QwertyMusicMan
New Member
Well, how much $$ would it cost to play bf3 well?
Budget Gaming Rig: Good or Bad?
- Thread starter pc_fanatic
- Start date
Well, how much $$ would it cost to play bf3 well?
jonnyp11
New Member
really it would be best to wait and get a better gpu then, or crossfire or sli the one you have/get, and remember, battlefield 3 is actually pc optimized, so it'll be like the next crysis, not the second, the first, just maybe not as unrunnable as it was, in other words, only the top of the line systems, as in 2k or more, will be maxing at 60+ constant fps, for good settings you'll probably be fine with the new gpu or multiple gpu's like i said b4
Last edited:
Aastii
VIP Member
I'm sorry, but there is a lot that needs clearing up.
Firstly, the specs for BF3 have not been released, but even so, I would put every last penny I have that your speculation is extremely far out. Yes, Frostbyte 2 has more going on that the Frostbyte engine did, but you have to remember two things:
1. It is a lot better optimized than Frosbyte was
2. Although the game is designed for Pc, the engine must be able to play the game on your now very outdated consoles.
These two together would mean when looking at specs, you can make a good guess that it would be close to the required specs for Bad Company 2. Max settings may rquire more, but not even close to your ridiculous 1.5-2k guess. By doing that, DICE would lose a hell of a lot of money because people simply wouldn't be able to play it. They would be cutting down their potential customers by a massive amount.
Secondly, an i3 is not plenty, it would be bottlenecked by even a mid range card, because it is only dual core. Yes, per core, clock for clock it blows the AM3 chips away, however most games, including BF3, are multi-threaded, meaning even with that extra power per core, it still loses out because of those 2 fewer cores over the Phenom II x4's. BF3 especially, because it doesn't have Physx, has a lot of physics rendering going on on the CPU.
All of your destruction, all of your balistics, they are all being processed on the CPU, on a multi-threaded engine.
This is true for most game engines now, however they only utilise 3, because of game ports from consoles that are restricted to the tri core CPU in the Xbox 360. Even so, a tri or quad core will turmp a dual core, because it is able to simultaneously process data on that extra core.
Thirdly, I spent a hell of a lot less than $1k on my system (if you convert prices), but I still have yet to find a game that I can't max out. Granted, I am still playing on 1280x1024, however I still sit here with games on max settings on a system that, if you bought it now, would probably only cost around $400-500 at the absolute most (if you swapped the case and PSU out).
Fourthly, what was said about "Intel is better than AMD for gaming" in benches, yes, in real world, no. As I mentioned before, I am still gaming at full settings on every single game, whilst running an AMD Phenom II x3 720. What was said about people go overkill on the CPU is sort of correct (even though you went the complete wrong way about it and put in incorrect, fantasy information). I think we can all agree here that my CPU is a hell of a lot less powerfull than an Intel 2500k is, but the evidence is there that it is still enough.
If I unlock it and overclock it so I have a 965, then go and play on my TV at 1080p, it is not my CPU holding me back, but my graphics card. My CPU is more than capable of playing every game out, even on HD.
This brings me to my 5th point which is more relevant to the thread and answers a question that has been passed over completely, and had completely wrong information thrown about afterwards:
The build I put will play BF3. On full settings? I can't say for certain until specs come out, but honestly I doubt it, because of the graphics card, not because of anything else in the build. You would need (I am guessing) a 6950/560Ti or better, so add another ~$150 onto the original budget
pc_fanatic
Member
Consider this an i5-2300 and a phenom ii x4 975 cost the same (around 180) but the i5 wins in terms of performance. This is based on REAL benches not synthetic. Intel vs AMD tests that are done measuring FPS in real world games prove that the amd's got smoked at the SAME price point.
But why buy i5 now when prices may drop later? If the prices won't change much then i have no problem getting quad core intels.
Last edited:
I must be the only one in the world that thinks the SB 2500K is just OK.
So much fluff everywhere. I was looking for it to amaze me and I see no difference in actual use to a 15-750 or oc'd 450 x3 all other things the same. My 2500K is two weeks fresh and its nice- but in my use- intense business use and video-photo-shop etc I'm seeing no advantage. I can't be the only one. Benchmarks say its a giant killer. Reality says it feels like the rest and at times stumbles a bit on simple things???????
