Aller au contenu

Photo

PC Hardware Basics for Game Playing


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
86 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
                                           Still Needed! 

Although I had occasion four and a half months after writing this article to suggest that a new member would be better served to purchase a classroom text for reference to the most simple facts about PCs, I have never intended anything I've written to be a replacement for a beginning Computer Literacy class.  I do, however keep on seeing questions come into the forums that are very incomplete, particularly the bad habit of trying to ignore video cards.

                                           Basics

For game-playing purposes, four hardware components are all-important inside of the PC system.  In order of importance, they are the (1) Video Card ( real card, since onboard chips don't count ), also referred to as a GPU, or VPU, the (2) Central Processor, known as the CPU, the (3) Power Supply, known as the PSU, and the (4) Main System Memory, made up from RAM.  Everything else has comparatively far less effect on how well the PC plays games.

Be certain to clear away any assumptions you may harbor regarding the "newness" of any computer or part for computers.  Lower quality parts and machines remain available to satisfy the requirements of budget-restrained small businesses, and are not intended for use as gaming platforms.  This is particularly true for laptop PCs.

PCs are hugely variable, and they evolve rapidly.  Old PCs fall behind the technology development standards and eventually must be retired from use with games.  Modern 3D game releases all have a warning label on the box when you purchase the hard copy, and the digital download sellers include that same warning label on the purchasing pages.  It is up to the buyer to have enough familiarity with his / her own PC, and the names of parts inside the PC to make the needed comparisons.  This article may help you develop that familiarity.

There are two internal compilation pages in the Windows OS that is the standard for PCs.  The least detailed of the two is the "System" summary in the Control Panel, in the "Device Manager", which omits the amount of RAM that is included on the video card.  Video card memory is becoming more important as the quality of images and of display devices improve, but so far, the SPEED of the memory, and the BANDWIDTH are vastly more important than the mere amount of VRAM attached. 

The other component summary is found in the "System Information" Tool, where you can finally see your storage subsystems' descriptions.  To view the details on the video card, you need the "Display Properties" Tool, where "adapter" is the tab you want to access.  You can test your audio processor, video processor, and Direct3D itself, using the DxDiag program, which generates a report in such detail that it will overwhelm almost anyone with the sheer bulk of all the data.   

Far more important than any other part of a gaming system is the video card, and a separate circuit board with the GPU chip attached to it is the only acceptable variety of video device.  Onboard chips are simply inadequate.  The VGA (Video Graphics Adapter) represents half and more of the readily perceived performance of current games, and the minimum card carries an identifying performance code of "n600" in its name.  The "n" part is the generation, and has limited value for evaluating overall performance. 

There is always more difference between a Mainline Gaming Card and the same generation's High End Gaming card (n800, n900) than there is between subsequent generations of Mainline Gaming Cards.  There is always a very large drop down from the Mainline Card to the ordinary Business Graphics Cards (n300, n400, n500).  As already noted above, the physical count of the RAM attached to a video card isn't very important compared to the GPU core speed, RAM speed, memory bandwidth, and count of shader units

A business graphics card with an n400 performance code may very well be loaded down with a full GB of VRAM to attract the ignorant purchaser who doesn't realize that all but 128 MBs of that is totally wasted if the card is used in games!

That type RAM happens to be very inexpensive right now. 

One of the great differences between full-power CPUs and various low end bargain chips is how much cache RAM they include.  Cache RAM is literally microscopic and more expensive than ordinary RAM.  The Core Two Duo and its descendents have a huge amount of cache RAM, as do the various AMD full-power CPUs.  Celerons, Pentium P4s, Pentium Duals, and Semprons are all weaker CPUs than modern ones, mostly because the cache RAM was removed to make them less expensive (the P4s are merely old, and from a failed "netburst" development line).

If the CPU is the brain of a PC, then the video card is its heart and circulatory system.  The third-most important part amounts to the digestive system of the PC, and is its power supply.  A cheap power supply is merely a major failure waiting to happen.  Gaming PCs should have high quality PSUs in them, with no less than "420 watts" of total power output as the advertised key.  Despite the emphasis on the "watts", it is actually the current, in AMPS that is critical, particularly the 12 Volt circuits' amperage amount.  For High End GPUs, a 500 to 700 watt PSU is mandatory (and adding graphics SLI, multiple drives, and other high end parts may call for as much as 900). 

