The Fast Enough Computer |
Articles - Opinion & Editorials | ||
Written by David Ramsey | ||
Wednesday, 26 January 2011 | ||
The Fast Enough ComputerWhy you shouldn't always buy the fastest, most expensive parts; even if you can afford them.While I have not yet (and may never) recover from my addiction to having the Biggest Fastest Most Expensive computer parts I can afford, the experience I've gained writing for this website over the past year or so has hammered home the lesson that most of the time, I'm just wasting my money. And you probably are, too. What do you need a fast computer for?Unless you're a professional who needs the power of a high-end workstation, the meanest, cheapest no-name box you can buy is likely more than sufficient for everything you do...except gaming. That's the metric I'm going to use here: frame rates in games, at a decent resolution with good visual effects. Looking at the Steam hardware survey, we can see that the most common gaming resolution is 1680x1050 pixels, so that's what I'll use. The goal is to build a system that will play most modern games at 30fps or better at 1680x1050 with good visual quality (i.e. without having to turn off anti-aliasing or other visual effects) and decent expansion capability for the least amount of money. Benchmarks don't matterMost of us will look to benchmark results to determine a computer's performance. It's like taking your car to the local drag strip and seeing how fast it'll do the 1/4 mile run. But much of the time, a benchmark score has about as much relevance to your computer as your car's 1/4 miles time has to its day-to-day driving experience. This is especially true for synthetic benchmarks: while tuning your system to deliver the bestest fastest results in AIDA64 or PassMark can be fun, all that really matters at the end of the day is how many FPS you can spit out in Crysis, Metro 2033, Bad Company, or whatever your favorite game is. Sure, having a monster system that delivers triple-digit frame rates on a 30" monitor with the latest DX11 games with all the eye candy turned on confers certain bragging rights...and if bragging rights is what you're after, well, go get those three NVIDIA GTX580 cards and start overclocking them. But don't expect it to make any difference in your gaming experience unless you're running a PhysX-heavy game in 3D Vision on a triple monitor system. What, that's not what you're running? Well, then... Consider this: first, if your system can maintain 30 frames per second or more on a given game, that's Fast Enough. Very few people can discern the visual difference between 30fps and anything faster. I certainly can't. But even if you can, the absolute limit is 60fps, because that's the refresh frequency of your monitor. It physically can't display more than that, and when you do, you get horizontal "tearing" artifacts, which is why most games these days have an option to sync the frame redraws to the monitor's vertical refresh, effectively capping your frame rate at 60fps. Given this, who cares if your system can generate more frames per second? You're not going to see them. Second, game developers want to produce games that run well on mid-range systems, because people with Intel 980X systems running dual NVIDIA GTX580 cards don't really make up a large part of the market. Sure, Crysis brought even high-end systems to their knees when it was introduced, but do you want to spend hundreds of dollars to run a single game? So, what do you need to play current modern games at 1680x1050 with good frame rates and decent visual quality? As it turns out, all you need is a computer that's Fast Enough. Here's what I'd suggest... Building the Fast Enough ComputerLet's recap what we're looking for in a Fast Enough computer:
The "expansion capability" part is important: you want room to grow the system a bit at a time as more demanding games appear (and more money becomes available). Of course, everyone's needs and wants will vary, but here's what I'd start with: Any computer case. This is the least important part of your system, so the cheaper the better. Still, "inexpensive" doesn't have to mean "cheap": the NZXT M59 case provides both interesting looks and excellent quality for under $50. An AMD 790FX or 890FX motherboard. I prefer AMD here simply because these chipsets support 42 PCIe lanes, which means you can run a tri-CrossFireX system and still have plenty of lanes left over for USB 3.0, SATA 6G, and a couple of PCIe cards. The downside is that you won't be able to run NVIDIA SLI, and that's a drawback (especially if you like PhysX), but the only ways to get a decent number of PCIe lanes in the Intel world are to buy an X58 system, or a P55 or P67 motherboard with an expensive NVIDIA NF200 bridge chip. If you don't need USB 3.0 (easily added with a PCIe card later) or SATA 6G, a 790FX motherboard will save you $30-$50 over an 890FX motherboard. An