About configuration again..

[Ryback]

Hi everyone,

 

As the release date comes close like everybody else i would like to share my configuration possibility with y'all..

 

Here it goes:

 

ATI 512 mb 5670

 

4GB DDR3 ( 8 is possible but i don't know if this gives any favour)

 

intel i3 3.2 ghz ( i5 is possible with 3.6ghz)

 

 

Will the base config. be enough to run DCS:Warthog? Or should i really go for i5? DCS is cpu extensive as everybody knows and tells, but i don't get the idea behing getting powerful graphics then? Will 512 mb 5670 be the bottle neck?At the moment with 256mb hd 2600 xt and core2duo 2.66 , i am really far away from playing FC2.Without graphics tweaks is a slideshow.I was searching aroudn the forum i think nobody uses 5670.Thanks..

 

BTW my monitor is 21,5 inch LED with 1920x1080 pixels native res.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Ryback
Adding screen resolution..

[CAT_101st]

yes it will. not at max but it will run it.

[Ryback]

yes it will. not at max but it will run it.

 

Well that's what i'm wondering actually.. How close will be to the max? Not the water of course but if i should sacrifice lot than will be a non-sense update..

[HitchHikingFlatlander]

No way of telling how close to max you'll be able to run it until either the game itself is released or testers can discuss those details with a final build of the game. Everyone wants to know the same info you're after but it's still too early to get accurate info regarding performance. Like Cat mentioned you'll most likely be able to play with respectable settings and performance based off your specs.

 

As for bottlenecking the usual culprit in simulations is the CPU not the graphics. There is far more numbers being crunched that graphics being processed!

[CAT_101st]

Well that's what i'm wondering actually.. How close will be to the max? Not the water of course but if i should sacrifice lot than will be a non-sense update..

The first two things I turn off are shadows and water, then draw distance. after that you shuld be fine as the CPU will have to carrie the rest. But with the updated game engin may change all that. I am hopping to off load mor to the GPU than the CPU. (I plan on gitting a 460)

If you can do the i5 up grade it will help alot more that the extra 4Gb of ram.

 

Do CPU then save for DX11 GPU

[Bucic]

I have C2D running at 3.6 GHz, GF9600GT OC-ed and 4 GB of RAM and I think the only upgrade I could afford would be some graphics card for up to $140 :/

[kingneptune117]

heres mine

 

i5-750 at 3.5

ati 5770

4gb ddr3 ram

 

how high will i be able to play, approximately?

[power5]

I have e4300 C2D at 3.4

4890 (trades blows with 5770, but you have dx11)

4gb ddr2

 

Not sure what is keeping me at medium, as most games I play are almost at max settings on everything. If they can get better multi core support in the engine, then you will be in a much better place than me. As it sits now in BS, our gameplay should be fairly equal. Of course depending on your monitor resolution. I game at 1680x1050 and I am fine most of the time. When another helo comes near in MP, I get lag. In SP, I get lag only on lots of big explosions.

 

I would say same settings as you currently play if you play BS. You are going much faster and have more viewing distance in a plane. Most of my BS time is spent below 500m.

[z33r0]

isnt that i3 proc a 2 core? i would always opt for a 4-core processor, from the experience i have with my i5-750 so far. i run a little gadget on my second screen and constantly check which games make use of 4 cores, and almost all recent games do. often 1 core is for sound or other specific stuff (physics maybe).

 

this all leaves me with the conclusion that a 4 core processor is superior even to the newest generations of 2 core low budget desktop cpus. if you consider focusing only on dcs i would mabe save a few bucks here and there on gfx and get a powerful cpu.

 

in the 1156 socket world i found the i5-860 to be lot of bang for the buck. yeah im biased towards intel cpus, having a amd gfx though.

[Laud]

I must say focussing on LO and DCS only, I'm quite happy with my E8400 @ 2x4GHz. At least I have it since a while and don't feel too much the need to replace it. And for christmas there will come a Ati HD5850 1024mb 256bit and a SSD for system and programs. Looking forward to how that will perform. At least I won't have to buy a whole new rig again.

[MTFDarkEagle]

Ghz is the key! dual-quad core (though I will be flamed because some people think the extra 2 cores dont give fps, they did for me (almost double as before)). Overclock if you can/want to.

[Laud]

You're sure right Dark.

Besides the pure GHz-numbers, the i-processors architecture is also improving things, but I need to save money so I'll stay at my old 2x4GHz for a while...

[krazybiskit]

since we are on the subject i am running a q6600 quad at 2.4 4gb ddr2 and a pair of 9800gt any thoughts?

[CAT_101st]

OC the CPU. 2.4 is low even for a quad core.

[krazybiskit]

can anyone point me in the right direction for overclocking. i know NOTHING about it or how to go about it.

[connos]

OC the CPU. 2.4 is low even for a quad core.

 

CAT_101st I see you run Phenom II 940@ 3.7Gh. Can you give me details of how you achieved that, volts, temps, cooler, nb clock etc....

[CAT_101st]

I keep it at 3.5 for programs that ust multy threading. It gets hot (48*c) when rendering videos. 3.7 is stable for me in DCS but not other newer games like BF:BC2. The CPU becomes un stable around 48*c for me. I think it is mostly my MB that is un stable. As you can see I just run up the multiplier and not the FSB. This MB does not like to be pushed very hard. Ram is at 4.4.4.15.

PM me if you have any other questions. Over clocking is very simple to do, the risk is lower than you think.

[sofie_59]

can anyone point me in the right direction for overclocking. i know NOTHING about it or how to go about it.

Just follow this,read it all it is a good reading!

Look at post 13, and do that for start(just raise FSB to 333 and you have gone from 2,4 to 3,0)

 

 

http://www.overclock.net/intel-motherboards/364149-can-my-q6600-overclocked.html

[krazybiskit]

sofie thank you for the guidance very big help

[Rusty_M]

Seeing as I currently have a 2GHZ dual core laptop, I'm not planning to get A10 until I can build my new PC

 

Current plans are:

i5 Processor about 3GHZ overclocked to about 4

1GB GTX 460

4GB DDR3

W7 Home Premium 64

 

Hopefully that should run FC2 and both DCS's better than i'm currently able to.

[Druid_]

I think I am right in saying that DCS_a10c will be optimised for 2 cores only? In which case surely you cant expect large gains with say a corei5 over a E8500 (both overclocked even). I have a corei7 running at 4.2Ghz and although I put teamspeak and trackIr on the non DCS BS cores I dont get that many fps more (roughly 10 fps in multiplayer) than a friend running his e8500 (at 4.4Ghz).

 

Now if DCS optimised the a10c for quad core ...

 

I do admit though I havent really played with the settings too much but then neither has he.

[Bucic]

I think I am right in saying that DCS_a10c will be optimised for 2 cores only? In which case surely you cant expect large gains with say a corei5 over a E8500 (both overclocked even). I have a corei7 running at 4.2Ghz and although I put teamspeak and trackIr on the non DCS BS cores I dont get that many fps more (roughly 10 fps in multiplayer) than a friend running his e8500 (at 4.4Ghz).

 

Now if DCS optimised the a10c for quad core ...

 

I do admit though I havent really played with the settings too much but then neither has he.

Either way a valuable reference info on performance. Were RAM and GFX cards comparable on your systems?

[Druid_]

RAM same. I have an ati 5970, he's running a 285GTX. Both more than capable of running at max eye candy.

 

I just cant figure out why we both lose about 20fps when we go from single player to multiplayer. Massive drop there. (sure its addressed in forums somewhere, just havent found it yet). Obviously, CPU dependant and not GPU dependant.