Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, Win7 64 Bit, and memory

[BnZs]

This is the current PSU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341001

So right now I'm thinking upgrade to Win7 64 bit, 4 gigs of ram, and upgrade the graphics card, and hopefully be ready for the new terrain engine.

[BaldEagl]

This is the current PSU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341001

So right now I'm thinking upgrade to Win7 64 bit, 4 gigs of ram, and upgrade the graphics card, and hopefully be ready for the new terrain engine.

I'd be suspect of that PSU.  A 600W PSU can't possibly provide 72A on the +12V rails (VxA=W or W/V=A).  At best it could provide 50A total or 12.5A/rail (10A @ 80% efficiency).  That won't run a higher end graphics card.

OCZ went bankrupt as a result of putting out garbage products at the end of their run.  I'd look at replacing it with a single rail Seasonic or something similar.

[BnZs]

Right, upgrade the PSU before upgrading the graphics card. Thank you sir! 

[Debrody]

I'd be suspect of that PSU.  A 600W PSU can't possibly provide 72A on the +12V rails (VxA=W or W/V=A).  At best it could provide 50A total or 12.5A/rail (10A @ 80% efficiency).  That won't run a higher end graphics card.

OCZ went bankrupt as a result of putting out garbage products at the end of their run.  I'd look at replacing it with a single rail Seasonic or something similar.

Cannot really get it. Why would one need 72A (!) to run a gtx 660, a 130W GPU? Not talking about a GTX 480, R9 290 or a heater like that, just a mid-range 660...
Checking the specs page, found this:
Output: +3.3@36A,+5V@30A,+12V1@18A,+12V2@18A,+12V3@18A,+12V4@18A,-12V@0.5A,+5VSB@3.0A

[BaldEagl]

Checking the specs page, found this:
Output: +3.3@36A,+5V@30A,+12V1@18A,+12V2@18A,+12V3@18A,+12V4@18A,-12V@0.5A,+5VSB@3.0A

And that's exactly it.  Four +12V rails at 18A each = 72 amps.  Since VxA = W then the PSU should be rated for 12Vx72A = 864W but it's only rated at 600W.  If it was really 600W then the most output it could have (W/V = A) is 600/12 = 50A.  Split across four rails that's 12.5A/rail.

OCZ is obviously rating the amp output at peak considering we haven't even taken efficiency into account yet.  On the marketing page for that PSU they claim 80% efficiency ("giving you 600 W of maximum power, boasting 80% efficiency at 115 V") despite the fact they don't carry a bronze efficiency rating.  Giving them the benefit of the doubt that it really is 80% then no single rail can put out more than 10W continuously.  There's two PCIe connectors, most likely each being fed from a single +12V rail for a maximum of 20A provided to the GPU.

That was plenty to run a 9500.  A 660?  Doubtful unless it's rated under 20A.

The numbers just don't add up.

[eagl]

A spec sheet I saw quoted (couldn't find the original) says the GTX 660 needs only 24A total.  If the 12v rails are rated at 18A each then you ought to be good as long as you're not also loading them with a dozen hard drives or fans or something strange like that.

The total 600W power probably assumes you don't have each rail loaded up to 100%, and this is not uncommon even with newer single-rail high power PSUs.  The rail amperage is a number for loading that one rail in isolation, and the PSU total wattage rating is for how far you can push the PSU across all power rails.  You'll almost never see the 5v rail fully loaded to 30A for example...

A GTX 660 should be fine in that system.  As far as people claiming that you have too much gpu power or are "overloading" the cpu with a high end graphics card.. nonsense.  A faster gpu will let you fiddle with options like anisotropic filtering and antialiasing after you hit a reasonable maximum level of resolution and texture detail/size for the overall system.  Before I quit playing games much I had great luck "over-buying" the graphics card because it let me apply extra anti-aliasing and filtering.  Yes I didn't get higher framerates past a certain point, but I could get much better image quality.

[Chalenge]

Except. . . the 775 MB will never allow a 6## GPU to hit its stride and you will always be limited in the amount of anti-aliasing you an do because of memory limitations. Still, the E8400 is a great CPU, though dated.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

A spec sheet I saw quoted (couldn't find the original) says the GTX 660 needs only 24A total.  If the 12v rails are rated at 18A each then you ought to be good as long as you're not also loading them with a dozen hard drives or fans or something strange like that.

The total 600W power probably assumes you don't have each rail loaded up to 100%, and this is not uncommon even with newer single-rail high power PSUs.  The rail amperage is a number for loading that one rail in isolation, and the PSU total wattage rating is for how far you can push the PSU across all power rails.  You'll almost never see the 5v rail fully loaded to 30A for example...

A GTX 660 should be fine in that system.  As far as people claiming that you have too much gpu power or are "overloading" the cpu with a high end graphics card.. nonsense.  A faster gpu will let you fiddle with options like anisotropic filtering and antialiasing after you hit a reasonable maximum level of resolution and texture detail/size for the overall system.  Before I quit playing games much I had great luck "over-buying" the graphics card because it let me apply extra anti-aliasing and filtering.  Yes I didn't get higher framerates past a certain point, but I could get much better image quality.