AMD Phenom II X2 560 Black Edition processor. Stick with the Phenom II series CPUs: they're faster and typically overclock better than Phenom or Athlon CPUs. The 560 is inexpensive ($100 at Newegg), and this unlocked-multiplier dual-core CPU can easily be overclocked past 4Ghz. 4GB of DDR3 memory. Stick with a major brand for warranty reasons, but as our tests have shown, paying extra for fast timings, low latency, and fancy heat sinks will yield very little in the way of better frame rates, so I'd go for DDR3-1333. With such memory currently selling for about $10/gigabyte, you can easily add another 4GB later if you need to. A Radeon 6850 video card. These are available for about $180 and will handle most modern games at 1680x1050 without having to turn off anti-aliasing or other image processing features, although you won't be able to crank the visual effects up all the way on games like Crysis or Metro 2033. If you need more horsepower, a pair of these cards in CrossFireX will almost double your performance and play any current game at well over 30fps even at 1920x1200. One caveat: the 6850 is limited to two-card CrossFireX; for three-card setups, you'll need to move up to the Radeon 6950, which costs $90-$100 more. A Samsung SpinPoint 500GB or 1T drive. The real-world performance of these drives is excellent (close to WD's much more expensive VelociRaptor drives), and they're only $65 for the 500GB version. Any generic DVD writer will do; I use Sony Optiarc OEM drives, available for less than $20, or $25 for a Lightscribe version. A decent power supply. The one place you shouldn't skimp is the power supply. You want it to be reliable and able to support your system as it grows. The Radeon 6850 requires only a single 6-pin power connector, so a Seasonic SS-560KM would work well for up to two of them, but you might want a power supply that has 4 PCI power connectors if you want to be able to expand to more powerful cards (with dual power connectors) in the future. You can build this system for about $750, less if you find a 790FX motherboard, or go with a smaller hard drive or Radeon 5770 instead of a 6850. And it gives you several upgrade paths: AMD has been dropping the prices on their 4- and 6-core processors, and you can add one or two more video cards as your needs grow. Intel AlternativesIt's not as easy to build an inexpensive Fast Enough system with Intel: their processors are much more expensive than AMD's, and the Sandy Bridge P67 chipset suffers from the same dearth of PCIe lanes as did the previous-generation P55 chipset. X58 motherboards will give you the PCIe lanes you need, and there are a number available now in the sub-$200 range, but Socket 1366 CPUs are still quite expensive, at $300 for the current Core i7-950. If you can live with the lack of PCIe lanes, Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs offer excellent performance, and a good P67 motherboard can be had for less than many 890FX motherboards. But you'll pay a lot more for even the cheapest Core i5 Sandy Bridge processor, and you'll be locked out of any overclocking unless you get a "K"-series CPU (the cheapest of which is the Core i5-2500K at $225). Also, be aware that not all P67 motherboards support SLI, so if you want this option, make sure to check that your P67 motherboard is SLI-certified. Would you build a Fast Enough computer? Leave your comment below, or start a discussion in our Forum.
Related Articles:
|
Comments
All and all improving performance and cooling by a lot for the same money.
Ain t that your moto?
So stop using psychodelic delusional drugs and get intel and drop that ATI on the process...
You ll have 2 460 GTX...for better price and performance.
As for 6 core what the hell ? 99% of the market don t even use 4, this is pure waste of money.
Anyway, if you want bang for your bug, the 1gb gtx 460 is where its at, and the gtx 560 just dropped the 460's price a bit to boot.
Maybe i was misleaded back then
I do agree with your main point though David. In fact I would say that even considering games like Crysis or Metro puts the line quite a bit higher than it would be for most people. Neither of those games are in the top 20, so an analysis based on more common (and much less demanding on hardware) games like Starcraft II or Civ V might extend the life of your fast enough system even further.
I bet you can tell I'm one of those people who tries to consider both sides of any argument.
For example, it seems like the board is set on future-proofing a lot more than the CPU. How about a 790X or 890GX chipset for around the $100-140 mark to save $40+ on the board and use that to upgrade to a Phenom II 955? The bandwidth shouldn't be an issue for dual 6850 in Crossfire, and a quad-core is a guarantee. It seems to me like even a single 6850 would be bottlenecked by a Phenom dual-core (assuming you don't try your luck to unlock it).