So much fluff everywhere. I was looking for it to amaze me and I see no difference in actual use to a 15-750 or oc'd 450 x3 all other things the same. My 2500K is two weeks fresh and its nice- but in my use- intense business use and video-photo-shop etc I'm seeing no advantage. I can't be the only one. Benchmarks say its a giant killer. Reality says it feels like the rest and at times stumbles a bit on simple things???????
I agreed with you that it is speculation when I said there is no credible evidence
And all of the "recent" AMD chips have been K8, or tweaks there of, but pretty much the same, just with some stuff added and changed. As bulldozer is an entire new architecture, you can't really compare it to previous gens because it is nothing like previous gens.
I agree the Sandy Bridge chips are awesome at the moment, but people thought the Core 2 chips were awesome, which at the time they were, but look at what we have now. The same goes for Nahelem, people were amazed when SB came out and a chip that was clocked lower could outperform a chip that cost substantially more. Things change, technology advances, and what was ground breaking and amazing won't be at the next release. I'm not going to say it will be any better or worse until I know at release, all I will say is I am hopeful, but not confident until I see results
pc_fanatic
Member
Questions
Okay i got some more questions now:
1) Can i really save a lot of money by OCing an AMD rather than buying an intel?
2) Is it even worth saving money by going AMD considering that they run hotter and louder especially when OCed.
3) Is a GTX 460 overkill for 1280 x 768 resolution considering that I will be using full AA, AF, and max settings on demanding games?
Okay i got some more questions now:
1) Can i really save a lot of money by OCing an AMD rather than buying an intel?
2) Is it even worth saving money by going AMD considering that they run hotter and louder especially when OCed.
3) Is a GTX 460 overkill for 1280 x 768 resolution considering that I will be using full AA, AF, and max settings on demanding games?
jonnyp11
New Member
if you overclock the fan has to work harder/faster, making more noise, if you wanna overclock more the .2-.4ghz then you NEED a new fan or you'll end up needing a new processor, and louder doesn't necessarily mean loud, just means it will be louder than the normal which will be almost silent, and a nice case generally has some form of noise buffering, or you can get some noise cancelling foam, but idk how much that stuff is.
pc_fanatic
Member
Is overclocking an AMD worth it over buying an intel?
pc_fanatic
Member
True but you have to get a p67 mobo and k series CPU, lotta cash. And honestly I think an intel setup like that (with i5) is over kill.
wolfeking
banned
If all you are doing is gaming, then you could save money on the processor with AMD and get a better GPU. Overclocked, the AMD is fine in gaming. And, despite what some say, I still hold that a quad core AMD will be better at multitasking than a dual core SB.
pc_fanatic
Member
Right on, physical cores beat hyper threaded for multitasking. Although for gaming intel may have the advantage, I believe AMD shall suffice.
wolfeking
banned
only in games.
Look at it this way, I can run games all day long on my i3, but on a multi-threaded application, like image compiling, my quad core AMD 2.0ghz is a lot faster than my hyperthreaded dual core Intel. we're talking like a 45 second difference using the same program and the same picture. Same RAM and resolution. Only difference is the # of cores.
Look at it this way, I can run games all day long on my i3, but on a multi-threaded application, like image compiling, my quad core AMD 2.0ghz is a lot faster than my hyperthreaded dual core Intel. we're talking like a 45 second difference using the same program and the same picture. Same RAM and resolution. Only difference is the # of cores.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
LoL, how often do people do that? Secondly, i don't agree anyway - as this shows you're wrong. And thirdly the OP wants a gaming rig, so whats your point? WOW, you found one example where (may be) the AMD chip is better - but it is irrelevant as the OP is looking for gaming rig on a budget, in which case the i3 and p67 is the best choice.
Last edited:
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH IT? Secondly the difference between those two is miniscule even with the pheonom's 4 cores - just showing how inefficient that cpu is. If you want to discuss this further, start a new thread however:
The OP is building a desktop computer, for gaming. Best option within a tight budget, i3 + P67 period.
The OP is building a desktop computer, for gaming. Best option within a tight budget, i3 + P67 period.
Last edited: