Results 21 to 40 of 48
22-03-2013, 02:28 PM #21
22-03-2013, 02:34 PM #22
22-03-2013, 02:44 PM #23
22-03-2013, 03:18 PM #24
the 1900xtx came out in 2006, my analogy was that hardware before 2006 would be obsolete (even if the x1900xtx was dead in the water with the release of geforce 8 series). What did ati and nvidia release in 2005?
geforce 7800 GT, 21fps average
radeon X1800, 23.3fps average
that's on a resolution of 1280x1024, basically an android smartphone's screen resolution. Keep in mind that things got considerably more complex than oblivion from 2007 onwards.
Last edited by mashakos; 22-03-2013 at 03:21 PM.
22-03-2013, 03:31 PM #25
1280x1024 was a typical or above-average gaming resolution in 2006. Even today, 1280x1024 and equivalent or lower resolutions make up about half of the computers registered in the Steam hardware survey.
So you could play Oblivion on MAXIMUM settings at a good resolution with the x1900xtx. With older cards you could surely have run it at lower settings. Anandtech confirms that by testing older cards at high settings. Lower settings would clearly have been playable.
22-03-2013, 05:13 PM #26
22-03-2013, 09:11 PM #27
This thread went a bit mental but anyone kind enough to read my OP, I'm still open to suggestions. Cheers, be happy!
22-03-2013, 10:37 PM #28
It references 155 pounds. Is that the budget? It's really hard to shop for computer parts if you don't know how much someone is willing to spend.
(I'm assuming you're just shopping for CPU, mobo and RAM)
23-03-2013, 12:28 AM #29
Yea I was looking at a low spend, so sub £200 or thereabouts, or any ideas are welcome. And yes, just CPU mobo and RAM.
23-03-2013, 03:23 AM #30
Might be able to squeeze in an FX-6300 then, though with the current spike in RAM prices it'll necessitate a pretty cheap motherboard.
Say an FX-6300 for £106, some Patriot DDR3-1866 for £40 (because I couldn't seem to find DDR3-1600 that was much cheaper and didn't have 1-2 months shipping), and a Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3 for £52½.
23-03-2013, 10:06 AM #31
Not bad, thanks for the suggestions.
23-03-2013, 04:22 PM #32
Hmm. If you are going sub 200 pounds, would it perhaps be an option to get an Intell i3 processor, and immeaditely upgrade your motherboard to DDR3 and get 8 gigs of that? I think you are still below 200 pounds when you do that, and the i3 is reasonbly future-proof (Hyper threading works almost as well as a full quad core these days, as tom's hardwares Far Cry 3 benchmarks show).
However, I would personally recommend that you go over the 200 pound budget and get an i5-3470. It will cost you... roughly 40-50 pounds more I think.
The reasoning behind this is, is simple: Currently, Intell's newer generations are only slightly faster then the generations that preceeded it, and even my Q6600+DDR2 still holds it's own in all the games. The thing is: By the time you need to upgrade your processor, you will need to upgrade your motherboard and ram as well, since by the time it happens, technology will have moved on and getting more ram for your current mobo or a better processor for your current mobo wil be terribly hard (Which is basically what is happening to you right now - DDR3 is already out and stuff). A full upgrade will net you more performance per buck in those cases.
Since the i5-3470 meets Intell's flagship I7-3960x in game-performance in every game except Crysis 3 (where it lags only slightly behind), it has stellar price-performance capabilities - and it will probably last a very very very long while before that one needs upgrading. I recommend that you then pick a cheaper graphics card - in my experience, those need to be replaced a bit faster, and graphics can be scaled down. The amount of CPU power your game needs usually can not.
EDIT2: This looks like a very good deal. The P variant indicates that the onboard graphics chip has been removed (which you will not be using anyway), and the 2nd generation i5 is not slower then the 3rd generation, it just draws more energy. For 225 pounds, this is an AWESOME deal.
Last edited by Grizzly; 23-03-2013 at 04:37 PM.
23-03-2013, 05:56 PM #33
23-03-2013, 10:46 PM #34
23-03-2013, 11:32 PM #35
25-03-2013, 09:42 PM #36
25-03-2013, 10:01 PM #37
60 FPS is not a necessity. And 1600x1200 was a high-end resolution at the time, like 2560x1440 is today.
26-03-2013, 01:29 PM #38
- Join Date
- May 2012
28-03-2013, 11:46 PM #39
I wouldn't use AMD and would stick with ASRock in any case (they're cheap and reliable).
In the US a Core i3 3220 is $130, an ASRock H77M motherboard is $70, and a 2x4 GB RAM kit from a reputable outfit is ~$50. That's about 160 pounds, and you ought to be able to get at least some of that at a sale price or with a package discount or whatever. Not quite sure how your taxes figure into that, though.
ASRock's H77 Pro4-M is like $10 more and has two more RAM slots, but if your PC use isn't particularly memory-intensive you won't need to upgrade that in the foreseeable future anyway (and ftm a 2x8 GB RAM kit is just ~$100).
I haven't been putting AMD CPUs in general use or gaming PCs for the last few years because Intel tends to dominate single-threaded performance at most price brackets and their processors are appreciably less power-hungry (for instance, the 4170 has a 125 W TDP whereas the 3220's is 55 watts).
If you can, keep what you have left for a mid-range GPU upgrade in the near future; you'll be quite significantly GPU-bottlenecked if you're using a 1080p screen...
Last edited by Jambe; 28-03-2013 at 11:59 PM.
31-03-2013, 03:23 PM #40
- Join Date
- May 2012
Might be a problem if the OP is in uk. ;) Prices or availability do not translate.