|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
10-12-2010, 08:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Because I can't speak from experience, Madfish may have a point there.
Quote:
IMO, this Rampage is way overpriced for what it is offering. Also, IIRC hardware acceleration isn't supported in Win7, and MBO sound cards have become much much better nowadays. Not that I would stick to the MBO sound card, but do take a look at this model before you decide to purchase a CL card: Asus Xonar Essence STX (one of many reviews) So, unless you want to spend money for a quality sound card, my advice would be to go with the MBO one. I believe that whatever Rampage MBO sound card has to offer is equally good or even better than CL X-Fi Titanuim card.  And I hope you're not pairing this with some Logitech (or any PC) speakers as this is also a waste of money (unless you're pairing Xonar Essence with a quality headphones for which it was made for). So, my advice would be:
__________________
LEVEL BOMBING MANUAL v2.0 | Dedicated Bomber Squadron 'MUSTANG' - compilation of online air victories 
|
|
#2
10-12-2010, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've just built a new i7 system, and I decided to wait 6 months+ before putting an SSD in, as prices will fall and the drives will improve. But if you don't like adding things later, I think SSDs are worth getting - certainly when looking at the spec (& therefore price) of your intended system.
Quote:
What cpu cooler are you planning on?
|
|
#3
10-12-2010, 10:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
@Feuerfalke
No one forced me and I never did. I said not much faster. And I even did some math in case you overlooked it again ;P Even low-rpm drives that are FAR from Velos do a decent read. That is a fact. The problem that most people don't realize is that an SSD might give you a GREAT benchmark score but almost no real world gaming value when it comes to game load times or FPS. You linked an article from anandtech so I'll link you another: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2614/14 Now these are just examples but instead of 1 or 2 average frames per second more I'd certainly dump the 350€ into a better graphics card, for this amount of money probably doubling, tripling or more the average FPS for most systems out there. I hope that makes the logic I want to communicate clear. Yes, in Bench apps you do get great scores. Yes, if you multitask with I/O heavy software you do get better performance. But if you work, browse and game you do not get a better performance at all compared to other tweaks that will boost gaming performance through the roof! Ok, now the discussion about space. SSD's perform well until the fill up. You can't live on the edge with an SSD. So 64Gb are filled up swiftly. If you install your programs on a different HD you're not having faster FPS in gaming and not measurably faster program load times either. So that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. However, Windows itself is probably fine with 25Gb for the OS and some software. Then add a classic pagefile of about 4gb, hibernation fil about 4-12gb based on RAM and you're already seeing different numbers. Now imagine the user doesn't know how to move off the user data to another partition and we have another few potential GB landing right on the SSD. Additionally the partinioned space is less than the capacity. For a 64Gb SSD it'd be roughly 59,5Gb available NTFS space. 74,4Gb for an 80Gb Model, 112 for an 120GB model and 148 for a 160Gb SSD. However, as for games the space tends to vanish fast. Even IL-2 consumes 11Gb space modded. I searched real quick and looked at a few other flightsims and X-Plane 9 would be about 71Gb without any mods, just the scenario packs. FSX has similar requirements. In other words, especially for simmers the space needed to run a game is increasing rapidly. You won't come far with an 64Gb SSD at all. So yes, not all games load textures sequentially. However you would only benefit from that if you install it on an SSD which requires you to have a big SSD. Secondly it's not entirely true. Sequential read doesn't mean the game needs to load a 2TB file. If you're looking at the anandtech link I posted (and there are many other around, I just chose this one because you seemed to trust the site) most games won't see a dramatic decrease of load performance. The opposite is the case! Many games don't use the read speeds of SSD's fully. In other words: they only load a bit faster. Look at how quickly spore loads (procedural textures), almost no difference. Oblivion would load about a third faster on a SSD. Even the rescource hungry Crysis sees little increase of load times. And now just calculate real quick what kind of performance improvement you can gain by spending 150€-350€ in processing power, RAM upgrade and / or a better / 2nd GPU. My personal conclusion is that everyone really needs to sit down and look at these numbers and decide for himself if the benchmark numbers are worth the money. You won't get a measurably better framerate, in most cases no reduced power consumption (unless you replace high-rpm drives, but not if you just add a SSD to your system - same goes for noise as well, unless you don't remove high-rpm drives you don't get a quieter system). You do get faster boot though and overall better OS speed / responsiveness. That means for gamers that need to look at what they'll spend their money at I'd recommend getting a better GPU / 2nd GPU, more RAM or a better CPU unless it'd mean getting overpriced high-end components. But that is just my personal advice. I know things like these can be a bit emotional, especially for benchmark-oriented people. SSD's really help push the numbers in synthetic environments, that's for sure. Otherwise, stick with some real reviews and just consider what gives you the most "bang for the buck". And that's certainly not SSD's at the moment unless you really got a kickass PC already anyways. As for the CPU cooler: I can recommend the Scythe Mugen 2. It's fair priced and really good performance for that.
