18 replies to this topic

[Vandgris]

Hey.

I decided it's time to build a new PC as I want to try run GW 2 easier and smoother and be able to participate a bit more in WvW zergs, instead of dropping to around 10FPS (I know it's a common thing, I wanna try keep a little bit higher FPS, if possible). I built a PC and I decided not to buy it until I had some opinions from a GW 2 forum.

Any help or adds to the build would be appreciated.


Specification

- CM Storm Trooper Full Tower Gaming Case - Black
    
- AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8350 Black Edition 4.00GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor

- Stage 1: Overclock of CPU - 10% Overclock (Processor speed x1.10)

- Alpenfohn K2 Mount Doom CPU Cooler

- Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 AMD 990FX (Socket AM3+) DDR3 Motherboard

- Patriot Intel Extreme Masters 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit

- KFA2 GeForce GTX 670 EX OC 2048MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card

- Seagate Barracuda 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache - OEM

- OcUK 24x DVD+RW SATA ReWriter (Black) - OEM

- Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D Fatal1ty Professional Soundcard

- Corsair AX 1200 Gold PSU

- Fully Cable Managed

- OcUK Tech Labs - Zaward Golf III Fan 120mm

[dhatcher1]

An i5 3570K @3.4GHz still outperforms the 4GHz AMD 8350 in gaming.

A 1200 W PSU is something you get if you plan on running three or four 670s, not one.  You can get a good 600W PSU and be fine.  Gold certified is also generally very expensive and not worth the extra cost, IMO.

A much cheaper cooler like the Xigmatek Gaia or Coolermaster Hyper 212 will work almost as well as that massive MT Doom.

If budget is not an issue, get a 256GB or at least 120GB SSD for a boot drive.

Edited by dhatcher1, 06 February 2013 - 05:33 PM.

[Vandgris]

Thanks a lot for the reply, dhatcher1, I just have a few questions to ask before I try a little modifications.

dhatcher1, on 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

An i5 3570K @3.4GHz still outperforms the 4GHz AMD 8350 in gaming.

Would you go for the i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz or would it be worth spending a little bit more on an i7 3770K @ 3.5Ghz?

dhatcher1, on 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

A 1200 W PSU is something you get if you plan on running three or four 670s, not one.  You can get a good 600W PSU and be fine.  Gold certified is also generally very expensive and not worth the extra cost, IMO.

Thanks for that, wasn't sure whether to go big or not. I think I'll go with a Corsair TX 750 V2 Bronze PSU.

dhatcher1, on 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

A much cheaper cooler like the Xigmatek Gaia or Coolermaster Hyper 212 will work almost as well as that massive MT Doom.

On the build options I don't have much to choose from, if I was to get the i7 I just mentioned I have to also make a change to the motherboard, I was thinking the Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H Intel Z77 (Socket 1155) DDR3 Motherboard (there are a lot of choices to choose from, but I didn't want to fill my post up with them, unless you'd like to look at them?). My CPU cooler choices are also down to a Prolimatech Lynx CPU Cooler, Corsair H60 Performance Intel Liquid Cooling Solution or Alpenfohn K2 Mount Doom CPU Cooler.

dhatcher1, on 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

If budget is not an issue, get a 256GB or at least 120GB SSD for a boot drive.

I never realised that, just had a quick search about them and looks really interesting. Would you put down the SSD as a secondary drive or use it as the primary drive and buy the other HDD as a secondary? I'm not too sure how these work so any help on that point would be well appreciated.

Thanks.

Edited by Vandgris, 06 February 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[Zerk2012]

This is all you need just add windows 7 64bit already overclocked with a SSD and HDD.
http://www.overclock...385&subcat=1270

[Vandgris]

Zerk2012, on 07 February 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

This is all you need just add windows 7 64bit already overclocked with a SSD and HDD.
http://www.overclock...#38;subcat=1270

Thanks a lot for the reply, that's actually the site I was building it on.

Any approximate estimations on how that would run GW 2 in things such as WvW and other demanding games (whether CPU or GPU), mainly so I know what I'm getting for my money.

Thanks again.

[typographie]

Vandgris, on 07 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Any approximate estimations on how that would run GW 2 in things such as WvW and other demanding games (whether CPU or GPU), mainly so I know what I'm getting for my money.

Be aware that just about any system, no matter how high-end, takes a massive hit (expect ~30 FPS) in the worst GW2 zergs. Its disappointing, but that's the game's fault and this system is about the best that you can reasonably do. AMD has nothing that will generally do as well as a Core i5, and Core i7's are only truly worthwhile when you're really putting hyperthreading to good use. To answer your question, there's not much out there that would be much better than this system.

To really take advantage of the benefits of an SSD, you want it as your primary drive (i.e. your Windows installation), as the difference in overall system startup, shutdown and overall responsiveness will be pretty drastic when Windows is installed on flash memory. Don't expect any framerate difference in games, but being installed on an SSD will often cause any program to launch/load faster. Use the mechanical HDD for mass storage of your documents, videos, music, etc. and games you play less often.

Edited by typographie, 07 February 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[Stylo]

dhatcher1, on 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

An i5 3570K @3.4GHz still outperforms the 4GHz AMD 8350 in gaming.

Agreed.

Look at the GW 2 CPU benchmarks in this link.
http://www.tomshardw...ark,3268-7.html

FX-4000s or FX-8000s doesn't make a difference.  Go i5 or i7

[Vandgris]

typographie, on 07 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Be aware that just about any system, no matter how high-end, takes a massive hit (expect ~30 FPS) in the worst GW2 zergs. Its disappointing, but that's the game's fault and this system is about the best that you can reasonably do.

