How muc fps at ultra with this setup?

[original182]

How muc fps at ultra with this setup?

Hey all,

Right now I am struggling with fps due to using a 2-3 year old PC, and I plan to upgrade.

How much fps will this spec give me at ultra?

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (6 Cores)
AsRock Fatal1ty 990FX PRO Motherboard
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1866 8GB(2X4GB) Memory
Power Color HD6950 2GB GDDR5 PCIE VGA Card
Samsung 1TB Hard Disk
NZXT Guardian Gaming Case
Corsair HX850 Power Supply

UPDATED 2011-10-22
Graphics Card Sapphire HD6970 2GB GDDR5 PCIE VGA Card
CPU Intel Core i5 2500 Processor
Mobo ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 Motherboard
RAM Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 8GB Kit CL8
HDD Samsung F3 1TB Hard Disk
DVD LiteOn 24x DVD Writer
Case Antec 900 II v3
PSU Corsair HX750
Sound Card Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro Series
Speakers Creative SBS A300 2.1

 

[GuyNwah]

Hey all,

Right now I am struggling with fps due to using a 2-3 year old PC, and I plan to upgrade.

How much fps will this spec give me at ultra?

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (6 Cores)
AsRock Fatal1ty 990FX PRO Motherboard
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1866 8GB(2X4GB) Memory
Power Color HD6950 2GB GDDR5 PCIE VGA Card
Samsung 1TB Hard Disk
NZXT Guardian Gaming Case
Corsair HX850 Power Supply

Best guess, 40-60fps if you don't enable Ubersampling. Hardly anybody gets better results than that. Nice choices, by the way. Make sure that Samsung is a model F3. Earlier Samsungs were severely unreliable.

 

[original182]

Best guess, 40-60fps if you don't enable Ubersampling. Hardly anybody gets better results than that. Nice choices, by the way. Make sure that Samsung is a model F3. Earlier Samsungs were severely unreliable.

Ok thanks. Do you recommend I get anything better? I'm thinking of getting an i7, but I feel games are more graphics intensive than cpu intensive, so I don't feel like spending too much on CPU.

I plan to upgrade for Skyrim as well.

 

[GuyNwah]

Ok thanks. Do you recommend I get anything better? I'm thinking of getting an i7, but I feel games are more graphics intensive than cpu intensive, so I don't feel like spending too much on CPU.

I plan to upgrade for Skyrim as well.

I don't think you'll do much better, not with this game. If you were to go with Intel, the Sandy Bridge Core i5 (don't bother with the i7 just for gaming) may be the better CPU now, but if you stay with the AMD build, you'll be able to upgrade to "Zambezi" once AMD gets their act together (it's too buggy running Windows to recommend yet).

 

[username_3236168]

Guy N'wah is right but Power Colour is shit brand, tell me how much it cost in your native currency and i'll find you better and more reliable graphics card.

and the there is no point for the 6 core cpu, most things don't even use 2 efficiently, you could save a lot going for phenom II X4 955 or any black edition above and save quite a bit and get same performance.
X4 VS X6 comparison

and if you want proper speed without your system going slower over time get a 60 GB SSD just to put your OS onto and have the rest on the normal hard drive.

any other questions just ask i'll be more than happy to help

 

[original182]

Guy N'wah is right but Power Colour is shit brand, tell me how much it cost in your native currency and i'll find you better and more reliable graphics card.

and the there is no point for the 6 core cpu, most things don't even use 2 efficiently, you could save a lot going for phenom II X4 955 or any black edition above and save quite a bit and get same performance.
X4 VS X6 comparison

and if you want proper speed without your system going slower over time get a 60 GB SSD just to put your OS onto and have the rest on the normal hard drive.

any other questions just ask i'll be more than happy to help

Thanks for your response. So you don't think I should try and get i5 2500 CPU? Or is the Phenom II X4 955 enough to last me a long time, even for CPU intensive games?

Ok I'm actually in Brunei right now, so brace yourself for the price of the Powercolor HD 6950.

SGD$888 (US$701.64)

I don't want to use SSD because it is terribly expensive and the money could be used to get a better graphics card.

Any questions I might have would be if I can get a better bang for the buck in terms of performance/price. Or are the specs good value, and anything better is actually too expensive for little improvement?

 

[dragonbird]

Ok I'm actually in Brunei right now, so brace yourself for the price of the Powercolor HD 6950.

SGD$888 (US$701.64)

Do you go over to Singapore very often? I just did a quick check, and the first shop I looked at in Sim Lim was selling the Gigabyte card at S$415. That price difference would probably pay for your air ticket.
Bell Systems Price list

That was just the first one I looked at, so it isn't necessarily even the best.