There are literally hundreds of semi-generic power supply brands, far too many of which are of very poor quality.  A recognized high quality brand name is even more important than the number of "Watts" it claims to offer, and some names to look for include Enermax, Fortron, OCZ, PC Power & Cooling, Seasonic, and Sparkle. 

Fourth, after the PSU, is the main memory in the PC, and the total required has jumped upward in recent years, as the games have become more complex, but RAM pricing has become a bargain.  As I write this, 3 or 4 GBs of RAM is currently standard.  The older Windows OS was a 32 Bit software, limited to 3.2 GBs' worth of addressing space, and the new Windows OS offers 64 Bits, which can handle multiple TeraBytes of RAM. 

There are not many games right now that "need" the 3 or 4 GBs, and get along fine with 2 GBs, and given the low cost, it's generally a worthwhile investment, but it's just not going to affect game performance much going from 2 GBs to 3 (on the other hand, a PC with only a single GB of RAM is at a major disadvantage right now for gaming). 

If the various components named already are likened to mammalian organs, then the mainboard would fill the role of a skeleton, with the BIOS and Chipset as glandular appendages. 

The least important components in gaming PCs (remember, this is a performance comparison) are the storage subsystems, which consist of a Hard Disk drive, and an Optical Disk drive.  The current technology for Optical disks is DVD, with old style CD optical drives no longer being adequate.  A variety of advances have changed the Hard Drives considerably, but the only aspect that easily shows up in game performance is the step up from 5400 RPMs to 7200 RPMs that also includes a much larger onboard cache system. 

Incrementally, IMO, a 10,000 RPM disk just doesn't justify the additional cost in improved gaming speed.

An old urban myth has persisted for several years about the "RAID" technology for multiple drives, which is helpful for video editing, and some other large scale file handling (where really huge files are handled), but proved to be only a chimera for gaming use (much smaller file sizes).  This was covered in detail in several benchmarked studies, the best of which was on AnandTech.  And this post was made as a reference, not to provoke debate.

Regarding the several component identification tools inluded in Windows, the following Microsoft  Knowldge Base articles give more details (they are in the order in which I've refertenced each of  them above).  The last item is a shopping guide for gaming graphics purchases.

The Device manager is in the Control Panel: support.microsoft.com/kb/283658

The System Information Tool is in the Start Menu: support.microsoft.com/kb/308549

The Displlay properties dialog shows GPU details: support.microsoft.com/kb/272193

The DxDiag Report is activated through the Start / RUN option: support.microsoft.com/kb/190900

Shopping for an upgrade: www.ehow.com/how_5743276_choose-gaming-graphics-card.html

Many games contain some technology filtering mechanisms to be assured of running atop the correct hardware.  I'm writing this while Bioware's Dragon Age: Origins is still new, and it does have such a filter that eliminates various older model video cards that lack the requisite pixel shader functionality, such as the Radeon 9n00 generation, and the low end Xn00 cards (X1050, X300, X550, X600).  Interestingly enough, there is no filter, as such, to single out nVIDIA's really awful Geforce FX 5n00 generation, which was concurrent with the Radeon Xn00s. 

They do fail to run the game, but somehow slip past any filtering mechanism. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 22 mai 2010 - 01:28 .


#2
Crispy8181

Crispy8181
  • Members
  • 41 messages
Some of the things in your essay are purely derived from opinion.

One of which is the comment about 10,000 RPM drives and the use of RAID. Top-end gaming machines use these for good results; I know from personal experience. Do you experience long load times in Dragon Age? I don't. My twin 10,000 RPM WD Raptor RAID0 array loads any save game from DA:O in under 10 seconds, often even half of that, every single time. A lot of people here would probably kill for that, I'm sure.

The other thing you forgot to mention is the importance of a good sound card. Like graphics chips, on-board sound solutions are often inferior and are common causes of problems in modern games (although many new motherboard designs are beginning to feature full-featured, robust sound solutions). Dedicated sound cards, those from Creative Labs being the most popular, are almost always the best bet.

As far as power supplies are concerned, high-end gaming units are now often sporting 800W or more, and you never mentioned amperage ratings for them. It's very, very common for a gamer to add a nice high-powered GPU to their system, confident their 500W PSU will do fine, but they never realize the 12V rating on it or even a replacement one is woefully lacking. 18A, 20A or more and a "80 Plus" certification are the signs of a good-quality, gamer ready PSU.