I'll admit though that's just my take on it since I've been on a cheap 790X DDR2 board that's hit 4GHz on a Phenom II X6 for a while, but I'll also admit I'm not concerned about SATA6 and USB3 as much as other people.
Great article as usual. I'm a big fan of the Op-Eds BmR does.
You know what my "minimum" is for my future system? An average of 120 FPS on a 5040x1050 resolution. Not only is that three times as wide as a 1680x1050 monitor, but that's four times the target FPS. I can tell the difference between 30, 60, and 120 FPS. I don't know many first-person shooter gamers that can't. I want to have an exceptional system, not an acceptable one.
Your build is not bad at all but I will disagree on the case. DIY people tend to build more often (ie buy new systems) than others. With this in mind a good case is something that can last through many builds. I personally would up the budget a bit on the case to get better quality for that reason.
While the CPU of choice is a great chip I would however suggest getting an a Phenom II 840 instead. While this is essentially an Athlon II it is still plenty fast for gaming and the 2 extra cores come in handy as more games add multithreading. Sure there is a chance to unlock the 2 extra cores but why risk it when you get them for sure for the same money?
You underestimate the Athlon CPUs if you think the L3 cache is going to provide any type of Gaming performance increase. Even the triple core Athlon-II X3-445 outperforms the Phenom-II X2-560 in games. I know, I reviewed them both.
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 2.8Gz
XFX 750i SLi motherboard
OCZ Reaper 2 sticks of 2Gb PC6400 DDR2
640Mb Western Digital Caviar Black Hard Drive
BFG GTX280 OC
SoundBlaster XFi Xtreme Gamer sound card
650w Silverstone Zues power supply
NZXT Tempest gaming case
Logitech G11 keyboard
CoolerMaster Storm Sentinel Advance Gaming Mouse
Samsung 22" 1680 x 1050 monitor
13035 marks 3DMark06
Crysis Bench runs averaged with dx10 effects enabled through config. files
Max settings = avg 31fps , min 13 fps , max 44 fps
FarCry2 Ranch medium loop Max settings= avg 47fps , min 29 fps , max 89 fps
Battlefield Bad Company 2 Max. Settings = in the 50's
Edit November 2010 Added 1Tb Hitachi hard drive with Windows 7 64-bit Now a dual boot system.
Overclocked to 3.0Gz 13250 marks 3DMark Vantage in Windows 7
Intel/Nvidia Fanboy
The nVidia cards are currently a LOT better than their AMD/ATI counterparts, and if you save $30 or more buying one GTX460 instead of a Radeon 6850, you'd save $60 on a pair. So going an Intel route that supports SLI looks a lot better.
Intel parts typically overclock by about 20% just using stock cooling, AMD only about 10%*. That plus the current SLI advantage can change the equation.
(* see: ##xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/power-consumption-overclocking.html )
How about an article on the costs and benefits of overclocking? An aggressively overclocked system will draw more power, requiring a bigger PSU, a 3rd party cooler, a more expensive case and maybe some extra case fans. That can totally eat up any value added by the speed boost, especially when considered in the light of your 'fast enough' hypothesis.
Also, the article says other stupid stuff, like the heat sink not increasing FPS. DUH? But if your taking your i-930 from 2.8GHz to 4.2GHz with some voltage tweaks at 100% stability like I am, you're going to need that 3rd party heat sink. Ta-Da! Nice heatsink = more FPS! Pretty good performance increase for $50 hugh?