Oh, and a word of warning about the 6950. Check that it will fit your casing - it's a very long card (either 11" or 11.5", I can't remember which, but I've just remembered why I bought the 560Ti)

 

[original182]

Do you go over to Singapore very often? I just did a quick check, and the first shop I looked at in Sim Lim was selling the Gigabyte card at S$415. That price difference would probably pay for your air ticket.
Bell Systems Price list

That was just the first one I looked at, so it isn't necessarily even the best.

Oh, and a word of warning about the 6950. Check that it will fit your casing - it's a very long card (either 11" or 11.5", I can't remember which, but I've just remembered why I bought the 560Ti)

Flying to Singapore just to buy a PC? That sounds bad@$$.
Warranty may be a problem though.

Are you Singaporean? Do you know any reliable trustworthy online sites that ships PC parts to south east asia region?

 

[username_3236168]

Thanks for your response. So you don't think I should try and get i5 2500 CPU? Or is the Phenom II X4 955 enough to last me a long time, even for CPU intensive games?

Ok I'm actually in Brunei right now, so brace yourself for the price of the Powercolor HD 6950.

SGD$888 (US$701.64)

I don't want to use SSD because it is terribly expensive and the money could be used to get a better graphics card.

Any questions I might have would be if I can get a better bang for the buck in terms of performance/price. Or are the specs good value, and anything better is actually too expensive for little improvement?

in terms of games you won't see a real difference between X4 and i5, only in cpu specific benchmarks or programs that fully utilise the cpu. So for gaming go with X4.

Also ram get 1600Mhz. The 1866mhz won't give you any difference in games at all.
a 1333Mhz ram can beat a 1866 ram with tighter timings, so instead of C9 try to find C8 or lower ram, remember tighter timings means faster ram. Just think of timings as delays so C9 means 9 units delay before next operation, C8 means 8 units delay before next operation.

 

[dragonbird]

Flying to Singapore just to buy a PC? That sounds bad@$$.
Warranty may be a problem though.

Are you Singaporean? Do you know any reliable trustworthy online sites that ships PC parts to south east asia region?

No, but I lived there until about a year ago, and I still go back to buy computer equipment.

I bought my 560Ti there in June. (And a hard drive, half a dozen thumb drives, and a router)
Warranty is an issue, so that's the risk you'd be taking. Also, if you're planning to buy the full computer, you'd better check on import tax. I assume there must be some reason why Brunei is much more expensive, and it would be fairly obvious when you wheel it through customs. On the upside, it's possible to get around 8% discount (cash payment + SG tax refund).

I don't know anyone who ships - it was never something I needed to do. If you go through the VR-Zone Sim Lim listings from the links in my last post, you may find someone. Most of the Sim Lim computer shops are reliable, and the best prices in Singapore.

There's a big computer show on near the end of November at Singapore Expo. If you don't mind the crowds, and the timing is right, their prices will be even better.

Feel free to follow-up through PM if you need more detail.

 

[tahirahmed]

apart from settings, fps depends on your resolution. With everything set on ultra (uber sampling off) my setup yields 104 (max) fps now before you raise your eye brow my resolution is only 1366x768 (19'' inch LCD) so that's pretty much out dated resolution, my setup is as follows.

Processor: Core i5 2500k @stock
Ram: 4 GB Corsair XMS3 1600 Mhz
Graphics card: Sapphire Radeon 6970 2 GB
Mobo: Asus P8P67 B3
HDD: 320 GB x2 (WD)
PSU: OCZ GameXtreme 850 watts
Case: Storm Sniper AMD Dragon Edition.

EDIT: @OP... Oh lol you're the same guy who asked me about fps on other thread

 

[steelbom]

I'd recommend you get the i5 2500K and a 6950. If you're happy to overclock your CPU, grab a Noctua NH-D14 and get it up to around 4.4GHz. Here's a benchmark with several CPUs and a GTX 590 in The Witcher 2: link

That doesn't mean you'll see those improvements, just that the i5 2500K is going to be less of a bottleneck of any (or most) AMD processor you use (assuming it is a bottleneck, it may not be).

 

[username_3236168]

I'd recommend you get the i5 2500K and a 6950. If you're happy to overclock your CPU, grab a Noctua NH-D14 and get it up to around 4.4GHz. Here's a benchmark with several CPUs and a GTX 590 in The Witcher 2: link

That doesn't mean you'll see those improvements, just that the i5 2500K is going to be less of a bottleneck of any (or most) AMD processor you use (assuming it is a bottleneck, it may not be).

not really even dual core doesn't do any bottleneck
dual core I3 bottnech review

 

[tahirahmed]

You can also mod your 6950 to make it 6970 but it requires some knowledge, if you're unsure how to do this then don't go for it, not worth it TBH.