Other than those things, good tips and solid advice.

Modifié par Crispy8181, 28 décembre 2009 - 09:18 .


#3
Sensorie

Sensorie
  • Members
  • 404 messages

Crispy8181 wrote...

One of which is the comment about 10,000 RPM drives and the use of RAID. Top-end gaming machines use these for good results; I know from personal experience. Do you experience long load times in Dragon Age? I don't. My twin 10,000 RPM WD Raptor RAID0 array loads any save game from DA:O in under 10 seconds, often even half of that, every single time. A lot of people here would probably kill for that, I'm sure.

My SpinPoint F3 isn't too shabby in comparison; I never have to wait more than ten seconds loading a game save, even the 350th save in Denerim Market.

Modifié par Sensory, 28 décembre 2009 - 09:39 .


#4
Guest_Maviarab_*

Guest_Maviarab_*
  • Guests
Very much opinion. Also your mobo is more important for games than the psu. As long as the psu can cope with your hardware, its irrelevent.



You didnt mention what frequency or megahertz of ram (makes a wopping diff)...neither did you mention operating systems (also more important than psu)...vista pro/ultimate will use a gb of ram just running.



No mention either that unless your running 64bit there is no point in putting more than 3gb of ram in your machine.



Overall good post, and sure will help out some of the noobs, but if your going to do such a post, make it accurate.



+1 cookie though for the effort :)

#5
Valaskjalf

Valaskjalf
  • Members
  • 283 messages

Crispy8181 wrote...

The other thing you forgot to mention is the importance of a good sound card. Like graphics chips, on-board sound solutions are often inferior and are common causes of problems in modern games (although many new motherboard designs are beginning to feature full-featured, robust sound solutions). Dedicated sound cards, those from Creative Labs being the most popular, are almost always the best bet.


fail. onboard sound is plenty good enough these days. Creative sound cards are a gimmick and often have more driver problems then onboard sound. 

#6
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
We can leave audio to the end as a trouble shooting event. The ranking for the three most critical PC components is based on relative contribution to perceived overall performance, and between them, the GPU plus CPU are 80 to 85% of the total, leaving rather little to carve up between the rest, and we cannot do that, if an adequate source of well regulated current isn't available, which puts PSUs nearer the top to be sure number one and two can run at all.


#7
Crispy8181

Crispy8181
  • Members
  • 41 messages

Valaskjalf wrote...

Crispy8181 wrote...

The other thing you forgot to mention is the importance of a good sound card. Like graphics chips, on-board sound solutions are often inferior and are common causes of problems in modern games (although many new motherboard designs are beginning to feature full-featured, robust sound solutions). Dedicated sound cards, those from Creative Labs being the most popular, are almost always the best bet.


fail. onboard sound is plenty good enough these days. Creative sound cards are a gimmick and often have more driver problems then onboard sound. 


fail.  See bolded text above.  Pay more attention in class, junior.

#8
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
If you will be good enough, the ideal here is a performance breakdown reference, and audio, either onboard or add-on, isn't a major contributor to the overall picture. Remember, we may have as little as 15% of the total to split up after the first two give their contributions, which is why in spite of owning a couple of extra fast Hdds, I pooh-poohed the 10,000 rpm drives as just not offering enough difference for the extra cost.

#9
Crispy8181

Crispy8181
  • Members
  • 41 messages
I can see your 10K argument based on the cost. That's fair to say. I love it myself, but it's not for everyone. Then again, neither is SLI (which I also run).



Now, I will just ask you to consider the acceptance of SLI in today's PC gaming market and decide whether it, too, is worth the cost? It's all about perspective, and, ultimately, opinion.

#10
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
Although I was interested in the high speed drives, and did invest in a couple, my experience with 3dFX VooDoo SLI hadn't been satisfactory when the VooDoo & VooDoo2 were current.  I have seen some of the same problems repeated today with Crossfire and nVIDIA's own SLI.  I think that the money for a second card is better spent by putting it toward the next generation upgrade instead. 

That is an opinion, and of course, subjective.  Be that as it may, I'm only addressing the high end crowd secondarily, with the primary target audience being what I think of a repeat PC game players, those who are now playing neither their first, or second game, at one extreme, nor their tenth and upward. 

They are just on the cusp of joining us as regular PC gamers, and this is hoped to be useful giving them an appreciation of the PC hardware, with a relatively untechnical and brief document. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 29 décembre 2009 - 10:39 .


