126 réponses à ce sujet

[Zakatak757]

I am hoping to build my own computer by the time this game comes out, so I support the DX11 patches. Does Unreal 3 not support it or something?

Also, for geeks:
GTX 570
i7 3.2+ GHz
6Gb RAM
Win7 Home

Is that sufficient?

Modifié par Zakatak757, 01 octobre 2011 - 04:35 .

[Robhuzz]

BioWare spends so much time promoting the Xbox version you would forget the pc version exists at all. I would like high res textures and DX11 for ME3 but I won't hold my breath for it.

The rig you're planning to build would easily support DX11, unless you plan to install Windows XP of course...

[JGDD]

Zakatak757 wrote...

I am hoping to build my own computer by the time this game comes out, so I support the DX11 patches. Does Unreal 3 not support it or something?

Also, for geeks:
GTX 570
i7 3.2+ GHz
6Gb RAM

Is that sufficient?

They use a heavily modified U3 engine for ME3. And yes, if you spec'd a system with that hardware it would easily run anything ME related on max settings with power to spare.

[Zakatak757]

Sweet, thanks. Might just get an i5 core instead actually. Depends on the cost.

[Shepard the Leper]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Sweet, thanks. Might just get an i5 core instead actually. Depends on the cost.

Intel's i5 2500K will net the same performance in games as the i7 2600K.

[Carfax]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Intel's i5 2500K will net the same performance in games as the i7 2600K.

The 2500k has HT disabled, so any game that has good multithreading support (ie BF3) should run faster on the 2600k. 

[Shepard the Leper]

Carfax wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Intel's i5 2500K will net the same performance in games as the i7 2600K.

The 2500k has HT disabled, so any game that has good multithreading support (ie BF3) should run faster on the 2600k. 

Thus far there are no games that use Hyperthreading in a way that makes any sort of difference. I haven't played BF3's beta, but I seriously doubt the FPS will increase with a 2600 installed.

When you have the money to spare, the 2600K is obviously the better option. But when money does matter (which it does for most people), you're better off to invest the money you've saved on the CPU on an extra or more powerful GPU.

[Zakatak757]

Okay, so.

If I build a PC with these components:
GTX 570
i5 2500k
6Gb RAM
20" Monitor (size not problem)

How much would it cost? Subtract about 900$, since I figure that is what I could get from selling all my laptop + PS3 equipment.

[JGDD]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Okay, so.

If I build a PC with these components:
GTX 570
i5 2500k
6Gb RAM
20" Monitor (size not problem)

How much would it cost? Subtract about 900$, since I figure that is what I could get from selling all my laptop + PS3 equipment.

Newegg is your friend. Pick pieces you want and adjust from there.

[DarkDoz]

I have XP so I need DX9 to run ME3. I just had to cancel a pre-order for BF3 due to it needing DX10 to run on PC.
I have ME3 Pre-Order through New Egg.

Modifié par DarkDoz, 02 octobre 2011 - 02:18 .

[Zakatak757]

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

Zakatak757 wrote...

Okay, so.

If I build a PC with these components:
GTX 570
i5 2500k
6Gb RAM
20" Monitor (size not problem)

How much would it cost? Subtract about 900$, since I figure that is what I could get from selling all my laptop + PS3 equipment.

Newegg is your friend. Pick pieces you want and adjust from there.

See any problems with my cart here? May need to enlarge them pictures by the way.

Modifié par Zakatak757, 01 octobre 2011 - 05:41 .

[Carfax]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Thus far there are no games that use Hyperthreading in a way that makes any sort of difference. I haven't played BF3's beta, but I seriously doubt the FPS will increase with a 2600 installed.

A game doesn't explicitly have to support HT to use it.  What matters is whether a game scales in performance with additional threads, and insofar, there are a few that do, ie Lost Planet, Battlefield 3.  BF3 will scale up to 8 threads, and so does Lost planet..

But the point is, that as DX11 becomes more used, the thread count in games will only increase, thus it makes sense to go with the 2600k for future gaming purposes.

[amk-aka-phantom]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Okay, so.

If I build a PC with these components:
GTX 570
i5 2500k
6Gb RAM
20" Monitor (size not problem)

How much would it cost? Subtract about 900$, since I figure that is what I could get from selling all my laptop + PS3 equipment.

23'' LED, not 20''... And get 8GB - 2x4GB. 2500K is good. GTX570... I'd take a 6950, it's almost as fast for $50 less and scales well in Crossfire; or a 560 Ti.

That said, quite a few problems with Newegg cart... You've chosen a plain 2500; what you need is a 2500K. Also, you might want to look into an aftermarket cooler (Coolermaster Hyper 212+ for $27) - Intel stock one is a fail. Get a 750W PSU (Corsair TX750W, for instance) - 650W won't allow you to add a second GPU in the future (too little power). Also, don't use that motherboard - old chipset. No problems, but there's much better stuff - look into P67/Z68 chipsets.
Huh, that was offtopic :innocent: For moar PC builds, visit Tom's Hardware and find me under the same nickname there, I'll help - in the appropriate place. Here, let's come back to the discussion

DarkDoz wrote...

