| Author |
Topic |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.08.31 17:04:00 - [ 1]
Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2009 10:06:51
__
Necessary requirements : can run on two monitors (at least 1440x900 resolution), two EVE accounts, one account per screen (windowed mode).
"Lowest" graphics settings will be used except LOD which should be on "highest" (also full graphical effects), minimal acceptable frame rate in a slightly above average crowded area around 20 FPS (so, let's say around 30 FPS in station or just outside one), with as little "hanging" as possible on session changes.
Bonus points for good environmental resistance (from cold down to near-freezing, up to heat around human body temp, above average dust levels and moderate to heavy cigarette smoke).
Also, of course, bonus points for additional FPS performance.
Assume HDD is "free" (as in, there's plenty of S-ATA ones extra to go around), ignore optical drives of any kinds (either already have enough or machine doesn't need one), ignore peripherials (plenty of keyboards and mice too), sound cards (EVE has sound ? onboard sound will do fine, thank you, and there are enough headphones to go around too, who needs speakers) and ignore monitors (plenty of those too).
No "special deals" (i.e. no limited stock, no clearance sale, no second hand machines), all normal "list" prices -- heck, use newegg.com as comparison, they seem to have just about everything for sale there so at least you have the same base prices (no, that's NOT where I'd be ordering from, but prices are pretty damn close so it would be relevant).
OS will be XP-SP3 (feel free to suggest alternatives, but I doubt it's worth changing that, so better not bother).
That leaves CPU, mobo, RAM, vidcard, PSU, case and cooling system for juggling with.
So... what would you say would be the best "average FPS obtained" vs "cost of machine" combo under those circumstances ?
EDIT : P.S. HINTS
Heavy-load FPS in EVE above 60 is total overkill and not really necessary.
That would translate in way, way over my monitors' refresh rates at moderate/low load, so it's a waste of hardware, and therefore cash.
Heck, 4 FPS in the nastiest possible fleet combat is actually reasonable, if that means I'm only slightly surpassing my monitor refresh rate in FPS when "idling" in an empty grid.
I am NOT looking for TOP PERFORMANCE, I am looking for CHEAP with adequate performance.
I'm not looking for a machine to get me through the next 4 years of gaming, I'm looking for a setup that will play EVE "fine enough" (and just EVE, no other CPU/GPU intensive games) and is as cheap as possible. You know, something you wouldn't cringe at and grasp your wallet if you had to give it as a (rather expensive) gift to somebody, but something that wouldn't be considered "junk" either.
P.P.S. If you have no practical "EVE experience" whatsoever with your recommended CPU/vidboard combo (or something very close to it), don't even bother replying, your reply would be meaningless.
I can select some random CPU/vidboard from a catalog myself and divide the THEORETICAL "operations per second" by the pricetag, but that doesn't mean I'd have a clue how EVE would actually handle on it -- and neither would you.
However, if you have some practical experience that is relevant (stuff like "I switched from 2 GB DDR2 to 4 GB DDR3 and could frankly see no performance upgrades at all even when running 3 EVE clients, but then I switched from <options> to <otheroptions> and WHOA"... or maybe "so I just upgraded my C2D from 2.6 to 3.2GHz, and I nearly doubled my EVE framerate, whoa, I didn't expect that"... or even "I had an older 7600 and switched it for a 250, but I barely got 20% extra FPS out of it in EVE, dissapointing") feel free to share it.
Actually, THAT is the main thing I need feedback on - what stuff is WORTH spending a few extra bucks on (for EVE, and just EVE) as opposed to stuff that costs a lot more but is of little practical use (just for EVE, on those near-minimal graphics settings).