#11
roybm

roybm
  • Members
  • 114 messages
@ Gorath:

thank you for the time and effort you put into this. It will defiantly help out others that have questions about system upgrades.

I did not see many others take the time and effort to write a article to help out the novice gamers out there, so I do not think any of them should really have anything bad to say about this topic.



As for opinions... I know Gorath knows his/her stuff. I trust the information offered by this individual over any one else on this board.

#12
bjdbwea

bjdbwea
  • Members
  • 3 251 messages

Crispy8181 wrote...

One of which is the comment about 10,000 RPM drives and the use of RAID. Top-end gaming machines use these for good results; I know from personal experience. Do you experience long load times in Dragon Age? I don't. My twin 10,000 RPM WD Raptor RAID0 array loads any save game from DA:O in under 10 seconds, often even half of that, every single time. A lot of people here would probably kill for that, I'm sure.


This is laughable. I hope you bought that expensive HD setup for more than gaming. It may be of some use in games like Fallout 3 that constantly load new data, though even there decent single HDs perform well enough. But with games like DA, most of the data stays in your RAM, negating most of the influence your HD(s) might have. And for your information, even with a somewhat older HD and a properly configured and maintained system the loading per se doesn't take much longer. The increasing loading times are a bug in DA. Most of the time the game doesn't even access the HD.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 décembre 2009 - 11:19 .


#13
Crispy8181

Crispy8181
  • Members
  • 41 messages

bjdbwea wrote...

Crispy8181 wrote...

One of which is the comment about 10,000 RPM drives and the use of RAID. Top-end gaming machines use these for good results; I know from personal experience. Do you experience long load times in Dragon Age? I don't. My twin 10,000 RPM WD Raptor RAID0 array loads any save game from DA:O in under 10 seconds, often even half of that, every single time. A lot of people here would probably kill for that, I'm sure.


This is laughable. I hope you bought that expensive HD setup for more than gaming. It may be of some use in games like Fallout 3 that constantly load new data, though even there decent single HDs perform well enough. But with games like DA, most of the data stays in your RAM, negating most of the influence your HD(s) might have. And for your information, even with a somewhat older HD and a properly configured and maintained system the loading per se doesn't take much longer. The increasing loading times are a bug in DA. Most of the time the game doesn't even access the HD.


While there are many articles out there that back up my claims, I'll just link you to one and I'll quote a part of it:

--

"In none of the configurations was there an increase in FPS due to the introduction of a RAID0 array. FPS remained consistently within1-4% between all configurations.We did not see an increase or benefit of Raid to frames per second.

As you can see there is anywhere between 10 seconds and 7 seconds difference loading time between a Raid 0 and single drive configuration. What cannot be measured but was experienced was a big reduction in in game lag due to hard drive access. Any occasional stutters were momentary pauses as opposed to elongated stutters which can be experienced with single drive configurations.

Overall gameplay comes down to your video card and CPU more than it does the hard drive. While game load times show here are for games with huge maps and a lot of textures your average games should load faster and you will be waiting less and playing more with a raid configuration. You may want to weigh this against the cost of a 2 to 4 drive configuration plus the raid controller card. We cannot stress enough the large difference between onboard and stand along raid controllers CPU consumption and would suggest a stand alone card for your best performance."

http://www.techwarel...g/index_4.shtml

--

In general, load times are less.  HD-access-induced lag is less.  O/S boot time is much less.

Hardly "laughable".  I guess you won't be switching to SSD drives once their price begins to drop, either?

Have fun with your single 7200RPM drive then, I guess.  Some people are content to drive Hyundais, too.  Not that there's anything wrong with a Hyundai, for basic transportation - just don't pull one out on the Autobahn.

Modifié par Crispy8181, 29 décembre 2009 - 11:34 .


#14
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
RAID for games was disproved by vigorous testing several years ago, but as I've said all along, it hasn't been my intention to open up a debate of any sort, but to create a useful reference point on which to do such things as budget a series of upgrades for the most improved performance for the least expense per each step.

#15
Crispy8181

Crispy8181
  • Members
  • 41 messages

Gorath Alpha wrote...

RAID for games was disproved by vigorous testing several years ago, but as I've said all along, it hasn't been my intention to open up a debate of any sort, but to create a useful reference point on which to do such things as budget a series of upgrades for the most improved performance for the least expense per each step.