 

[tahirahmed]

not really even dual core doesn't do any bottleneck
dual core I3 bottnech review

You're kinda wrong... Older CPUs do cause bottlenecks, I experienced it myself. My previous config was Intel Q9550 Oced to 3.0 Ghz with Radeon 4870 512 MB and I was struggling with The Witcher 2, then I purchased a new mobo+ram+processor (i5 2500k) but kept the same graphic card (Radeon 4870 512 MB) and almost all my performance related problems went away... I moved from low/medium profile to a mix of medium/high just by changing the processor, I even started to feel that graphics card upgrade is not necessary now but since I made my mind for 6970 I went for it...

Bottom line is only CPUs can make huge difference if you pick the right one.

@OP

I also recommend you to get i5 2500k its a great processor for gaming, while the processor you chose is also good but 6 cores doesn't really help in gaming, they are great for audio/video trans coding, rendering programs etc... but for gaming SandyBridge is your best bet atm... Check out this direct comparison between the AMD CPU you chose and i5 2500k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203

 

[steelbom]

not really even dual core doesn't do any bottleneck
dual core I3 bottnech review

That depends on the graphics card and what game is being played though.

 

[GuyNwah]

Guy N'wah is right but Power Colour is shit brand, tell me how much it cost in your native currency and i'll find you better and more reliable graphics card.

and the there is no point for the 6 core cpu, most things don't even use 2 efficiently, you could save a lot going for phenom II X4 955 or any black edition above and save quite a bit and get same performance.
X4 VS X6 comparison

and if you want proper speed without your system going slower over time get a 60 GB SSD just to put your OS onto and have the rest on the normal hard drive.

any other questions just ask i'll be more than happy to help

PowerColor is a reputable brand. Better than Sapphire anyway. They make a lot of cheap low-end cards, but they also make factory OC enthusiast cards at the other end of their line.

You're right about the 4 vs. 6 cores. Unless you have an explicit use for 6 cores, it's a waste of money.

I still dislike the common practice of installing Windows on an SSD. Windows 7 does a lot better than earlier Windows, but Windows does a lot of random writes to its system disk, and SSDs are not sufficiently better than mechanical disks on that workload to justify the cost. If you do put Windows on the SSD, at least put the pagefile somewhere else.

What I do like to do is install applications on the SSD. I don't care whether Windows loads 20 seconds faster; I only load it once a day. But I do want my applications to load their components and resources as fast as they can.

 

[tahirahmed]

PowerColor is a reputable brand. Better than Sapphire anyway. They make a lot of cheap low-end cards, but they also make factory OC enthusiast cards at the other end of their line.

And what makes you think that PowerColor is a better brand than Sapphire ? I am not going into a debate but I am using Sapphire from 3 years or more and I saw PowerColor cards as well, I don't find anything in Sapphire which makes it worse than PowerColor or anything in PowerColor that makes it better, I can say XFX is worse than Sapphire or any other ATI brand because they really mess up their custom designs, specially that egg shaped cooler is the worst thing XFX ever created but Sapphire's custom designs are really good specially their VaporX cards plus they also release factory OC cards named as Toxic Editions.

 

[username_3236168]

PowerColor is a reputable brand. Better than Sapphire anyway. They make a lot of cheap low-end cards, but they also make factory OC enthusiast cards at the other end of their line.

You're right about the 4 vs. 6 cores. Unless you have an explicit use for 6 cores, it's a waste of money.

I still dislike the common practice of installing Windows on an SSD. Windows 7 does a lot better than earlier Windows, but Windows does a lot of random writes to its system disk, and SSDs are not sufficiently better than mechanical disks on that workload to justify the cost. If you do put Windows on the SSD, at least put the pagefile somewhere else.

What I do like to do is install applications on the SSD. I don't care whether Windows loads 20 seconds faster; I only load it once a day. But I do want my applications to load their components and resources as fast as they can.

it's not only that, once your hard drive slows down so does your whole system and everything with it.

btw i had my SSD for over a year now and this is extracted data:

231: SSD Life Left Approximate SSD life Remaining: 100%
241: SSD Lifetime writes from host Number of bytes written to SSD: 2280 GB
242: SSD Lifetime reads from host Number of bytes read from SSD: 4368 GB

and it's still healthy

and about powercolour you might be right but i haven't heard much good feedback about them, thought i heard their customer service is nice.

 

[GuyNwah]

it's not only that, once your hard drive slows down so does your whole system and everything with it.

btw i had my SSD for over a year now and this is extracted data:

231: SSD Life Left Approximate SSD life Remaining: 100%
241: SSD Lifetime writes from host Number of bytes written to SSD: 2280 GB
242: SSD Lifetime reads from host Number of bytes read from SSD: 4368 GB

and it's still healthy

and about powercolour you might be right but i haven't heard much good feedback about them, thought i heard their customer service is nice.

SSD lifetime doesn't concern me. That's been dealt with very well in controller and operating system support.

That 2280 GB of writes is what bugs me about putting Windows on the SSD. It's a waste of expensive gigabytes to use a fast-read, slow-write medium for a mix that's only 2:1 read:write.