I have XP so I need DX9 to run ME3. I just had to cancel a pre-order for BF3 due to it needing DX10 to run on PC.

Upgrade to Windows 7. It's TOTALLY worth it.

Robhuzz wrote...

BioWare spends so much time promoting the Xbox version you would forget the pc version exists at all. I would like high res textures and DX11 for ME3 but I won't hold my breath for it.

That's what I always said... pathetic, isn't it?

Modifié par amk-aka-phantom, 01 octobre 2011 - 06:08 .

[Zakatak757]

Thanks amk-aka.

- Swapped 8Gb RAM for some Ripjaw 4Gb RAM (faster RAM > lots of slow RAM?)
- Swapped bleh MoBo for a Biostar Z68 (with 6Gb/s to match my HDD)
- Replaced i5 2500 with the "K" version (extra 10$, why not)
- Replaced Acer monitor with Hanns-G monitor

Is that better? Also, why get the 560 TI rather then the 570 SLI?

Modifié par Zakatak757, 01 octobre 2011 - 06:57 .

[Carfax]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Thanks amk-aka.

- Swapped 8Gb RAM for some Ripjaw 4Gb RAM (faster RAM > lots of slow RAM?

Thats a mistake.  More ram is better than fast ram for gaming.  Just go with a 8GB DDR3-1600 kit.  Lots of cheap, fast kits around.

Is that better? Also, why get the 560 TI rather then the 570 SLI?

It isn't, but the 560 Ti is perhaps the best mid range GPU from a bang for buck perspective.  If you're playing at 1080p, it will handle most every game at max settings, plus you can SLi it as well..

[amk-aka-phantom]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Thanks amk-aka.

- Swapped 8Gb RAM for some Ripjaw 4Gb RAM (faster RAM > lots of slow RAM?)
- Swapped bleh MoBo for a Biostar Z68 (with 6Gb/s to match my HDD)
- Replaced i5 2500 with the "K" version (extra 10$, why not)
- Replaced Acer monitor with Hanns-G monitor

Is that better? Also, why get the 560 TI rather then the 570 SLI?

Hanns-G? And what is this?

Biostar? Why not, but I'd go with Asus.

Also, yes, get 2x4GB DDR3 1600 Ripjaws. There's a deal on Newegg right now that I keep advising to everyone: $48 get you the 2x4GB Ripjaws 1600 and free SDHC 4GB card Look for it!

560 Ti is indeed one of the two best mid-range GPUs (another being Radeon 6950) and it will be better than SLI 570s in terms of value for money. You'll only need SLI 570s if you want to play some other highly demanding games on ultra settings (BF3, perhaps?).

Back to the topic, people, before this thread gets shut down...

[DiegoProgMetal]

My rig:
Core i7 2600k
16 GB RAM
GTX 590 (3 GB RAM)
Asus Maximus IV Extreme MB

I'm still waiting for a game that will use my rig at it's max power. So far, I could run any game at maximum settings without even going to 20% cpu usage. I'm not a pc elitist, I love consoles as much as pcs, still have my Nintendo 64 up and running (Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time still rocks!!!), but consoles are really holding games back these days. PS4 and the next Xbox (720??) should be launched already.

[Carfax]

Here's the specs on mine:

Core i7 @ 4.3ghz (bloomfield)
Gigabyte UD5 x58
12GB Corsair DDR3-2000
EVGA GTX 580 SC SLi
GTS 250 for PhysX
Samsung 305T Plus 30 inch LCD monitor (2560x1600 FTW!)

I bought my i7 920 D0 stepping when it first became available, so my rig has been with me for quite some time, with only a few upgrades.

I'll probably upgrade next when Ivy Bridge comes out..

Modifié par Carfax, 01 octobre 2011 - 07:43 .

[amk-aka-phantom]

Carfax wrote...

Here's the specs on mine:

Core i7 @ 4.3ghz (bloomfield)
Gigabyte UD5 x58
12GB Corsair DDR3-2000
EVGA GTX 580 SC SLi
GTS 250 for PhysX
Samsung 305T Plus 30 inch LCD monitor (2560x1600 FTW!)

I bought my i7 920 D0 stepping when it first became available, so my rig has been with me for quite some time, with only a few upgrades.

I'll probably upgrade next when Ivy Bridge comes out..

Nice rig... though, there's no point in DDR3 higher than 1600, and you don't benefit from a dedicated PhysX card when you have SLI'd powerful cards. I'd also love to get 1500x1600 screen, but they're rare and overpriced. It's also stupid there're no 2500x1600 TVs (like, 40''+), only 1080p. I hope you're playing some consumptive games there Does ME2 support 2500x1600, BTW?

DiegoProgMetal wrote...