Chassis Cooler Master HAF-X (RC-942-KKN1) Full Tower Case
CPU Intel Core i7-930
CPU Cooler Noctua NH-D14 Premium cooler
TIM MASSCOOL G751 Shin-Etsu Thermal Interface Material
Motherboard Asus Rampage III Extreme
PowerSupply CORSAIR HX CMPSU-1000HX 1000W
Memory Mushkin Enhanced Redline 6GB (3 x 2GB) (6-8-6-24 & 1T)
GPU ZOTAC AMP! ZT-40102-10P GeForce GTX 480
Sound Card Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi HD 24-bit 96KHz USB
OS Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM
HD 1 (BOOT) Crucial RealSSD C300 6Gbps SATA SSD 256GB With ATA-TRIM
HD 2 Seagate ST95005620AS Momentus XT 500GB Solid State Hybrid
HD 3 Seagate ST95005620AS Momentus XT 500GB Solid State
SATA Drive 7200 RPM 32MB Cache 2.5IN (HD 2&3 in RAID 0)
HD 4 Samsung EcoGreen F2 HD103SI 1TB 5400 RPM 32MB Cache SATA
HD 5 Seagate Barracuda LP ST32000542AS 2TB 5900 RPM 32MB Cache
DVD Burner LITE-ON Black
Cable Modem MOTOROLA SB6120 160Mbps in DOCSIS mode and 195Mbps in
Keyboard Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard
Headset Logitech G930 USB Connector Circumaural Wireless Gaming
Display Samsung Syncmaster P2770H 27" Widescreen 2ms Mini-HDMI
Mouse Logitech G5 Gaming Laser Mouse
Backup Cyber Power Smart App Sinewave PP1500SWT2 1500VA /
1000Watts Pure Sinewave, Full AVR buck/boost
USB Hub Rosewill RHB-320R 7 Ports USB 2.0 Hub with Power Adapter
Run your test again, but this time, lower your resolution really low and turn off AA.
Lowest graphics quality, 640x480 resolution, and no effects... Because that's how people are playing their games, right?
/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=475&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=7
You're implying that people who buy a 980X are going to be pairing it up with 5570 or something low-end? Pretty sure all the people that are throwing in $1,000 CPUs will be getting damn near four digits worth of graphics cards to add on to that as well.
I've never understood why benchmarkers (I appreciate that BmR does CPU reviews at 1680x1050+, how people who spend $300+ on CPUs probably plan to play it) review CPUs by downing the res to the lowest it will go. Won't you get a similar performance indicator by running AIDA64 or 3DMark for a loop or two? I know very few people who game on or below 1280x1024, and those people are using rigs that play things natively at that resolution (4350s and AMD Athlon K8 dual-cores), not on six-cores and SLI setups.
Now that being said I do partially agree with you. To many review sites in my opinion worry about the wrong number when measuring frame rates and even the major benchmarks post it wrong. I could care less what the max or average frame rate, what I want is the minimum frame rate.
Having 30 as the high end would just be bad becuase as you said spike will drive it lower. Having 30 as the average would still have th potential for spikes to drive it lower and cause stutter, but 30 at the minimum is perfect and would give butter smooth play rates.
As for overclocking being a big help, NOT! Overclocking might give you and extra 10% or so in typcial game performance but that is it. Now if you are right at the limit say hitting 28 at the bottom then overclocking will help to possibly lift the system to the minimum but it will not be a magic cure-all for performance.
As for the 9 months from now statement NOT true. You see gamers tned to get caught up in FPS games as the be all of gaming but thr truth is other genres, specifically MMOs are passing it hard and fast andd the mainstream of gaming. For these people a systems hould give them 3 to 4 years of GREAT gaming even at a minimal cost becuase MMOs by there nature run on lower system specs and do not upgrade the engine every new revision like other games.
Go to the World of Warcraft forums and check out the 1,000 page long thread of people whining that this last expansion pack (Cataclysm) is too hard on their systems to run at good frame rates. Your logic is from 10 years ago.
Before you question the logic of someone else check your own. The concept of having a PC last for 3 to 4 years is a fairly new trend in gaming.
Regarding the case, from my experience "any case" makes it hard to upgrade. Get something tool-less with a disk cage and enough depth to fit large graphics cards.
But for most people (myself included), we're not filthy rich. We're middle class (although these days, I wonder if the middle class is a dying breed). I am a university student working as an accountant currently on co-op (or as Americans call it, an internship). We aim for price to performance. Even so, building a say, $3000-$4000 a year rig is probably an achievable goal for the upper middle class citizen that I will likely become.
Dave and Olin, I think that most people who read Benchmark Reviews know that their computers will handle the majority of games that can be thrown at it. Even I on a student's budget can afford something like the ATI 6800 series. Right now, I run an overclocked q6600, which has been "good enough" when I built the system (early 2008), although I'm waiting for the AMD Fusion and Intel enthusiast parts to come out. I will probably buy AMD. Then, after I finish my Master's Degree (which will be in fall of 2013) and get a full-time job, I will upgrade. I'm planning on upgrading to when the Nvidia 600s or the ATI 7000s come out.