Okay, 30 FPS is a big boost compared to what I get now in WvW zergs where it becomes to the point of almost unplayable.

typographie, on 07 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

AMD has nothing that will generally do as well as a Core i5, and Core i7's are only truly worthwhile when you're really putting hyperthreading to good use. To answer your question, there's not much out there that would be much better than this system.

I see, sounds a little bit complicated if I was to go for an i7 then.

typographie, on 07 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

To really take advantage of the benefits of an SSD, you want it as your primary drive (i.e. your Windows installation), as the difference in overall system startup, shutdown and overall responsiveness will be pretty drastic when Windows is installed on flash memory. Don't expect any framerate difference in games, but being installed on an SSD will often cause any program to launch/load faster. Use the mechanical HDD for mass storage of your documents, videos, music, etc. and games you play less often.

I had no idea about SSDs, I'd never even heard of them until I saw them on the build screen. Thanks a lot for the insight and the explanation on them.

-----

Seems like my mind is made up then, I think I'll be ordering this system pretty soon.

Thanks so much for the replies, I appreciate it.

Edited by Vandgris, 07 February 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[typographie]

Vandgris, on 07 February 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I see, sounds a little bit complicated if I was to go for an i7 then.

To be more clear, its just that its more money that doesn't get you any more appreciable performance. i7's are worth it for content creation professionals, but if you're just going to be gaming with this system its just not worth ~£70 more when the i5 is already so great.

[Quaker]

Basically, in games, the i7 will at best only get you a few frames extra over the i5. It's main benefit is when you are using multi-threaded apps, and even then it's a matter of saving some time. For gaming it would be more beneficial to spend the extra money on a better video card. Like a GTX-680 instead of a GTX-670. (I'm not sure what your current config is.)

[Zerk2012]

Vandgris, on 07 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Thanks a lot for the reply, that's actually the site I was building it on.

Any approximate estimations on how that would run GW 2 in things such as WvW and other demanding games (whether CPU or GPU), mainly so I know what I'm getting for my money.

Thanks again.

The CPU is overclocked to 4.5 already the video card is overkill (for a 1080p monitor) it will run every game the best it can be ran. For this game wich is perrty much junk on every PC in WVW big  zergs you should get  around 35 FPS or higher depending on how many people. Nobody will be getting better performance than you no matter what they have. All other games it should just be a joke to run on that PC.
Also noticed you had a sound card on the first build that's not nessary it has built in sound on the MB unless you just like really high quality sound.
Read the 3 reviews on the PC.

Edited by Zerk2012, 07 February 2013 - 11:12 PM.

[Scorch Raven]

http://www.overclock...ra-slide-12.jpg

Your Link is to the Bulldozer chips, which the Piledriver ones are alot closer to the SB/IB cpus now.

Stylo, on 07 February 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Agreed.

Look at the GW 2 CPU benchmarks in this link.
http://www.tomshardw...ark,3268-7.html

FX-4000s or FX-8000s doesn't make a difference.  Go i5 or i7

[Zerk2012]

Scorch Raven, on 08 February 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

http://www.overclock...ra-slide-12.jpg

Your Link is to the Bulldozer chips, which the Piledriver ones are alot closer to the SB/IB cpus now.

Why not spend a extra 30 bucks or so to get the best you can when paying a lot for a new PC and AMD processors are still a teir below.
http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-5.html

Edited by Zerk2012, 08 February 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[Scorch Raven]

Because its not just an extra 30 or so, you also have to pay more for the MB that supports SB/IB vs an AM3+ socket.

But its also preference.
Personally, since I deal with virtualization ALOT, I'd rather have 8 physical Cores/Threads, then 4 Physical and 4 Virtual. Even if that CPU is what...6-8% slower then the Intel comparison.

Zerk2012, on 08 February 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Why not spend a extra 30 bucks or so to get the best you can when paying a lot for a new PC and AMD processors are still a teir below.
http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-5.html

[Zerk2012]

Scorch Raven, on 08 February 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Because its not just an extra 30 or so, you also have to pay more for the MB that supports SB/IB vs an AM3+ socket.

But its also preference.
Personally, since I deal with virtualization ALOT, I'd rather have 8 physical Cores/Threads, then 4 Physical and 4 Virtual. Even if that CPU is what...6-8% slower then the Intel comparison.

WOW I thought we were building a gaming PC. And their alot slower when clocked to the same speed for gaming.
I have  i 2500k clocked to 4.4 nothing AMD makes will touch it AMD has their place and it's for work not gaming

Edited by Zerk2012, 08 February 2013 - 10:33 PM.

[Quaker]

From what I've seen, the FX-8350 is pretty close to an i5-3570K in GW2. Yes, the 3570 is preferable, but the FX-8350 works well enough to maintain your AMD allegiance.

[typographie]

Scorch Raven, on 08 February 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Personally, since I deal with virtualization ALOT, I'd rather have 8 physical Cores/Threads, then 4 Physical and 4 Virtual.

Really? I can see where Piledriver might be preferable to an i5 there, but you're describing an i7. The i7-3770K seems to maintain a comfortable lead over Piledriver just about everywhere, including workloads where Piledriver does really well. As well it should, the two chips aren't really in direct competition. But if you're talking about what you'd *rather* have..

Remember the FX-8350 isn't technically 8 physical cores, either. Its four Piledriver "modules."

[Mordakai]

Is the i7 worth it for future proofing?

ie, will it be more useful a few years from now?

[Elder III]

Mordakai, on 28 February 2013 - 06:05 AM, said:

Is the i7 worth it for future proofing?

ie, will it be more useful a few years from now?

For gaming?  - Probably not, since by the time games make consistent, proper use of hyper threading you would likely be ready to upgrade to a new CPU anyways.