|
KingsGambit
Caldari Provisions |
Posted - 2009.08.31 19:59:00 - [ 2]
The trend with PC hardware is that generally, there is a large difference in cost between the very best product and the next one down, followed by a still-large between it and the next. The difference gets smaller the lower you go down the range. It's usually then, about the 2nd/3rd from top in any range that's usually the best bang for buck. While not as powerful as the top, the cost savings vs. performance difference is extremely high. The Intel i7 range is kinda an exception to this however, as even the lowest in the range is pretty expensive. A price point you're aiming for would be most useful, but I'll assume you have keyboard, mouse, monitor, HDDs, and about £750-£800 to spend on the tower. Something like: AMD Athlon Phenom II X4 3.2GHz - £145 Asus Crosshair III - £140 4GB OCZ Platinum DD3 (7-7-7-20) - £60 Lian Li Aluminium Case - £100 OCZ 600W PSU - £65 (Has enough power for two PCI-E, 6 SATA, 4 Molex) LG Blu-Ray Reader/DVD +- DL Re-Writer - £80 Asus Radeon HD 4890 - £173 Total = £763 Windows 7 Home Premium can be preordered for £66 extra. It's a brilliant OS and a great media and gaming platform. That machine will run any PC game currently in existence, most of them well indeed. For about £40-£50 more you can swap the 4890 for a 4870X2 for a little more gaming performance. My personal preference would be a Core2Quad with an nvidia card, but looking at prices and performance, that's a very nice machine above, will handle most games for next couple of years just fine. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.08.31 20:47:00 - [ 3]
Edited by: Akita T on 31/08/2009 21:22:35 Originally by: KingsGambit
Total = £763
Total overkill, you mean ? Over 1200 USD for the barebones ? What do I get for that, 200+ FPS on two EVE instances even if both in heavy fleet combat or somesuch ? What use coul I get from a FPS that's above my monitor refresh rate anyway ? Hell no. Way, way overkill on the price, questionable performance/cost ratio. Originally by: KingsGambit
Windows 7 Home Premium
What does Windows 7 do for me when talking about EVE performance that XP doesn't already do, to justify spending even 1$ extra ? Originally by: KingsGambit
A price point you're aiming for would be most useful
The point where the (FPS obtained / CASH spent) ratio is the highest possible. I can only assume it would be somewhere in the 350-750 USD range, no idea. That's why I asked  __ P.S. For instance, let's say... oh, dunno... maybe a Phenom X2@3GHz with stock fan and a some more or less random PCI-express/SATA/onboardsound mobo for about 150$, Radeon HD4650 1GB/128bit for another 60$, 2x1 GB of random DDR3 dual channel memory for another 40$, and a "whatever" case+PSU for another 50$. That would make 300$ total so far (or little over 180 pounds) -- but I have some serious doubts it COULD run at the minimum required FPS in that described setup (hey, if it would, GREAT, it's a sale, heh), and it gets no bonus points for anything (no "out of the ordinary" environmental resistance on a stock cheap case/PSU combo, that's for sure... and it's more or less important). You know, something along those lines. |
steveid
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.08.31 22:59:00 - [ 4]
amd athlon 64 3000+ £25
ati radeon 2600 pro £30
ASUS K8V-VM - motherboard - micro ATX - K8M890 - Socket 754 £25
Kingston ValueRAM 2 GB Memory - SO DIMM 200-pin - 667 MHz ( PC2-5300 ) £15
That will give you a machine capable of what you require.
Wrap it up in whatever case and drives and your good to go for £150 all in.
I gave a similar system to a friend who can duel box two machines at high resolution for 30 fps np. Used it myself and had no issues. I would recommend windows 7 as it noticeably improved my eve time. |
ceaon |
Posted - 2009.08.31 23:09:00 - [ 5]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: KingsGambit
Windows 7 Home Premium
What does Windows 7 do for me when talking about EVE performance that XP doesn't already do, to justify spending even 1$ extra ?
on long term M$ will drop the support for XP and CCP will do the same |
KingsGambit
Caldari Provisions |
Posted - 2009.08.31 23:18:00 - [ 6]
Holy crap dude. a) All I did was suggest a spec for a gaming PC. I didn't insult your family. No need to go ballistic. You might've tried something closer to "Thanks, that's a nice spec but a little more than I'm aiming for" b) You didn't specify a price point. I made assumptions. You wanted a gaming PC, I figured it should be higher spec than something used in offices to run Word. c) I'm afraid I left my precognitive hat upstairs, I can't spec a machine that gives you *exactly* 60 FPS. You can turn VSync on if it's higher, triple buffering if it's available. Problem solved. Originally by: Akita T
Over 1200 USD for the barebones ?
Do you know what barebones means?  It's a case, mobo and usually a PSU. I specced an entire PC system, excepting for the HDD which you said can be considered "free". Originally by: Akita T
What does Windows 7 do for me when talking about EVE performance that XP doesn't already do?
Specifically for Eve, they'll probably play the same. But I thought you might want to play games coming out in the next couple of years as well. XP is 8 years old and runs DX9. Win7 is TBR and DX11. That means more eye candy in the latest games, as well as DX10 titles. It's barely more to pre-order than XP is now, natively supports SATA and all the latest hardware and will be supported for many years yet, whereas XP is toward the end of it's lifecycle. Also, to run more than 3GB RAM, you need a 64-bit OS. Windows XP X64 is generally about £85-95. Win7 HP is thus £20-30 cheaper to preorder. It's accepted the world over the Vista was poo, because...well it was. But Win7 is everything Vista wasn't and more. Why would you spend several hundred pounds/dollars on a new PC with new hardware and install and old OS on it? You'll be surprised how good it is, and considering the price difference, future-proofing and support, it's practically a no brainer. If you're fine with 2GB RAM, go 32-bit. For $500, you could buy a manufactured machine (eg. Dell, HP) and just add a GFX card of your choice. Otherwise the spec you yourself suggested will do reasonably well at mid-settings for most games to date. I guess our ideas for a decent spec gaming PC is very different. The above spec wasn't even top of the range, let alone remotely close to overkill. |
Horza Gelian
GangBangers
Huzzah Federation |
Posted - 2009.08.31 23:42:00 - [ 7]
|
Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy |
Posted - 2009.08.31 23:51:00 - [ 8]
Originally by: KingsGambit
Holy crap dude.