Got a link?  Any links?

#16
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
Just visit AnandTech, just like the original article pointed out. They have an excellent on-site search there.

#17
Crispy8181

Crispy8181
  • Members
  • 41 messages
I found the article you mentioned (that was published in 2004) and it does state that they conclude that RAID0 has no place in gaming computers. So I'll give you that.

I'll just point out that there are many other articles out there besides the one I linked that do also espouse the performance benefits of RAID0, and with Raptor and other 10K drives in a striped array at that. Anandtech is not the be-all-and-end-all of tech sites.

I know from professional experience that hard core gamers often drool over the prospect of splurging over an admittedly over-the-top hard drive setup like the one I use (the ones that know of RAID0's existence, anyway). Again, though, it's not for everyone.

What you and I do agree on, is that your money is best spent initially on a powerful mobo, CPU, GPU and PSU combo. Without the basic building blocks, a further expense of RAID0 (or SSD) makes no sense at all.

Modifié par Crispy8181, 30 décembre 2009 - 12:42 .


#18
Welnic

Welnic
  • Members
  • 119 messages
If you have a good enough CPU and a good enough video card, then you can run the game with everything maxed out at a decent fps. At that point having a better CPU doesn't really get you anywhere. But having a faster HD drive will always lower the load time of each zone. So at some point it is a reasonable place to spend money for this game.

#19
omi1965

omi1965
  • Members
  • 8 messages
I'd thought I would throw in a link to a post I made about 2 weeks ago. It simply details the components, in a very basic way, that my old system has. It plays the game rather nicely with no major problems.



I thought Gorath's article was good, and I add a little more in the way of describing a basic computer system that can play DAO. My post is very generic, and mainly useful for beginners and older computer users.



http://social.biowar.../index/457261/1






#20
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages
Since preparing the original article, I've found a couple of mis-spellings, typos, and what-not,  the only significant change was to acknowldege the importance of the mainboard to attach everything onto (I refer to it as anologous to a mammalian skeletal structure). 

I have also created an article of a different sort that is particularly oriented around gaming video cards, and is titled "Beam us down a Gaming Card, Scotty" as a paen to that old sci-fantasy TV show's engineer character, created by James Doohan, who passed away about three years ago. 

That post will be found here: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/58/index/519461

My performance rankings for game-capable video cards predated this article, and that URL is here: 

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/58/index/128343

I've intended to visit the link mentioned immediately above in order to either agree it's useful, or to suggest any needed changes, and I probably will do that later today (it's still afternoon here as I make this added comment).

P. S. Added as an Edit a half hour later.  I have spent some time with the post to which Omni referred.  It is in the General Forum, and I have appended a reply to it just now.  As it was written, it departs from the direction I am taking here, so if Omni is still around the forums, perhaps he (or she) will respond in his  / her own thread. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:39 .


#21
rastamanphan

rastamanphan
  • Members
  • 12 messages
Gorath Alpha,

Thank you for the succinct and aptly timed writeup. This was long over-due for people who are having game play issues. We tech set who follow hardware trends appear to be the minority and it's refreshing to see more introductory guides for the laymen. +1 vote for sticky

#22
Titius.Vibius

Titius.Vibius
  • Members
  • 1 053 messages
/bump

#23
Gorath Alpha

Gorath Alpha
  • Members
  • 10 605 messages

rastamanphan wrote...

Gorath:
Thank you for the succinct and aptly timed writeup. This was long over-due for people who are having game play issues. We tech set who follow hardware trends appear to be the minority and it's refreshing to see more introductory guides for the laymen. +1 vote for sticky

There is always a certain amount of crossover happening in CRPGs, and in order to continue having a few games to play, we must encourage the ones who do have curious minds, and severely discourage the mindless pirates who screw up things for everyone else! 

G

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:40 .


#24
OH-UP-THIS!

OH-UP-THIS!
  • Members
  • 2 399 messages
I too applaud you Gorath, as I've seen you on a few other sites, I think you Moderate on a forum specifically for processor issues?



+ 1 for a sticky, and thanks again.

#25
Tyrax Lightning

Tyrax Lightning
  • Members
  • 2 725 messages
This thread for sticky!

/sign

Edit: Ahh, what the heck, i'll +1 it too! Posted Image

Modifié par Tyrax Lightning, 06 janvier 2010 - 04:05 .