|
|
#4
10-13-2010, 04:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not yet decided on the cooler, so far I have a "safety" in my list which means a dedicated Intel cooler. I'm still hammering that out.
Oh and Thor - this is a socket 1366 CPU. I had toyed with the idea of getting myself that bad-@ss i7 980extreme but then I decided to lower my expectations a bit and shuffle a few €€ over to peripherals (the SSD and the RAM). As for the MoBo I've got to say I looked through the feature lists of the MoBos available at my dealer and I greatly prefer that one for being a bit more "future proof" (meaning for the next 1 - 2 years). I can always slap a better socket 1366 CPU in plus more RAM and I'll be fine. I wanted SATA-600 and USB 3, anyway.
|
|
#5
10-15-2010, 03:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The thing that comes with Rampage boards is excellent, the only sound card that is better than this is the Xonar Essence, and to actually hear the difference you would need a very good system. The X-Fi Titanium here is just a waste of money. Go with the Rampage.
__________________
LEVEL BOMBING MANUAL v2.0 | Dedicated Bomber Squadron 'MUSTANG' - compilation of online air victories
|
|
#6
10-28-2010, 09:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
May I jump in as I am about to spend significant money on a new PC?
BUT This thread has raised a few of questions.. If it's inappropriate I'll post separately. I am considering (almost decided on): i7 950 Retail with Nehalem cooler 6Gb G.Skill NQ DDR3 160MHz (Triple Channel for ASUS board) Coolermaster HAF912 Plus, Black, Chassis OCZ ModXStream Pro 600w Silent SLI Ready ATX2 Modular Asus Sabertooth X58 TUF Intel X58 (Socket 1366) Crucial RealSSD C300 64GB 2.5" SATA 6Gb/s Solid State Hard Drive Windows 7 Home Premium Operating System, Retail 1GB XFX HD 5870 XXX, PCI-E 2.0(x16), 5200MHz GDDR5, GPU 875MHz, 1600 Cores, DP/ 2x DL DVI-I/ HDMI (why buy PCIe 2.1?) Plus existing:- 160Gb 7200 SATA HDD for OS, 160Gb 7200 SATA HDD for Documents/Photos/Crud and a R/W DVD. My current 'Flight' disc is also a 160Gb WD 1600JS-00NCB1 7200 93.5MBps like the others. So my questions..... 1. Isn't 1366 socket later/newer than 1156? 2. What's the better 'future' of these sockets/processors? 3. I was intending to use the SSD for my 'Flight' Drive (FSX at 17Gb including the SDK and IL-2/mods at 13.6Gb hopefully leaving plenty for SoW). These SSDs are quoted at something like 'up to 355MBps' vs my existing 93.5MBps. Would a new HDD really be better? 4. Does any genius know how much space SoW will take?  btw csThor (original poster? I'm stuck in 'Reply' ) The i7 950 only supports 1.5v memory not 1.6/1.65. (Source: my online chat with Intel Tech Team). Do you know what your 960 supports? I found it very easy to pick unsuitable memory.Hoping for some replies.. klem
__________________
klem 56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds" http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/  ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
|
|
#7
10-29-2010, 01:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
1156 is the cutback budget version of the 1366 with less features but they are pretty much the same generation. Quote:
Of course in terms of overclocking it seems the p67 motherboards may well have limitations with PCI bus etc locked to processor frequency which may give an extended life to the current chipsets. Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#8
10-29-2010, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
One thing is for certain: If you go for a small SSD then definately put your OS on it. Not the games. If you want to spend some money either get a bigger SSD or don't get an SSD at all and spend the money somewhere else (2nd GPU/better GPU, bit more Ram etc.). Games do not run noticably faster / better on SSD. There are only a very few games that really run like 1% faster and load 10-40% faster. But once loaded you won't see any noticable difference anymore. (I linked a review about that in an earlier post but you can just search for one yourself)
|
|
#9
10-29-2010, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