But we keep on doing this, because we WANT to do it. We want the fastest performance possible, we want to be at the bleeding edge, and for many people, they are willing to pay up. We are geeks. We are early adopters of the latest and greatest. And we are your readers.
You've covered the topic well. Let me add that you are certainly discussing a one-system build that is a pleasure to game upon at an affordable price for Joe Average Budget. But the math also works in a family scenario: I had to try maintaining a mid-to-higher end "big boy toy" for my main rig while also maintaining some decent rigs in-house for the kids, each who had a decent system networked through the house.
So the budget absolutely had to leave some room to put beans on the table, etc. I take this as the core of your article. For folks that have unlimited funds, or massive credit card debt, sure, go on and get a thoroughly beastly rig every 4 months. For the rest of the budget minded, your article is spot on.
As the kids move on, the budget loosens up a bit. And believe me, the technology has changed beyond what your dream was last year anyway.
I would imagine this will change when the next gen consoles come out and is therefore something I think all system builders should consider when building a gaming rig, particularly if the relative proportion of pc gamers continues to drop.
"The Fast Enough Computer For Me, Myself and I, As (Fast Enough) Is For Sure An Opinion And Arguing For Different OPINIONS Is Just A Waste Of Time"
At 1920x1080 (My NATIVE Resolution), running at 60Hz with V-Sync on, All graphics details set to maximum, I can run Crysis at 52FPS for 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time, frame rates spike down to 30FPS at their lowest and spike up to 60FPS (face up against a wall)at their highest. These spikes in frame rate are quite noticeable. Not necessarily game breaking or even inhibiting but definitely noticeable. Who are you to tell me they aren't? Why don't you tell me how I feel about politics and religion while your at it?
Overclocking my CPU by 50% provides a meager 5-10FPS increase *depending on the game* with my setup. Everyone here is like "overclocking helps very minimally, 5-10 FPS ain't nothin!" If 30FPS is your goal, that's a %17 and 33% increase in frame rate, nearly %20 max in my case at 52FPS avg. Funny thing, math...
What kind of dinosaur systems are people running that want to make 30FPS their goal? Even my old Athalon with an 8800GTX can handle Starcraft2 at 30FPS. My gaming rig nails 200FPS when I turn off V-Sync on the large majority of my games. I didn't know they still sold hardware that makes 30FPS a significant number for most games.
But if I were to summarize what I see here it would simply be:
"Whaaa! My drop out ass can't get a job that pays well enough to get what I really want so I will pretend what I can afford is "Fast Enough".
As for the comments about jobs we will see how you feel Dagger once you quit living with Mom and Dad and have a few kids to put through college, a morgage, car payment, various insurances and so on to pay for yourself, in otherwords real life.
so wrong my athlon x4 620 OC by 25% easy cool and the Radeon 6850 is a little faster then the 1GB GTX460
There is no way to build any sort of gaming system that will carry you "8-10 years" unless your idea of a game is Solitaire. You'd be lucky if you could use the same case and power supply.
When this is happening gaming companies will aways be struggling to be a step ahead to increasing the approach to realism and awe inspiring graphics to give the gamer more indepth experiences. We are seeing just the beginning of acceptable 3d and surround sound systems now and larger displays are becoming more frequent. Some people play pc on a 65" lcd tv like a console and HD tv's are becoming more common replacements of desktop monitors.
The performance gains of the system you just listed above the "good enough computer" are conditional at best. And the computer you would built would really only last about as long as the "good enough computer" because newer technology would simply replace existing.
I think 4 years is the goal of any computer whether it be gaming or just watching videos. And plan for your final year of a computer to be a low end performer for what is new.
My GTX 285 still plays games on my 24" monitor fantastically, but It doesnt support DX10+ games, is now equal to the stock lowest end gtx card. Next year it will be 3 years old and will no longer be able to play everything at full settings. the forth year I plan on upgrading or be forced to reduce resolution and other settings to keep my frame rates up. But my $900 system will last 4 years of excellent gaming experience.
