Please advise on new gaming rig, BFBC2 specifically!

[NTAC]

Hi guys,

My mission: To play BFBC2 on high settings without any problems what so ever at my native resolution of 1680 x 1050

My current setup is Gigabyte 965P-DS3 w/ e4300 / 260 GTX / 4 GB DDR 2

I tried o'clocking this thing but ran into strange issues, so I'm about fed up with it, and I've had it for about 3 years so its about that time.

I have a case I like, a HD that I'm happy with and a PSU that I think is just fine, but please advise if you think otherwise: http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/other/atx-psu6/8p6s.jpg

However, a note on the PSU is that it is a prime suspect for my current O'clocking failures, so if I was to get a new one, what would you recommend?

I'm currently looking at this setup:
ASUS m4a79xtd - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131402
AMD Phenom II X4 965 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103727
4 GB DD3 Crucial - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148160

Will that get it done coupled with the 260 GTX?

I'm also curious about Crossfire in the event that the 260 GTX isn't going to cut it. I don't know much about Crossfire, but am I correct in assuming that the maximum amount of cards I can Crossfire with this MOBO is 2?

And finally, I don't care if I go AMD or Intel, I just want the best bang for my buck. I'd like to stay under $350 if possible, and the setup I posted seems to slide under that nicely, but I'm very open to any suggestions.

Thanks!!

PS: Someone suggested that I can just plug this guy into my current MOBO: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=AFC-C8Junction&AID=10446076&PID=3332167&SID=

That would certainly be cheaper, but would it accomplish my goal? How much better is DDR2 ram vs DDR3?

 

[Schmide]

Your board supports yorkfield.

Pick up a q9550 or so and be done with it. BFBC2 needs a quad to run smoothly.

 

[Davidh373]

I agree with Schmide. It would be cheaper for you to keep the board you have and get the core 2 quad. It's not quite as fast, but it's all you need for gaming. If you were in the "I want to build a whole brand new computer to keep the old one running" category, I would say go with the Phenom, but you aren't.

Reuse every part from your old build except the Processor.

One question, how beefy is the PSU, you'll need about 500W-600W to use that proc and quad core.

You may also want to get your hands on a clean hard drive for boot, or storage if you don't already have a multi-drive setup.

 

[NTAC]

The PSU is 700W, I have a link to it in my initial post, although its reliability has been called into question based on the Oclocking issues I"m having with my current setup.

So this guys is about $70 cheaper: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3332167&SID=

Than this guy: http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82e16819115041

Is there that much more improvement from the 9400 to the 9550? I see that the L2 Cache is doubled....

And you guys are saying that I'll be able to run BFBC2 on that resolution with everything on high without any problems, because that is my goal, nothing less.

 

[Axon]

At 1680, I believe either of those processors will do the trick with your current GPU. 9400 might need some overclocking, I'm not super familiar with its capabilities. Do you have a Microcenter near you? They have the 9550 in stock for $169.99. Great deal.

 

[Davidh373]

You won't see too much difference. Dual core processors are just now being used to their full potential, quad cores aren't the standard... yet. I would go for the $189.99 one, then maybe down the line you can decide to upgrade.

 

[NTAC]

You won't see too much difference. Dual core processors are just now being used to their full potential, quad cores aren't the standard... yet. I would go for the $189.99 one, then maybe down the line you can decide to upgrade.

Well everyone seems to say that BFBC2 loves Quad Core... I think I'm going to go with the 9550 suggestion, and then I figured that I can roll with that proc for a while and upgrade MOBO and what not later on if I want to do crossfire or something like that.

 

[Davidh373]

Good thinking. I was just looking out for your budget. The 9550 is a better processor.
Good decision on Crossfire as well (it really isn't as important as people make it out to be).

 

[Schmide]

Microcenter just dropped the q9550 to $180 again. (In store only)

 

[NTAC]

Microcenter just dropped the q9550 to $180 again. (In store only)

Well that's frustrating, considering how there isn't one anywhere near me How the heck can they sell it for $180 where everywhere else its at lest 240?!

 

[Davidh373]

I don't understand why microcenter cant just ship to people...

 

[jdjbuffalo]

Well that's frustrating, considering how there isn't one anywhere near me How the heck can they sell it for $180 where everywhere else its at lest 240?!

I don't understand why microcenter cant just ship to people...

They sell them as loss-leaders*. They are used to get people to come into the store to buy other things. This doesn't tend to happen for online sales, so you rarely see these online. Usually the best you will see online is something sold at cost with a similar strategy but to minimize losses in case it doesn't work.

*A loss leader or leader[1] is a product sold at a low price (at cost or below cost)[2] to stimulate other, profitable sales. It is a kind of sales promotion, in other words marketing concentrating on a pricing strategy. The price can even be so low that the product is sold at a loss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

 

[Schmide]

Well with tax it comes out to 190something.

Too bad the tigerdirect bing has dropped to 8.3%, at 15% you could get it shipped for $213. As is now it would be $229.25.

 

[Davidh373]

They sell them as loss-leaders*. They are used to get people to come into the store to buy other things. This doesn't tend to happen for online sales, so you rarely see these online. Usually the best you will see online is something sold at cost with a similar strategy but to minimize losses in case it doesn't work.

*A loss leader or leader[1] is a product sold at a low price (at cost or below cost)[2] to stimulate other, profitable sales. It is a kind of sales promotion, in other words marketing concentrating on a pricing strategy. The price can even be so low that the product is sold at a loss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

I gotcha, it makes sense I guess.

 

[NTAC]

I was looking at some older posts around the web regarding this proc and I saw that newegg and others had it as low as 200ish at some point.. why the price increase?

