39 replies to this topic

[Flapdrol]

Snakeguy612, on 23 November 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

So, everything about Lord Letto's build is good, except the water cooler? And an i5 can run the game like an i7 can?

I'd also leave out the second 970.

In my opinion multigpu is something for expierenced enthousiasts, who are willing to troubleshoot issues for the better performance.

could use the money for a nicer case, or an even bigger ssd , and yeah, games generally run just as well on an i5 as an i7, some run better on the i7, but only 15% or something.

As for coolers, just get a popular reasonably priced aircooler, all of them are good enough for nice overclocks and low noise, because all of them ar 4 times as big as the stock cooler, hyper 212 evo, mugen 4, tranquilo rev2, all will be fine.

Edited by Flapdrol, 23 November 2014 - 09:19 AM.

[Phlyer42]

Ok sweet, As long as it can run the game at over 60FPS, on high/very high settinges, im good with it. Cause the computer im using sticks in the lower 30s to 20s, with dips into the single digits at times.

[Iqfish]

Snakeguy612, on 23 November 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

I cant find the HR-02 in the list, compatibility issues maybe?

That cooler is compatible with every possible socket on AMD and Intel. I don't know if it's being sold in the US, since it's european manufactured

[Phlyer42]

Iqfish, on 23 November 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

That cooler is compatible with every possible socket on AMD and Intel. I don't know if it's being sold in the US, since it's european manufactured

There is other models, but not that one, so which do you recommend?

[Iqfish]

Snakeguy612, on 23 November 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

There is other models, but not that one, so which do you recommend?

This one:

http://www.amazon.co...rmalright+macho

I'm using exactly the same and I could even unplug the fan, it would still run <80C

[poohead]

In response to the OP, I have a 3570K @ 4.4 and 2x 970s

I have everything on the highest settings except particles.

I have a 1080p TV as a monitor, but I play MWO using DSR in 1440P. In that setting it is 60-100 FPS.

4K DSR is a bit too much. Although it can be in the 80s, it sometimes dips down to the mid 20s. Not sure if this is SLI implementation, but I have read Crysis 3 benchmarked in 4K on SLI 970s averaging 30FPS so it sounds about right.

1 970 is plenty for 1080p MWO unless you want to guarantee 120FPS on an uber monitor.

[Phlyer42]

poohead, on 23 November 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

In response to the OP, I have a 3570K @ 4.4 and 2x 970s

I have everything on the highest settings except particles.

I have a 1080p TV as a monitor, but I play MWO using DSR in 1440P. In that setting it is 60-100 FPS.

4K DSR is a bit too much. Although it can be in the 80s, it sometimes dips down to the mid 20s. Not sure if this is SLI implementation, but I have read Crysis 3 benchmarked in 4K on SLI 970s averaging 30FPS so it sounds about right.

1 970 is plenty for 1080p MWO unless you want to guarantee 120FPS on an uber monitor.

Wow, what TV? Thats the kind of FPS im looking for!

[Iqfish]

Snakeguy612, on 23 November 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Wow, what TV? Thats the kind of FPS im looking for!

DO

NOT

PLAY

GAMES

ON

TVs!



Monitors have a reaction time and they have a total input lag. Reaction time is just a fraction of that.
http://www.displayla...splay-database/
Use this website to search for your preferred monitor.

Since TVs are certainly not made for gaming and the human brain does not recognize it if a VIDEO is delayed by 50ms, these displays have horribly gaming perfomances.
But if you control something on a PC with a mouse, 15ms are already too much for me personally.

You might get 120 fps on a 120hz monitor but as I already said twice now if your monitor is just abled to display 60hz everything above that makes no sense.

Some people even dont see the difference between 40 and 60 fps. Yes there is a slight difference between 60 and 120fps but you only really notice it in very fast games.
There are reports of people even disliking the high frame rate as it makes them sick but I can't provide experience here.

So again, I already gamed on 2 different TVs and that's just terrible. If you have the amount of money to get 2x 970s, don't settle for anything less than 15ms.
Since you are just looking into gaming, you won't need an IPS panel on your monitor.

There are no good TN-panel, 2K displays EXCEPT the PG278 from Asus, which is incredibly expensive.

