Viewing Thread:
"Suggest me a PC thread"

As you may know, I'm saving for a new graphics card and I'm looking at the GTX 960 as a good card for the money that also works well with a standard 500w PSU.

But....what if I saved a bit more and bought a new PC? My CPU is not great, it's an A8 APU and it's struggling at times, the motherboard is creaky and only an FM2 and won't take anything other than the APUs due to the wonderful knobbling HP do on their Bios. So I'm thinking here's a challenge, find me a PC (on Amazon as I have vouchers making up some of my money towards it, or take £150-£200 off the maximum price) that will; a) run all the latest games at high settings or thereabouts (not necessarily ultra), b) costs less than or around £500 and c) looks pretty.

This is the best I've come up with so far:


Go!

pb wrote:


Because, as stated in a million websites, Arkham Knight works better on lower end hardware and is a badly programmed mess that is bugged for higher end hardware. It's not a great example of anything other than how not to program a game for PC. It would be like saying your Ford Cortina is faster than a Ferrarri because you tested them both on a high street with speed bumps and the Ferrari couldn't go over the speed bumps.



I used to have a Mk1 Escort that would leave a Cosworth behind from a standing start too. Bought it for £100 from a breaker's yard, stripped it, added some cheap upgrades, put it back together.

Nobody believed that one either until they saw it.

Straight line or "race conditions", yes, a Ferrari is better. But for driving in general? A Fiesta's probably better and more versatile.

Not really a good "comparison" at all pb, considering the majority of games these days could be considered "speed bumps"...

Thank you pete ... there speaks a voice of calm and reason ... chas has blown a fuse ;¬)

depends which fuse ... Fiesta or Ferrari now

chasfh wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]@pb, I'm not "mixing up" anything, I'm stating categorically that the statement is ludicrous.

If there was a bottleneck, how in all the shades of hell could I even HOPE to play AK on a 2GB card?

With regard to upgrading, I have two slots for GPU's, enough room for as much RAM as I could possibly ever want, my mb will take an 8 core AMD processor, I have six SATA connectors for hard drives....

What else do you consider "upgrades"?

Because, as stated in a million websites, Arkham Knight works better on lower end hardware and is a badly programmed mess that is bugged for higher end hardware. It's not a great example of anything other than how not to program a game for PC. It would be like saying your Ford Cortina is faster than a Ferrarri because you tested them both on a high street with speed bumps and the Ferrari couldn't go over the speed bumps.

As I already clearly stated, it's not a bottleneck at all but the plain fact that most games use both CPU and GPU to run and FPS will be affected by both, though MOSTLY by GPU, hence the fact that most games are perfectly playable on AMD CPUs and some even on an old dual core pentium. Nearly all games use a maximum of 2 cores so more than that will not affect games (other non-gaming tasks, maybe, but even they work better first and foremost with better instruction sets). Plus your CPU actually has 4 physical cores, not 8, not that this makes a lot of difference as its down to single core performance.

Upgrading-wise, I was talking about newer, faster processors.

I've been running an AMD CPU in my last few PCs and I'd considered both for my new PC but the basic fact is that you get more out of an Intel CPU than an AMD and this fact will be compounded with time as games become more complicated,[/i]

So, after countless people berating me for stating I can run Arkham Knight without issue, it's now "expected? What "example" would you like?

Please...

And what about the Witcher 3? That the same deal is it? Dying light? Farcry 4?

3D rendering (Poser, Daz Studio, Carrara etc.) is also faster, smoother and a LOT less glitchy.

Also, what's the difference between a "bottleneck" and "slowdown"? Are they not the same thing?.[/i]

Bottleneck = CPU not allowing GPU instructions to come through fast enough, General FPS difference =.GPU and CPU working at maximum and comparing to other systems.

I'm happy for you that you can run games well but I fail to see how that proves anything being said about the difference by all those websites, magazines and detailed results. Oh, I forgot, it's a big conspiracy theory.

pete_21 wrote:
FWIW my brother (who is the biggest PC master race elitist I know) owns a top end gaming rig, I'm not sure of the specs but I do know they are very high (reckons he's spent around £1500 on stuff this year.) and he said Arkham Knight has run issue free on that and has done so since he installed it on release. If it was an unplayable mess he would have been the one person I would trust to call it so. He has certainly not been playing it on anything remotely low end, nor has he been running it on lower settings.

Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations.

1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG

Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.

Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.

To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.

Which would any sensible person prefer?

"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."

Thanks for proving my point.

chasfh wrote:
1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG

Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.

Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.

To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.

Which would any sensible person prefer?

"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."

Thanks for proving my point.



CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.

Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.

Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.

If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.

pb wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG

Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.

Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.

To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.

Which would any sensible person prefer?

"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."

Thanks for proving my point.



CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.

Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.

Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.

If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.[/i]

Oh, please! What a ludicrous, circular, ridiculous statement, and, no, most games are NOT the "race track". Never have been, never will be. Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

And, again, for more than the third time, I am not/ have not ever relied on a single game to stress my point. You might see that if you read back a bit.Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

At what point do all of the "that's because" points thrown back at me to try to "explain" why my pc runs well under "certain circumstances" add up to "my god, he right, it just works!" Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

For example, I state that AK runs well on my machine, everyone goes "nonsense!". That is, until a multitude of other sites start saying "bad for top end hardware", then all of a sudden it's accepted and "That's because"...Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

For example, I state that a quad core would suit you better than a six-core, you disagree, then later in THIS SAME THREAD you pose that as a REASON for my pc performing well under "certain circumstances". And that's a bad thing, why? Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

Your example above simply states the obvious, which I have NOT DISAGREED WITH. However, it does NOT change the fact that the way you and others have presented it suggests that the graphics card is hobbled by an AMD CPU rather than simply the CPU running differently. Don't change your argument if you really want to argue.

Please note how I repeat a certain part of my response just to ensure it's not missed again.

This really is the LAST time I am responding. Knock yourself out, go for it.

Steam stats from Sept 2015:

PC's using 4 cpu's ..... 43.97%

PC processor .... Intel 75.54% ... AMD 24.46%

PC Video card .... Nvidia 53.29% ... ATI 27.05%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 +3.50% usage since May 2015

:¬)

Possible setups to consider ....

Best gaming pc review 2015

chasfh wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG

Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.

Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.

To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.

Which would any sensible person prefer?

"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."

Thanks for proving my point.



CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.

Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.

Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.

If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.[/i]

Oh, please! What a ludicrous, circular, ridiculous statement, and, no, most games are NOT the "race track". Never have been, never will be. Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

And, again, for more than the third time, I am not/ have not ever relied on a single game to stress my point. You might see that if you read back a bit.Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

At what point do all of the "that's because" points thrown back at me to try to "explain" why my pc runs well under "certain circumstances" add up to "my god, he right, it just works!" Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

For example, I state that AK runs well on my machine, everyone goes "nonsense!". That is, until a multitude of other sites start saying "bad for top end hardware", then all of a sudden it's accepted and "That's because"...Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

For example, I state that a quad core would suit you better than a six-core, you disagree, then later in THIS SAME THREAD you pose that as a REASON for my pc performing well under "certain circumstances". And that's a bad thing, why? Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).

Your example above simply states the obvious, which I have NOT DISAGREED WITH. However, it does NOT change the fact that the way you and others have presented it suggests that the graphics card is hobbled by an AMD CPU rather than simply the CPU running differently. Don't change your argument if you really want to argue.

Please note how I repeat a certain part of my response just to ensure it's not missed again.

This really is the LAST time I am responding. Knock yourself out, go for it.[/i]

I love it.

You are the one that implied that I said the graphics card is 'hobbled' by the CPU (actually, some of the AMD cards do have a problem with lower end CPUs, both Intel and AMD ones, but that's another point and the GTX cards rarely have a problem with any CPU) when I have always said that the CPU is one of the limiting factors in framerate performance.

I disagreed about the quad core FX4300 (2 physical cores) for the reason that I couldn't find a system at a good price with one in and I had previously stated that I didn't want to build my own at this point in time. Cores are pretty much irrelevant and, unfortunately, so is clock speed these days since everyone uses their own version of it.

You started to get shirty at the point where I said I could get a FX 6300 but couldn't find a FX4300 system and that I'd looked at a whole bunch of stats from actual game benchmarks with these 2 and for some reason the FX4300 didn't seem to run as fast, though there was very little in it. In fact, I suggested this one. and was weighing up whether this would be better than this one at £10 more (though now £30 more) or even the GTX 970, which is similar to an AMD 390, though I couldn't see the AMD card in the options.

The AMD card was certainly better than the original GTX but the AMD CPU was slower than the Intel one, which I'd clearly said was a decision I was making at the time.

My original request was for a system from Amazon (where I have my vouchers) that could run the majority of games at 1080p 60fps and do it for as much as the foreseeable future as possible. I don't think you actually came up with a real recommendation, but if you still have one then I'm fine to look at it, as I've always been.

"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck

Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.