a) All I did was suggest a spec for a gaming PC. I didn't insult your family. No need to go ballistic. You might've tried something closer to "Thanks, that's a nice spec but a little more than I'm aiming for"
he didn't go ballistic, he went Akita T  |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 01:06:00 - [ 9]
Originally by: Manu Hermanus
he didn't go ballistic, he went Akita T
Rawr Originally by: KingsGambit
Holy crap dude. All I did was suggest a spec for a gaming PC. I didn't insult your family. No need to go ballistic. You might've tried something closer to "Thanks, that's a nice spec but a little more than I'm aiming for". You didn't specify a price point. I made assumptions.
Sure, I could be gentle and/or polite and say all that "yeah, thanks, but that's not what I had in mind", and I probably WOULD have said exactly that if I made a short and easily misintrerpretable OP... but... considering I clearly specified what I was aiming for in the OP (I merely clarified it even further in the "P.S." part after your post, the rest is unedited from the original)... don't you think my reaction might have been at least a BIT justified ? Quote:
I'm afraid I left my precognitive hat upstairs, I can't spec a machine that gives you *exactly* 60 FPS. You can turn VSync on if it's higher, triple buffering if it's available. Problem solved.
You're still missing the point. The point is cost effectiveness. Not cost, not performance. Just the ratio between them, wight some specific additional constraints. To clarify, again... no, I don't need a machine that gives me "exactly 60 FPS". I need one that can run EVE at least "decently" (and I went into great detail to explain how I define "decently"), but is as cheap as possible at the same time. Quote:
Otherwise the spec you yourself suggested will do reasonably well at mid-settings for most games to date. I guess our ideas for a decent spec gaming PC is very different. The above spec wasn't even top of the range, let alone remotely close to overkill.
Well, see, I wasn't asking for a "decent spec current gaming PC". I was simply asking for "the best performance/price ratio for an EVE desktop PC" (even says so in the thread title). The setup I gave in my second post was one of those that I am somewhat doubtful it would meet the minimal FPS requirements (but it MIGHT), being one of the setups in the "very cheap" extreme range of the performance/price "peak zone". Quote:
Also, to run more than 3GB RAM, you need a 64-bit OS.
Technically, it's "maximum 4 GB of total memory of any kind in the system" under 32-bit. So if you have a 1 GB video card, then yeah, only max 3 GB of "regular" RAM can be used, but if your vidcard only has 256 MB RAM, you get to use up to 3.75 GB of "regular" RAM. Originally by: Horza Gelian
[Core2Duo@2.6, RadeonHD4850,etc]
Total: £339 ($550~)
Runs 2 Clients to your specs without a problem.
That looks relatively intteresting, but the case+PSU combo (~165$) is rather pricey. The second case does sound really nice, but holy **** on the pricetag (~275$ with the same PSU). I have to wonder... is it REALLY worth spending _that_ much extra cash for that ? For that cash it's almost as if you could get the machine cleaned by somebody else regularly for quite a long while, and still barely break even. Now, if they had a half-decent case that's built to be air-tight except the dust filter inputs and outgoing vents, made the air filters easily cleanable/replaceable and sold the case for a ~100$, now then it would certainly be worth it... |
Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy |
Posted - 2009.09.01 02:15:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Horza Gelian
This is almost what I'm running right now, and I've just built one to this spec for a family memeber. Unfortunatly when I bought mine it was just over twice the price :v
Intel Pentium C2D E5300 2.60GHz £53
Zalman CPU Cooler £20
Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound £7
Gigabyte Intel P31 Mobo £47
GeIL 2GB DDR2 800MHz £30
HIS ATI Radeon HD 4850 1024MB £80
Corsair VX 450W Power Supply £56
Antec 300 Case £46
Total: £339 ($550~)
Runs 2 Clients to your specs without a problem. If you can't get the GeIL ram (which is awsome, I'd suggest buying two lots) theres some OCZ stuff at the same price.
If you fancy splashing out a bit on a nice case this, Antec P183 Case is just sexy. I have the 180 version, it's got rubber gromits to reduce noise, PSU sits in the bottom, everything is compartmentalised and cables can be routed behind the mobo. Also has cleanable dust filters.
- Horza
eh **** it, On topic time! This sounds about right, I ran an: AMD Athalon 64 x2 dual core 4200+ some motherboard Nvidia Geforce 7600GS 512mb ram 2 gb of ddr ram I ran 2 monitors (one 22in monitor in 1680:1050, and one a bit less dunno exactly was on a 4:3 17in monitor, 1280:1024 sounds right), although this was back with the Classic client, although I guess you might get more performance from the premium lite depending on vid card. bought for around 800 a bit over 2 years ago, although the mobo seems to have fried a little, it isn't happy with a few of the ram slots, so I'm running with 1 gb, and with the onboard nivida 6100 card (not sure if the card fried, or over heats the system). currently wont do anything in eve but sit in station chatting/flipping skills. and looking at newegg prebuilts around $500 seems to be a decent mark. I'd look a bit more in depth but I don't have the ~$500 cash to buy one myself |
Horza Gelian
GangBangers
Huzzah Federation |
Posted - 2009.09.01 05:16:00 - [ 11]
Originally by: Akita T
That looks relatively intteresting, but the case+PSU combo (~165$) is rather pricey. The second case does sound really nice, but holy **** on the pricetag (~275$ with the same PSU).
I have to wonder... is it REALLY worth spending _that_ much extra cash for that ? For that cash it's almost as if you could get the machine cleaned by somebody else regularly for quite a long while, and still barely break even.
Now, if they had a half-decent case that's built to be air-tight except the dust filter inputs and outgoing vents, made the air filters easily cleanable/replaceable and sold the case for a ~100$, now then it would certainly be worth it...
Yes, it was quite a large pill to swallow. But unless ATX dies faster than the dodo, that case is going to last me years, and many many upgrades. Also having a quality built case to work with than the pile of metal prebuilt ****e I'm used to. At least, thats how I justified it to my bank balance. I prefer paying well for a branded PSU as they're good quality, high efficency, and long warranty. Again will more than likly carry accross a good couple of upgrades before it dies. I usually go for the best price / performace and those builds usualy top out at 400-450w. No frills Midi-ATX Case £22 Antec 350w PSU £34 PSU probably has enough grunt, I normaly over estimate. I'm sure there's cheaper around, case / PSU combos for less than £50 but I'd be concerned over build quality. |
ZeJesus |
Posted - 2009.09.01 08:25:00 - [ 12]
Arrogant prick.
|
KingsGambit
Caldari Provisions |
Posted - 2009.09.01 09:38:00 - [ 13]
Originally by: Akita T
Sure, I could be gentle and/or polite and say all that...... but... considering I clearly specified what I was aiming for in the OP ... don't you think my reaction might have been at least a BIT justified ?
No dude, frankly it isn't. The technical term for that is "being a d*ck". Originally by: Akita T
You're still missing the point. The point is cost effectiveness. Not cost, not performance. Just the ratio between them, wight some specific additional constraints.
Obviously I am. Sorry my post didn't conform to your strict rules. I won't try to make helpful suggestions next time. Originally by: Akita T
Well, see, I wasn't asking for a "decent spec current gaming PC".
So it would seem. Originally by: Akita T
Technically, it's "maximum 4 GB of total memory of any kind in the system" under 32-bit.
Thanks, I know how 32-bit addressing works. I was keeping it simple. Anyway, build whatever "ratio PC" you like, I stopped caring a few posts back. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 09:43:00 - [ 14]
Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2009 10:27:37 Originally by: ZeJesus
A r r o g a n t p r i c k.
Hmm... so, knowing a bit about the stuff you ask (but also knowing the rough limits of what you know), knowing what you need as opposed to what you might desire, stating what you want and need as clearly as possible to avoid confusion, not being curteous to people who don't bother reading (and/or understanding) what you wrote/asked... and ESPECIALLY not wanting to be a nice little consumer buying the latest, greatest and hugely overpriced piece of technology... that all makes me an arrogant bastard ? Well, I wouldn't want to be anything else then. Thanks for the compliment. Originally by: KingsGambit
Originally by: Akita T
Sure, I could be gentle and/or polite and say all that...... but... considering I clearly specified what I was aiming for in the OP ... don't you think my reaction might have been at least a BIT justified ?
No dude, frankly it isn't. The technical term for that is "being a d*ck".
If you help a nice old lady cross the wrong street, do you expect to be thanked ? If she gives you a verbal spanking, does that make her a hag ? Originally by: KingsGambit
Anyway, build whatever "ratio PC" you like, I stopped caring a few posts back.
"Dude", you stopped caring before you even finished your first reply. I mean, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote in it. Heck, you didn't even bother to read the thread title, for what it's worth. I'm not some "random Joe Consumer" guy that has zero clue about computers, I'm somebody who built his fair share of PCs during his lifetime, but is not very up-to-date with current hardware performances... since, well, I don't build that many as I used to during my late highschool and then college years, so I have no clue how some of the "newer" (i.e. out in the last 3-4 years) pieces of hardware actually handle. EVE is the most CPU/GPU intensive game I play on a regular basis, so I didn't exactly even need to upgrade my machine much. The target "audience" for this thread was people who already have a machine (with components they have selected themselves, preferably people who upgraded parts of their machine in the more or less recent past), people that can give realistic feedback about EVE performance... then a quick search for the current prices of those components would do the trick nicely in gathering all the needed data. |
Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project |
Posted - 2009.09.01 10:33:00 - [ 15]
Edited by: Carniflex on 01/09/2009 10:39:12
I can run run 2x clients at 1650x1050 plus one at 960x1024 (yeah it takes a bit trickery to get EVE to that ratio) with following spec
Intel T7700 @ 2.4 GHz
4 gig ram (XP 32 bit SP 3 tho)
Nvidia 8600 M
At approx those framerates you describe. As even with 3 clients EVE does not use up all the memory 2 or 3 gigs should do fine. Also considering you are looking for running only 2 clients you might be able save a bit more from gfx card. Depends what resolution those monitors are you are trying to use. That spec might struggle a bit reaching 30 fps if you for example plug 2 fullhd monitors behind it. Mine will start struggling if I fire up 4th client (reasoning for 960x1024 reso is that you can run that way 2 clients side by side on fullhd monitor with resolution 1920x1080).
It's ofc also laptop (Dell Vostro 1500 one of higher end configurations) so you should be able to do considerably cheaper going for desktop. Also that gfx card will overheat sometimes inside laptop if you put heavy load on it for long time.
Edit: You are propably not looking for that low end hardware, but ATI x700 - while it can run one client under that new lower end client will have some artifacts. It's my older laptop I sometimes use to run extra account - stuff like keeping cloaked eye on the gate and things like that. Would be not good idea to go with that old stuff. |
adfadfadfawe |
Posted - 2009.09.01 10:40:00 - [ 16]
You might find it faster and more rewarding if you came up with a few setups of your own for people to critique. You seem to know what you want. |
KingsGambit
Caldari Provisions |
Posted - 2009.09.01 10:59:00 - [ 17]
Originally by: Akita T
"Dude", you stopped caring before you even finished your first reply. I mean, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote in it.
I spent about 10-15 mins to browse about, type the reply, add links and check for typos. Considering that I spent the time to try and be helpful, one would expect thanks instead of a reaction as though I had caused you insult. You're rude, ungrateful and as has been mentioned, arrogant with no sense of courtesy or etiquette. When someone is helpful and does you a favour, you say thanks, your parents should have taught you manners like that. Here's some advice...next time you want advice on a PC spec, include a budget. That will give a good guide as to the level and range of hardware that can be suggested. Oh and your analogy... Originally by: Akita T
If you help a nice old lady cross the wrong street, do you expect to be thanked ?
This is plain stupid. Let's try one more appropriate. You walk into a clothing store and tell the sales assistant you're looking for "some clothes for a party". They suggest a nice shirt, and you yell at them for having the audacity to even suggest a shirt when you wanted trousers, despite that you asked for 'clothes'. Anyway, you seem to have this need to get the last word in, so go for it, I've nothing left to say. |
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp |
Posted - 2009.09.01 10:59:00 - [ 18]
So you are looking for the cheapest possible system that will run two clients? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 11:50:00 - [ 19]
Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2009 11:56:18 Originally by: KingsGambit
Here's some advice...next time you want advice on a PC spec, include a budget.
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
So you are looking for the cheapest possible system that will run two clients?
Not quite. "Most bang for the buck" would be more adequate. I don't exactly HAVE a fixed budget. The "combo" I'm looking for could be under 300$ (probable, but not likely), around 500$ (pretty likely) or it could be over 800$ (doubtful, but possible), I have no idea. It all depends on actual performance in EVE. A PURELY HYPOTHETICAL example... which is also oversimplified since it doesn't take into account a few of the other factors I mentioned (enviromental resistance, mainly) : System A is 100$ and gives you 20 FPS in station. System B is 300$ and gives you 30 FPS in station. System C is 500$ and gives you 60 FPS in station. System D is 800$ and gives you 85 FPS in station. System E is 1500$ and gives you 200 FPS in station. System A does not qualify because it doesn't meet the 30 FPS limit, even if it would run at 5.00$/FPS. System B qualifies and costs 10.0$/FPS. System C, 8.33$/FPS. System D, 9.41$/FPS. System E is overkill, and is considered at, say, 100 FPS only as value (even lower in practice), so that grants it 15.0$/FPS (if I'm being lenient) instead of the expected 7.50$/FPS. That means the "order" so far would be * System A as winner IF ONLY it could have met the minimum requirements - but it doesn't * System E would also have been chosen as winner (instead of previously disqualified System A) if it wouldn't have been ridiculously overspecced (and therefore a waste of money) - so bye bye with it too * so the clear winner at 500$ would actually be System C* with System D pretty close behind, System B almost as good as System D even if D is 800$ and B only 300$ Of course, in practice, the winner could just as well be either System B or D, depending on how well they would tolerate heat/dust/smoke, and how often system C lags (if at all) as opposed to the others not lagging, and so on and so forth. ___ If it would have been as simple as you TRY to make it sound, I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THIS THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE. |
Mr Reason |
Posted - 2009.09.01 12:07:00 - [ 20]
Edited by: Mr Reason on 01/09/2009 12:27:20
While you specifically explained you didn't ask for it I'm going to say it anyway;
- wait till windows7, while xp works fine you are limited to 2-3GB which isn't really an issue but it ties in with point #2
- get 4 gb as it's dirt cheap and helps as you can use EVE's caching method better
- stick to nvidia vidcards due to the crappy ATI drivers that won't let you make custom resolutions properly (so you can't scale any windowed EVE if you wanted)
- invest in a good video card cooling wise, both for noise levels as cooling quality
-edit, hit post too soon-
Thing is ofcourse that you ask for the impossible; you're asking people to have first hand experience in a situation YOU want to create, you're also asking them for different options. The chance that you find someone who runs two monitors and gets the fps/performance you're looking for isn't that big. the chance of them having more experience with different setups is zero :)
Anyway, for parts I'd look at something like this;
E7400 100 euro (make sure you get a boxed one)
4GB ram 1066 (2 if you keep to XP) 100 euro (half that for 2)
an Asus P5Q mobo (any will do, but you don't need vga obviously, they're cheap and cheerful) 60-100 euro
GTS 250 vidcard with 2 DVI around 120 euro
some casing, cheap Aopen or something, doesn't really matter. 50-80 euro
decent PSU, I personally favour Coolermaster as a quality, price effective option like the M520. 70 euro
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 12:28:00 - [ 21]
Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2009 12:35:46 Originally by: Mr Reason
- wait till windows7, while xp works fine you are limited to 2-3GB which isn't really an issue but it ties in with point #2
- get 4 gb as it's dirt cheap and helps as you can use EVE's caching method better
I have 3.5 GB of "useful" system memory right now in my current machine, so that's pretty close to 4 GB. At that amount of RAM, whatever caching method I pick, the best overall results are with caching off. Even when I run it in single client mode (so there should be "overkill" amounts of available RAM), the best actual in-game performance is obtained (shock?) when I simply turn the "internal" EVE caching off. So I'm seriously questioning the usefulness of additional RAM past, say, 1 GB per client for EVE... therefore, it shouldn't really be an issue. Quote:
- stick to nvidia vidcards due to the crappy ATI drivers that won't let you make custom resolutions properly (so you can't scale any windowed EVE if you wanted)
No idea on the "newer" graphics cards, I have a 8500GT in my machine right now, but before that I used to run on an even lousier pair of machines, one with a Radeon9550, the other with a Nvidia5700... the Radeon actually performed better, and had more resolution and other options available... but yeah, it's been a while since then. I'm a bit ambivalent over the whole ATI-vs-Nvidia thing right now, don't really know what to think, and with no recent personal "hands-on" experience with ATI cards, so actually advice in that area should be welcome. Still, not really all that interested in "weird" custom resolutions... 16:9 and 4:3 will do just fine, and I bet both card families have several choices in that aspect ratio to fit my monitors. Quote:
- invest in a good videocard cooling wise, both for noise levels as cooling quality
So far all of my graphics cards have had the flimsiest possible cooling (the "default" one they came with in the box, at best a small ventilator, several times just heatsink), and I never had any problems with them. I did have issues with CPU and PSU cooling though, several times, due to dust/smoke deposits (and I have gotten really lazy at cleaning them because it's so yucky). But then again, I never really used "high performance" video cards, so I couldn't really tell. How much better exactly does EVE get FPS-wise due to the graphics card at near-minimal graphics settings anyway ? I mean, for instance, what do you think would be better FPS-wise... a crummy DualCore@1.6 with a 250GTS, or a Core2Duo@3.2GHz with a 7300 ? Or maybe a Core2Duo@2.8 with a 8500 ? You get the idea... Originally by: Mr Reason
Thing is ofcourse that you ask for the impossible; you're asking people to have first hand experience in a situation YOU want to create, you're also asking them for different options. The chance that you find someone who runs two monitors and gets the fps/performance you're looking for isn't that big. the chance of them having more experience with different setups is zero :)
Well, a lot of people do run dual clients (and those that do run dual or triple or more instances are the ones more likely to have a better experience at fiddling with their machine, I would presume)... maybe they don't run them on two separate monitors, but the performance drop shouldn't be too drastic to invalidate their feedback. The mentioned FPS numbers are actually on the lower-side of what people would consider "decent", so they're more of a guideline/baseline, just in case somebody tries to argue that "well, 24 FPS in station will do just fine too" (not that it wouldn't, but the experience would be kind of diminished once you enter a "heavy load" area, like, say, a L4 mission against Guristas with plenty of missiles flying around and exploding). I don't necessarily need one person to have experience with several setups, or have fiddled with each part individually (but if such persons exist, feedback would be nice), just to post HIS system FPS. |
Mr Reason |
Posted - 2009.09.01 12:50:00 - [ 22]
Edited by: Mr Reason on 01/09/2009 12:50:34
Unless you have a 64 bit XP that extra memory isn't used at all and can actually slow you down. Personally I see an increase in performance when using caching but it might have to do with what kind of stuff you do in EVE. For me it works and I have caching on all my accounts.