You are best off with a good 24" FHD TN Panel or even a 144hz one. You might even want to go for G-Sync but again, I have no experience with that

[Lord Letto]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($299.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Macho-120 73.6 CFM CPU Cooler ($44.90 @ Amazon)
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver Ceramique 2 Tri-Linear 25g Thermal Paste ($6.24 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97M OC Formula Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($117.00 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($82.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Intel 320 Series 40GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($49.95 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($68.82 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 980 4GB AMP! Edition Video Card ($547.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Thermaltake Versa H34 ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 750W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($88.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1396.84
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-23 16:03 EST-0500

[poohead]

Snakeguy612, on 23 November 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Wow, what TV? Thats the kind of FPS im looking for!

Ha! Alas its only 60Hz at 1080p, but If I turn off Vsync I can see what the FPS is, I just get horrible tearing.

But its worth it for 60 inches of viewing pleasure!

Iqfish, on 23 November 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

DO

NOT

PLAY

GAMES

ON

TVs!



Monitors have a reaction time and they have a total input lag. Reaction time is just a fraction of that.
http://www.displayla...splay-database/
Use this website to search for your preferred monitor.

Since TVs are certainly not made for gaming and the human brain does not recognize it if a VIDEO is delayed by 50ms, these displays have horribly gaming perfomances.
But if you control something on a PC with a mouse, 15ms are already too much for me personally.

I don't agree. Human reaction time is in the region of 180-340ms (try this out if you dont believe me : http://www.humanbenc...s/reactiontime/ ) this is a much bigger consideration than input lag.

If you are playing a twitch-based shooter then maybe an additional 37ms lag (my TV according to the DB) will disadvantage you, but in MWO I don' think it will make the difference.

Technically speaking a higher FPS means you could gain a few milliseconds, as if you lock at 60FPS you cannot by definition get each frame displayed faster than every 0.0166 seconds.

[Iqfish]

poohead, on 23 November 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

Ha! Alas its only 60Hz at 1080p, but If I turn off Vsync I can see what the FPS is, I just get horrible tearing.

But its worth it for 60 inches of viewing pleasure!



I don't agree. Human reaction time is in the region of 180-340ms (try this out if you dont believe me : http://www.humanbenc...s/reactiontime/ ) this is a much bigger consideration than input lag.

If you are playing a twitch-based shooter then maybe an additional 37ms lag (my TV according to the DB) will disadvantage you, but in MWO I don' think it will make the difference.

Technically speaking a higher FPS means you could gain a few milliseconds, as if you lock at 60FPS you cannot by definition get each frame displayed faster than every 0.0166 seconds.

Have you ever played a non optimized online game with a ping of 180-340ms of lag?

you should read this:

http://www.displayla...-the-breakdown/

[poohead]

Iqfish, on 23 November 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

Have you ever played a non optimized online game with a ping of 180-340ms of lag?

What - you mean like MWO?

Having played MWO with pings of variously 90ms, 150ms and 300ms, I can comment that the effect on my performance is negligible. Ultra-twitch COD style shooters may be a different matter.

180-340 is human reaction time. Thats on top of display lag and network lag. So display lag from my TV is adding 10% on top of my reaction time and latency, that is a small fraction that will rarely make the difference in gaming.

Iqfish, on 23 November 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

you should read this:

http://www.displayla...-the-breakdown/

"These HDTVs will suit almost all of your gaming needs, unless you plan to compete in video game tournaments" - of which my HDTV is one.

Edited by poohead, 23 November 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[Flapdrol]

There are some TV's out there with low input lag, but most are pretty bad.

It may be lower than "human reaction time", but it's extra latency, and you notice it. Also, human benchmark measures reaction time + system latency, on my desktop I'm 50ms faster than on my laptop.

[xWiredx]

First off, water cooler: yes. Why? You're getting a K-series chip. Which one? I have an H105 by Corsair, and I don't think there's anything better unless you build a custom loop. 120mm rad instead? Probably the H80i if I had to pick one.

Second, monitor vs TV. Monitor. There are reasons listed above. Sure, you may get a bigger picture, but you won't actually get a better picture, and you also will have to deal with worse lag as stated above.

Third, everybody keeps spouting this nonsense about 60fps being more than the eye can see when it's been scientifically refuted a hundred times over.