CPU: Phenom II x4 940 OC: 3.6 Ghz
MB: m3n78 Pro
RAM: 4gb ddr2 1066 OC: 1166
Graphics: evga gtx 285 sc
HHD: barracuda 7200.11 500gb
Case: antec 300 with full 5x fans
Historically I have found it best to buy the biggest ram modules. They tend to be populated with the latest chips and are easier to recycle on subsequent work horse builds.
I agree with others, The difference between 8x lanes and 16 x is tiny in graphics anyway. Even 4x is v close.
##techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI-Express_Scaling/25.html
Although, usb3 does sound exciting and I guess that uses a lane or two.
No mention of hybrid drives. On paper they sound great.
If i were a gamer, I would be tempted by eyefinity. 3 x20" = 60" for $300 - woo, but it would make your graphics card grunt, given the resolution you need.
It now works with crossfire, but last I heard it doesnt allow portrait mode (sounds attractive to me). May be fixed by now tho. Just sounds like drivers to me.
I am guessing, but I doubt a 6970 (? the single gpu one) is anything like double a 5870, so maybe 2x5870 is a poor mans crossfire rig, esp if you already have one.
The other wonderful thing about amd is they dont change sockets at the drop of a hat like intel. A cpu upgrade invariably means a new mobo with intel.
All you have to do is read this article.
=> #en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7523
Pentium XE 955 (3.46Ghz from 2005/06. P4 era.)
VS
Core i3 530 (2.93Ghz).
The more important factor is architecture: P4 "Presler" vs Core i3 "Clarkdale".
Comparing prices of these two products reminds one of why you shouldn't bother with overpriced "Extreme Edition" versions.
ie:
Pentium XE 955 => approx AUD$1,500 back in Feb 2006.
Core i3 530 => approx AUD$150, Feb 2010.
(AUD = Australian Dollar)
...The Core i3 wins every single benchmark, and it does so by a considerable amount!
And if you're environmentally conscious; you also save 60W (idle) to 80W (load) in power consumption, if you dump the XE for a Core i3!
This clearly highlights one should stick to a good performing affordable-mainstream product. It costs you less in the overall scheme of things.
That depends on the games you play. Games up until the last year only threaded to 2 cores (Crysis). Some are now using 4 cores (BFBC2). It is said that Battlefield 3 will be threaded for 8 threads. I like DX11 and can tell the difference. I posted my rig earlier, up above. I have since upgraded to a GTX 570 (sold my GTX 280 on ebay for $100) and a Q9650 (sold my e7400 on ebay for $86.00) This cut my cost of upgrade. I can tell the difference in gaming, especially BFBC2. I chose to upgrade now while my old parts still have value to cut the cost of upgrade. I can play BFBC2 on max settings and max quality without stopping background processes in the 60's where before I was in the 20's (on line, multiplayer). More money spent does equal better performance no matter how you look at it. Watching the market and jumping the upgrade train at the proper time is also part of the FUN!
My E7400 cost me $110 2 years ago and sold on Ebay last night for $86.00. Suh-weet.
Quote: At the time Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was published, DICE was also working on the Frostbite-2.0 game engine. This upcoming engine will include native support for DirectX-10.1 and DirectX-11, as well as parallelized processing support for 2-8 parallel threads. This will improve performance for users with an Intel Core-i7 processor. Unfortunately, the Extreme Edition Intel Core i7-980X six-core CPU with twelve threads will not see full utilization.
Personally, I know my frames doubled in BFBC2 on line by moving from and E7400 @3.2ghz to a Q9650 @3.0ghz.
Were your frames online about 25-31? I have a backup system for my kids with the same processor on a XFX 780 SLI Chipset coupled with a ATI 5850 and my proc seems like it needs a boost for BFBC2. Did you get you FPS to the mid 40's 50's area by chance? The thing I don't want to do is shell out $200-$300 for a 2 year old processor. Man Intel knows how to stick it to ya. Although I love my new i5 2500k on my new MSI P67A-GD65 motherbooard & 16gig of ram.
Just because it was said by some random weirdo from Australia named C0DEINE on some forum doesn't make it so, especially considering he shut his trap when someone asked him for a source.