The issue with the nvidia/ati is the following;
Say your monitor has a 1680x1050 res and you want to run windowed (either to cascade more eve clients or check irc or something), the thing is that EVE only lets you choose resolutions that are windows presets. ATI only lets you select a few basic resolutions and they're either the full screen 1680x1050 OR they're a WHOLE lot smaller so you'll end up with either full screen windowed or a crappy/tiny EVE client. Nvidia drivers let you make custom resolutions, I added 1600x1000 for instance. So you can add your own preset with the exact resolution YOU want to have. ATI drivers won't let you do that, there are work arounds but they certainly don't work in every situation (I replaced my 4870X2 for a GTX 295 for that exact reason). It's not about performance.
The difference in performance for vidcards is difficult to gauge but at low setting it won't differ much. The problem is that compared to a GTS 250, cheaper cards that are still decent aren't much cheaper (if at all) and MUCH cheaper cards are crappy and tend to use main memory as vid memory (terms like "turbo cache" etc). So you COULD save 10-20 euro tops on a card that's still decent or you could spend a lot less and have a card that's great for running Office but not really games (especially with EVE probably switching to shader model 3.0 as a requirement some time soon). In other words (to me) not worth trying to save a few bucks here, just get something modern and a GTS 250 fits that bill.
I run 6 clients on one monitor and I don't really look at how much FPS I get (more than enough) but I DO see issues with reaction times and overal latency/lag. Having more memory, decent CPU and vicard helps with that because that means less and faster swapping/changing. 6 is ofcourse quite different from 2.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:12:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: Mr Reason
Unless you have a 64 bit XP that extra memory isn't used at all and can actually slow you down.
I don't know about the "slowing down part" (still, I doubt it), but the "not used at all" part is not quite true, and explained somewhere above. You can use up to 4 GB of system+video memory on 32-bit XP. So, with my 512 MB vidcard, I can use 3.5 GB out of my 4 GB of "regular" RAM. You can even see that in task manager i.e. I get "Physical Memory (K) - Total - 3538092. Still, I fully expect 2 GB of RAM to be more than enough for 2 EVE clients, a maximum of 3 GB, so even with a 1 GB video card you still wouldn't really need to switch away from 32-bit XP. Quote:
The difference in performance for vidcards is difficult to gauge but at low setting it won't differ much. The problem is that compared to a GTS 250, cheaper cards that are still decent aren't much cheaper (if at all) and MUCH cheaper cards are crappy and tend to use main memory as vid memory (terms like "turbo cache" etc). So you COULD save 10-20 euro tops on a card that's still decent or you could spend a lot less and have a card that's great for running Office but not really games (especially with EVE probably switching to shader model 3.0 as a requirement some time soon). In other words (to me) not worth trying to save a few bucks here, just get something modern and a GTS 250 fits that bill.
Come on, let's be serious, I haven't seen any halfway self-respecting stand-alone desktop video card with "turbo cache", I don't know where you get those ideas. You'd also be hard-pressed to even FIND a video card that doesn't support SM4, let alone SM3. Also, a 250GTS 256-bit costs somewhere around 140$-170$ (512MB-1GB), while a 9400/9500GT 128-bit will cost around 45$-60$ (same 512MB-1GB) before exchange rates and VAT - that's hardly "10-20 euro tops", it's 100$... plus VAT, that's actually over 80 euro. If what you say is true, and in EVE the difference between those two cards would not be all that noticeable at minimal graphic resolutions, then the cheaper cards would certainly be my choice for sure. |
ZeJesus |
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:20:00 - [ 24]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2009 10:27:37
Originally by: ZeJesus
A r r o g a n t p r i c k.
Hmm... so, knowing a bit about the stuff you ask (but also knowing the rough limits of what you know), knowing what you need as opposed to what you might desire, stating what you want and need as clearly as possible to avoid confusion, not being curteous to people who don't bother reading (and/or understanding) what you wrote/asked... and ESPECIALLY not wanting to be a nice little consumer buying the latest, greatest and hugely overpriced piece of technology... that all makes me an arrogant bastard ?
Well, I wouldn't want to be anything else then. Thanks for the compliment.
Originally by: KingsGambit
Originally by: Akita T
Sure, I could be gentle and/or polite and say all that...... but... considering I clearly specified what I was aiming for in the OP ... don't you think my reaction might have been at least a BIT justified ?
No dude, frankly it isn't. The technical term for that is "being a d*ck".
If you help a nice old lady cross the wrong street, do you expect to be thanked ?
If she gives you a verbal spanking, does that make her a hag ?
Originally by: KingsGambit
Anyway, build whatever "ratio PC" you like, I stopped caring a few posts back.