There is some satisfaction in buying racing alloy wheels to a Ford Pinto - but it won't make it go any faster

[eagl]

There is some satisfaction in buying racing alloy wheels to a Ford Pinto - but it won't make it go any faster

Nope.  But once you hit 60 fps at your specified resolution, who cares.  More gpu means more eye candy once you've maxed out framerate, usually even if the cpu is fully loaded.

He could waste money on a cheaper vid card, but $200 on a vid card that might let him up the graphics quality while maintaining good framerates could be a nice way to hold him over until he can afford a full system refresh.  Which is what he's facing.  Even going with a value gaming upgrade with a fast i5 cpu and 8gb ram, he's still looking at $500 for cpu/ram/mobo alone even if he keeps his current PSU, case, HD, etc.  $200 for a vid card that might let him delay that isn't necessarily a bad idea, and that $200 vid card would also work nicely in a new gaming system too if he decides that just a vid card upgrade isn't enough.

I had a system similar to his.  Instead of spending $800 on parts for a whole new system, I got a bargain on one of the last quad core socket 775 cpus, found 4 more gb of ram, and put in a gtx 260.  It's been running just fine for years like that, and although I don't play games much anymore, it runs AH pretty darn well.

An upgrade to a decent used video card might also be a good option for less $. 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Nope.  But once you hit 60 fps at your specified resolution, who cares.  More gpu means more eye candy once you've maxed out framerate, usually even if the cpu is fully loaded.

He could waste money on a cheaper vid card, but $200 on a vid card that might let him up the graphics quality while maintaining good framerates could be a nice way to hold him over until he can afford a full system refresh.  Which is what he's facing.  Even going with a value gaming upgrade with a fast i5 cpu and 8gb ram, he's still looking at $500 for cpu/ram/mobo alone even if he keeps his current PSU, case, HD, etc.  $200 for a vid card that might let him delay that isn't necessarily a bad idea, and that $200 vid card would also work nicely in a new gaming system too if he decides that just a vid card upgrade isn't enough.

I had a system similar to his.  Instead of spending $800 on parts for a whole new system, I got a bargain on one of the last quad core socket 775 cpus, found 4 more gb of ram, and put in a gtx 260.  It's been running just fine for years like that, and although I don't play games much anymore, it runs AH pretty darn well.

An upgrade to a decent used video card might also be a good option for less $. 

If antialiasing etc. are so important then a better graphics card will bring visual improvements. But unfortunately his cpu will still make the game and graphics choke in heavy battles or if he tries to use high resolutions, especially in more graphics heavy games than AH. In MMOs like AH I usually strip down the graphics settings no matter how fast machine I have, for two reasons: 1) With jagged graphics things 'pop out' from the background easyer which makes you more competitive and 2) The goal is to get as much fps and as little latency as possible as it is a competition.

If the OP doesnt want to invest to a fully new system now he could invest to a quality CPU cooler, overclock the CPU as far as it goes and then get the 200 dollar gpu upgrade.

[68valu]

I am using an E8600, MSI p7n sli, 8gb ddr2 800mhz, and an evga gtx560 TI 2gb GPU. I am running this with a 600W PSU and windows 7 64bit home premium. I get steady 59-60 fps with most options checked.

 If you upgrade to a better video card, just make sure the PSU has a pci-E connector to plug in to the GPU.


                                                                                                       68valu

[BnZs]

I was getting 60-85 frames in most fights last time I played. 1024x768 res, Hi-Res skinpack, but shadowing, reflections, and detailed water off, those parts were never very interesting to me anyway.

[eagl]

If you're not interested in the eye candy but still not happy with the performance, then I suspect you're in for a full system refresh.  You'll want a nice i5 cpu (i7 cpus are often overkill for games), 8GB ram, new mobo, new vid card, and maybe even a new monitor to let you run a higher resolution.  You can save some complexity by using the mobo onboard sound unless you don't like the sound quality, but try the onboard sound first.  A new PSU might be necessary if your old one doesn't have the right connectors or you have system instability after building the new system, and I use/recommend seasonic because the quality is high and they are very quiet.  Also the modular connectors on many new PSUs makes building the system easier and can enhance cooling airflow in the case.

If you have money to burn there are some new gaming monitors coming out that support refresh rates up to 120hz, which can go a long way to eliminating any stuttering you might see on the screen even when at otherwise fine framerates.  But I think those are still pretty expensive.

For general system responsiveness, few upgrades beat the utility of an SSD.  I put an SSD into my new laptop 2 years ago and it was night and day how much faster the system felt overall.  Yes it doesn't play games any better except for reducing load times, but overall the system is more responsive and nicer to use.

[BnZs]

Played this weekend, performance is still clicking along at 85 fps most of the time. As long as the terrain engine update does not reduce my frames, I can probably put off upgrading for awhile.

[save]

"If the OP doesnt want to invest to a fully new system now he could invest to a quality CPU cooler, overclock the CPU as far as it goes and then get the 200 dollar gpu upgrade."

I agree fully on CPU overclock, its cheap and it works as a charm if you can cool the cpu down sufficiently.


Im currently overclocking a I7 930 from 2.9gighz  to 3.6gighz using a aftermarket cooler, still the cpu never have exceeded 55C degrees.

I have read that you could overclock it up to 4.0gighz using air-cooling only, but I do not need it since my 7870 is now the limiting factor.