (DVI / HDMI / DP)" I guess they must have wrote wrong then :/ But then I wonder what's the right one is :S I guess I'll find out when I buy it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonov Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Hmm, wierd because it clearly says: "Graphics: AMD HD8760 2GB - (DVI / HDMI / DP)" I guess they must have wrote wrong then :/ But then I wonder what's the right one is :S I guess I'll find out when I buy it...What is this Graphics card in may i ask?, do you have a link to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asken Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Here's the link, it's an swedish website, but the specs are in english: http://www.webhallen.com/se-sv/hardvara/169585-acer_predator_g3620-i5-3350p-16gb-hd8760_2gb-1tb-windows_8 And as you can see it says Amd hd8760 :S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galacticruler Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Nice to see this became a sticky topic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garoad Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 So, when KSP is loading all these mods and crap, what makes it take so long? And how do we optimize this load time? It doesn't seem to be CPU... it could be disk driven I suppose (1GB+ of mods here), but even then I'm not sure it explains it all. (I have 4 SSDs w/RAID...)Does anyone know what the bottleneck is?I love this picture, take away the glasses & extra pounds, add a better sense of style and that's basically me. And God help anyone who tries to take away my full-size non-thin keyboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonov Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) So, when KSP is loading all these mods and crap, what makes it take so long? And how do we optimize this load time? It doesn't seem to be CPU... it could be disk driven I suppose (1GB+ of mods here), but even then I'm not sure it explains it all. (I have 4 SSDs w/RAID...)Does anyone know what the bottleneck is?From what i can gather about looking at the Parts and such. What takes the most time to load are the internals for KSP, as they are massive in file size. I have reports from people comparing loading times from an HDD vs. SSD vs. Ram Disk. The step from HDD to SSD is a noticable change in load time for some, Loading from an SSD vs. a Ram disk doesnt change loading times. Which is an odd occurance, but deal with it. When i get my rig together i will do some testing of loading KSP form different drives aswell as using Higher Clocked RAM.KSP caches parts to your RAM, so that 1Gb of Parts surely cant help the load times/performance.KSP as a game is CPU intensive, it doesnt take much to run ksp at a decetn rate. Edited June 23, 2013 by Leonov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galacticruler Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Neckbeards GO!Anyway.Leonov, My game takes ~2-3 minutes to load, and that is on this build: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfx Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Hmm, wierd because it clearly says: "Graphics: AMD HD8760 2GB - (DVI / HDMI / DP)" I guess they must have wrote wrong then :/ But then I wonder what's the right one is :S I guess I'll find out when I buy it...Most likely the integrated graphics of a amd processor - these are called Radeon 8760dor a typo.Btw these Processors suck for KSP.Neckbeards GO!Anyway.Leonov, My game takes ~2-3 minutes to load, and that is on this build:Your machine is a snail. 2-3 minutes seems ok for KSP on that.Anyhow when I benchmarked KSP loading times in .18 I noticed that more CPU performance helps a lot (likely some horrible conversion taking place wen the persistent parts are converted into some other data structure for storage in the RAM). A 30% CPU(i5-2500k) overclock made a bigger difference than moving the Install to a ssd (crucial m4 128gb).Of course those results died together with this forum. Edited June 23, 2013 by jfx 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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.