Fourth, to SLI or not. It depends with the 970s. 2 reasons: one 970 will be enough to achieve your goal, and a 980 will be less expensive than two 970s. Then, when you finally need more horsepower, a second 980 will give you a better boost. If you fully intend on going SLI in the future no matter what, then just get the 970s now, as the price isn't falling on the 980s anytime soon.

Fifth, let me stress yet again in this forum about the importance of a good PSU. Don't feed high-end components crappy energy. Do your research and spend a few dollars more on a PSU that is higher quality.

[Catamount]

There's also a difference between a reaction time measurement and noticing input latency. Yes, action potential's speed limits may mean that it takes a quarter of a second, even in near instinct, to recieve an image, process it, and longest of all, actually move my finger and click the mouse button. Signal propagation in the human body varies all over the place, but can literally be less than a meter a second ins ome cases as I recall (wrong side of biology for me so those courses were a long ways back, but still).

That said, if I've move a mouse, and it takes a quarter of a second for the screen to register, I am not going to be oblivious to that. That's why Microstutter and framepacing were such big deals. Companies didn't take it seriously for years, because it wasn't measurable in a lab setting until things like FCAT came along, but jitters only dozens of milliseconds long were painfully noticible, and frame pacing issues of only a handful of milliseconds were at least bad, and cases where input lag were made worse became instantly noticible. You notice this far more on a mouse/KB than other control schemes because it's a zero order controller.

You also can't compare network latency to input latency, because client actions are not locked to server-side communications, time-wise. In other words, if I twitch left in a shooter, the screen doesn't sit there until the computer registers the movement, communicates with the server, and gets a returned confirmation of the movement. No, you twitch, you see yourself twitch, and the server catches up a handful of milliseconds later so that others see you with slight latency, but you yourself are not subject to that latency (and then various neat tricks like HSR are used to continously keep things synchronized).

TVs are not unplayably bad in many games, and I agree for MWO, it's at least going to be tolerable, but it is not ideal. Do it if you have to, but don't strive for that setup.

Edited by Catamount, 24 November 2014 - 06:58 AM.

[Catamount]

Don't worry, no one's going to let the OP run off with a crap Diablotek PSU, I mean, unless he says he wants his house to catch in fire. Letto's Capstone 750 deal is actually a great find. That's a Superflower unit, with near-platinum efficiency, solid voltage regulation and ripple that's just over a third of the spec (Johnny Guru couldn't get more than 50mv on the 12v maxing it in a hotbox; the OP won't see more than 15mv on this rig)

[Phlyer42]

Catamount, on 24 November 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Don't worry, no one's going to let the OP run off with a crap Diablotek PSU, I mean, unless he says he wants his house to catch in fire. Letto's Capstone 750 deal is actually a great find. That's a Superflower unit, with near-platinum efficiency, solid voltage regulation and ripple that's just over a third of the spec (Johnny Guru couldn't get more than 50mv on the 12v maxing it in a hotbox; the OP won't see more than 15mv on this rig)

Ok, so a monitor will have a better performance than a TV?

[Iqfish]

Snakeguy612, on 24 November 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Ok, so a monitor will have a better performance than a TV?

He is talking about Power Supplies.

And yes, they will.

[Catamount]

Yeah playing on a TV is okay if you have to do it, but generally speaking monitors are more responsive. I, for one, also prefer the better pixel density on a real monitor even if you do sit further from a TV (which I don't like anyways), but that's subjective.

The monitor may also just generally give far and away better picture quality. I don't know what TV you have, or how good it is, but while I've seen good results outputting a PC picture to some of the nicer TVs out there (eg. good Samsung IPS TVs), I've also seen TVs that just don't handle the signal from a PC well, either because they're ****** panels, or there's some kind of scaler issue going on, or something, but pixels look look washed out, text looks awful (keep in mind text in PC applications is much smaller/finer than what you see in, say, a console game), color and blacks look worse than even the cheapest of cheap passable PC monitors, etc, even after heroic attempts at improving the generally miserable out of the box calibrations. That will, again, vary based on what TV you have, and your monitor budget.

Edited by Catamount, 24 November 2014 - 01:26 PM.

[poohead]

Hey, if I could afford a 60" monitor, I would buy it, just sayin'

Anything but a 4K+ TV will look pixellated if you sit closer than 1m to it.

My particular Samsung plasma works well enough, but did take some calibration and general fiddling.