"Dude", you stopped caring before you even finished your first reply. I mean, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote in it. Heck, you didn't even bother to read the thread title, for what it's worth.
I'm not some "random Joe Consumer" guy that has zero clue about computers, I'm somebody who built his fair share of PCs during his lifetime, but is not very up-to-date with current hardware performances... since, well, I don't build that many as I used to during my late highschool and then college years, so I have no clue how some of the "newer" (i.e. out in the last 3-4 years) pieces of hardware actually handle. EVE is the most CPU/GPU intensive game I play on a regular basis, so I didn't exactly even need to upgrade my machine much.
The target "audience" for this thread was people who already have a machine (with components they have selected themselves, preferably people who upgraded parts of their machine in the more or less recent past), people that can give realistic feedback about EVE performance... then a quick search for the current prices of those components would do the trick nicely in gathering all the needed data.
So, you are an intelligent, but otherwise arrogant prick then. |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:31:00 - [ 25]
I would strongly recommend a 4850HD. They're getting very cheap these days and it vastly outperforms the 9500GT on a broad mix of games. The cost is roughly double, depending on what discounts you can get, but in many cases performance is likely to be triple or better. |
Mr Reason |
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:33:00 - [ 26]
Edited by: Mr Reason on 01/09/2009 13:33:07
I pay 99 euro for a GTS 250 and that includes VAT, dunno about you. 9600GT is a bit cheaper this is true, but still you'll go back from openGL 3.0 to 2.1. Again, doesn't really matter a whole lot for EVE on asci settings but to me that would be an issue. And yes you can still buy turbo cache (or similar) cards, a lot of them actually.
On the memory part; you really should update your knowledge on it a bit, then spout 'facts'. Not the other way round.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:41:00 - [ 27]
Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2009 13:47:12 Originally by: ZeJesus
So, you are an intelligent, but otherwise arrogant p r i c k then.
Indeed, and proud of it. Was there anything else you wanted to say ? Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I would strongly recommend a 4850HD. They're getting very cheap these days and it vastly outperforms the 9500GT on a broad mix of games. The cost is roughly double, depending on what discounts you can get, but in many cases performance is likely to be triple or better.
It's basically the same argument we had above for the 250 vs 9500, isn't it ? So the key point is, would you IN EVE feel any significant improvements at minimal graphics settings, or would the CPU already be the limiting factor even with a 9500 ? Originally by: Mr Reason
On the memory part; you really should update your knowledge on it a bit, then spout 'facts'. Not the other way round.
Care to elaborate exactly what my "facts" are supposed to be ?  Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.And explain this too. I made it a couple of seconds ago. I have 4 GB of physical RAM in the machine and a video card with 512MB standalone RAM, system is 32-bit XP SP3. Last time I checked, that meant I actually can use almost 3.5 GB of actual RAM from that 4 GB physical. |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:54:00 - [ 28]
Originally by: Akita T
So the key point is, would you IN EVE feel any significant improvements at minimal graphics settings, or would the CPU already be the limiting factor even with a 9500 ?
I would venture at least a 'maybe', and you'd have the option of getting the same performance with better-looking settings. Also, I would like to draw attention to this part of your original post: Quote:
Also, of course, bonus points for additional FPS performance.
Your experience in other games will be improved to such an extent as to justify the extra expense, in my opinion. Also, I took the price-performance benchmark from the end of that review (for their 1680x1050 tests, since that was closest to your setup). This is the result: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AjE_MnE896sWdFZNbmRzMlUtdVJhdFJZSzJuVXhEbnc&hl=en In short, the other cards have left the 9500GT further behind as their prices have fallen. |
Mr Reason |
Posted - 2009.09.01 14:23:00 - [ 29]
Edited by: Mr Reason on 01/09/2009 14:24:05Been trying to get a URL with the factual differences, but haven't found one that encompasses it all. Have a look here, it's a good start. Check the link in there for more info. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 15:12:00 - [ 30]
Originally by: Mr Reason
Been trying to get a URL with the factual differences, but haven't found one that encompasses it all. Have a look here, it's a good start.
It doesn't contradict anything I was saying. Even read the MS-KB-articles. It only says you are limited to a maximum of 4 GB for any individual 32-bit application, regardless of XP version used (32 or 64 bit). Default is 2 GB user and 2 GB kernel, but you can manually force it to 3 GB user and 1 GB kernel on 32-bit XP only by adding "/3GB" in boot.ini. If you run a 32-bit app on a 64-bit XP, you're stuck with the 2+2 model. Of course, on 64-bit XP you can have as much physical RAM as your mobo can fit (not just 4 GB) and just give each 32-bit app 2GB+2GB of the completely unused RAM, while on the 32-bit XP you have to share that maximum 4 GB with the video card and the operating system. Basically, pretty much what I already said, but in greater detail. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
All Channels
Out of Pod Experience