So how important is that L2 cache anyway... does the 9550 really kick the 9400s arse?

 

[Schmide]

I wouldn't say it kicks its ass, but the double cache is a 5-15% boost. If you're an overclocker the 8.5 multiplier helps a lot getting to 4ghz.

 

[TheStu]

According to my friend (who knows what he is talking about here), BFBC2 runs 'silky smooth' on my rig (see sig). And that is at 1920*1080. I think that shadows are turned down or off, but everything else is at full settings. Looking over his shoulder, it certainly looked quite fantastic.

I have heard the same regarding quad cores though, so you might want to consider putting that in, you will see benefits across the board that way.

Also, are you running XP or 7?

 

[NTAC]

According to my friend (who knows what he is talking about here), BFBC2 runs 'silky smooth' on my rig (see sig). And that is at 1920*1080. I think that shadows are turned down or off, but everything else is at full settings. Looking over his shoulder, it certainly looked quite fantastic.

I have heard the same regarding quad cores though, so you might want to consider putting that in, you will see benefits across the board that way.

Also, are you running XP or 7?

Win 7. I think Shadows make a HUGE difference though, not only visually but performance wise.. at least from my experience.

But yeah I expect it to run pretty well with 9550 / 260 GTX, that's most likely the path I'll be taking.

 

[Davidh373]

Win 7. I think Shadows make a HUGE difference though, not only visually but performance wise.. at least from my experience.

But yeah I expect it to run pretty well with 9550 / 260 GTX, that's most likely the path I'll be taking.

Lighting and shadows make a huge difference in 3D rendering.

 

[MisterDonut]

Any chance of selling off your current mobo? If you're stuck with spending about $250 for a new processor, you might as well salvage the rest of your rig and a little more money for the 1156 platform. That's just me though...

 

[NTAC]

Well now I'm having second thoughts.

The 9550 is $250, which is a nice chunk, and kinda sounds like a dead end architecturally speaking, unless I"m reading things wrong.

The AMD setup would be about $150 more for me, so about $400, but seems like it would be more upgradable in the future.

I'm trying to find benchmarks to see which of these two CPUs handle BFBC2 better, 9550 or Phenom 955...

I guess part of my concern is that my MOBO (965P-DS3 Rev 3.3) doesn't officially support the 9550, so if I have any issues I'd have to spring for a new mobo anyway, at which point I'd be shelling out another $100 or so bucks.

Am I making sense or am I just flat out wrong?

 

[raygunpk]

955!

 

[M0RPH]

I think some people here might be exaggerating a little about the benefits of quad core in this game. Check this article.

Update: For those that were concerned about dual vs. quad-core CPU battle, here is a little more info...

The game appears to be using all four cores when available. Here we used a standard Core i7 920 processor running at 2.66GHz. Please note HyperThreading was disabled and a single Radeon HD 5850 graphics card was used. As you can see none of the cores are working very hard.

Here is the same Core i7 920 processor with two cores disabled as well as HyperThreading. As you can see neither core is maxed out, but the CPU utilization is much higher. So again, a decent dual core processor such as a Core 2 Duo E8xxx or Phenom II X2 should be enough to get the most out of your graphics card in this game. While it is quad-core optimized, the game is not demanding enough on the CPU to warrant it based on what I have seen so far.

 

[MisterDonut]

I think some people here might be exaggerating a little about the benefits of quad core in this game. Check this article.

I seriously don't doubt that. HOWEVER, that's coming from somebody playing BFBC2 on a 9550, and everybody else I know that plays uses a quad-core. There aren't many games that warrant the necessity for a quad-core, but again, I can't tell from personal experience, just what I've heard here and there. I would be more worried about a good GPU.

If you are intent on a quad-core, you can pick up the A2 620 Propus for under $100. AFAIK, the 955 is nearly identical to most Intel quad-cores for gaming purposes. Honestly, I would just shell out the money for an i5-750, so I wouldn't have to worry about any near future upgrades. Maybe even bump up that monitor to 1920 and snag a 5850 for some eye pleasure.

 

[Schmide]

Edit: There is a patch releasing today, maybe it will make things better.

I think some people here might be exaggerating a little about the benefits of quad core in this game. Check this article.

Read the comments, all 100 posts of it. There is quite some disagreement there. It plays fine until you hit some major sandbox destruction in close combat with a couple of other players then frames drop when you need them most.

on March 10, 2010
6:21 AM Hey Beretta1979 thanks for signing up and the feeback you have provided. We did test with 2xAA and you are right that does have a negative impact on performance. Vsync was certainly disabled, as was HBAO.

Look it is quite possible that you did see such a huge performance increase. I admitted in one of my first posts that we have not done enough processor testing and in the article I was basing my opinions on what I had seen so far. In all honesty I have only tested heavily overclocked dual-core processors and it is very likely that at frequencies below 3GHz quad-core processors will provide tangible performance gains.

The aim of the article, at least my aim was to test a range of GPU’s in the best possible conditions (Core i7) to show the readers what kind of GPU they will need to play Battlefield: Bad Company 2. After all if a graphics card is not able to provide playable performance with a Core i7 processor nothing is going to change with slower quad-core and dual-core processors.

Certainly it would be great to do some real comparisons with Core 2 Duo/Quad and Phenom II X2/X4 processors but that’s a lot of testing and would warrant its own article. I am holding out at this stage until I can find an accurate means to test the multiplayer aspect of this game.

Ohh and I didn't mean to pick on the Radeon HD 4870. I just meant that by today's standards its just a mid-range graphics card...