My rig:
Core i7 2600k
16 GB RAM
GTX 590 (3 GB RAM)
Asus Maximus IV Extreme MB

I'm still waiting for a game that will use my rig at it's max power. So far, I could run any game at maximum settings without even going to 20% cpu usage. I'm not a pc elitist, I love consoles as much as pcs, still have my Nintendo 64 up and running (Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time still rocks!!!), but consoles are really holding games back these days. PS4 and the next Xbox (720??) should be launched already.

Overkill, but great as well. The new consoles will get pwnd very fast by Ivy Bridge, Bulldozer and GeForce 6xx/Radeon 7xxx, though. We don't need new consoles; casual gamers might as well go OnLive and proper gamers need a PC. How can you love a console after ROG?  (unless it's an old console or you use it for platform exclusives, like a 360 for last two Halos and GoW 2-3)

I just have a Core i7-2600 (non-K; not available easily in my country and I don't care for OC'ing), 8GB 1333 MHz Corsair DDR3, Asus P8P67 Pro and MSI NGTX-560 Ti OC... tears through any game maxed out @1080p so far (save Metro 2033 and Crysis 1). Let's see how it will handle BF3 See? This is what I'm talking about... how difficult is it to give PC users some good stuff? Just Cause 2, for example, is a console port, but the PC version looks >>> console version. Same for Crysis 2. Our rigs can handle emulating a couple of Xboxes or Playstations at the same time - it can't be THAT hard to give us a graphics boost.

Modifié par amk-aka-phantom, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:03 .

[ScepticMatt]

Concerning the OP - Unreal Engine 3 didn't support DX11 when ME3 development started, so they probably don't have time to switch the engine.

Higher detailed assets (Textures, Geometry, Videos, ...) should easily be possible without DX11, and would make a big difference at HD resolutions, as WItcher 2 shows.

Matt

[Fredvdp]

amk-aka-phantom wrote...

]I bought a €600 PC ($810.18) which runs The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 on ultra at 1920x1080.

^ My point exactly. But you're wrong about BF3, it's not out yet... or are you talking about the beta?

Yes, I should have mentioned that. I realize beta textures aren't the highest to lower the download size. Still, I run it quite well with frames per second to spare in Metro. Caspian Border will be a different story but I can't play that yet.

RPGamer13 wrote...

What are your specs?  Because I can't run The Witcher 2 on Ultra and it pisses me off because I should be able to.

It might be my processor though, I looked at the performance tab and it said the game was using up 100% of my CPU usage.

I have to mention, though, that I turn anti-alias off in both games so it should be 'Ultra minus anti-alias'.

Specs:

AMD Radeon HD 6870
AMD Phenom II x4 965 BE 3.4 Ghz
4GB RAM
Windows 7 64-bit

What's funny is that this system shouldn't run Witcher 2 on ultra or near-ultra settings. I'm below the recommended requirements of both games I mentioned, maybe because my fps is in the 40s rather than 60.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:43 .

[Zakatak757]

I added another Ripjaw in there, why the hell not. It's an extra 20$.

[amk-aka-phantom]

Zakatak757 wrote...

I added another Ripjaw in there, why the hell not. It's an extra 20$.

So is that 8 or 12 GB now? Beware, there's no triple channel support on Sandy Bridge CPUs - that is, you can have three sticks of RAM, but they only scale in pairs... dual channel

PDesign wrote...

ME3 engine supports dx10 tho.

Wikipedia agrees.

ScepticMatt wrote...

Concerning the OP - Unreal Engine 3
didn't support DX11 when ME3 development started, so they probably don't
have time to switch the engine.

Higher detailed assets
(Textures, Geometry, Videos, ...) should easily be possible without
DX11, and would make a big difference at HD resolutions, as WItcher 2
shows.

Matt

Indeed. So far, I have to yet see any noticeable difference between DX9 and DX11, but I sure DO notice the difference in textures. ME2 has beautiful character animations; now give them proper textures! Garrus' face is still pathetic on zoom despite blurry texture fix as compared to ME1.

I'm gonna go get this Witcher 2... everyone is talking about this game, and it seems like it's worth it, plus the graphics ought to rock... and it's an RPG  Another placeholder till ME3 comes out - or?..

[Carfax]

amk-aka-phantom wrote...

Nice rig... though, there's no point in DDR3 higher than 1600

Well actually, DDR3-2000 does help with bandwidth intensive apps, ie compression/decompression software. 

For the most part, you're right though.  However, memory is so cheap these days, that I decided to buy it anyway.  I was using a 6GB DDR3-1600 low latency kit before, and when I decided to up the memory to 12GB (due to the Witcher 2 primarily), there was a great deal on the Corsair DDR3-2000 kit.

I bought mine for 140 USD after rebate, which is a steal for so much fast memory.

and you don't benefit from a dedicated PhysX card when you have SLI'd powerful cards.

 
On the contrary, you do.  When you play at high resolution like I do and with max settings, you don't want any physics to interfere with the GPU's rendering tasks.  So it's better to get a cheap card like the GTS 250 or something and dedicate it to physx.

I notice a difference between running with a dedicated card and running without one on Mafia 2 for instance.  Batman Arkham City should be even more physx intensive, so it's not going to waste believe me.