A $650 system that gives 60 fps

[Brooke]

I just got a Dell Inspiron Desktop (3000 series) for $500 (which has an i5-4460, 500 MB HD, 4 GB RAM, kb, mouse, DVD+/-RW, Windows 7 Pro 64-bit).  I added a couple-year-old nVidia GTX 550 Ti card (about a $100-$130 card now) and a Corsair CX500 power supply (for $30 on sale, which took 5-10 minutes to install).  Total cost of system, about $650.

It gets 60 fps with everything maxxed out except the environment-map slider.  When everything is maxxed out including the environment-map slider, it averages about 45-50 fps.

So, I am happy with its performance/price and would recommend it as a good budget system for AH.

When I post on here that I use Dells, there are numerous posters who go on to tell me that Dells are bad.  I then go on to tell them that I get fine performance for the price (see the above) and that I have personally and at my business owned or been involved in purchasing hundreds of Dell computers over the past few decades, that I can recall all of about 2-3 of them ever having any failure, that at my business they run 24/7 including running production equipment where a single computer hang can ruin up to about $30,000 worth of product, that we've been using some Dell computers on those machines for over 5 years before replacing them with newer models, and that we have some Dells that are 10 years old and still being used.

[Bizman]

Congrats for the new rig!

For those who are thinking about a budget computer, there's one thing I'd like to mention, though. As you said, it will play AH well with most of the eye candy enabled. The big question is, will it run the next AH equally well. We already have been told that the video card memory should be at least 1 GB, which is exactly what your GTX 550 Ti has. The other specs are likely to suffice, so I won't speculate them here.

As the Alpha is now open, would you mind telling us how your new rig performs with similar settings there? Although it's still Alpha, it already can tell something about the direction our hardware should evolve in order to maintain or improve the playability.

[GSakis]

I just got a Dell Inspiron Desktop (3000 series) for $500 (which has an i5-4460, 500 MB HD, 4 GB RAM, kb, mouse, DVD+/-RW, Windows 7 Pro 64-bit).  I added a couple-year-old nVidia GTX 550 Ti card (about a $100-$130 card now) and a Corsair CX500 power supply (for $30 on sale, which took 5-10 minutes to install).  Total cost of system, about $650.

It gets 60 fps with everything maxxed out except the environment-map slider.  When everything is maxxed out including the environment-map slider, it averages about 45-50 fps.

So, I am happy with its performance/price and would recommend it as a good budget system for AH.

When I post on here that I use Dells, there are numerous posters who go on to tell me that Dells are bad.  I then go on to tell them that I get fine performance for the price (see the above) and that I have personally and at my business owned or been involved in purchasing hundreds of Dell computers over the past few decades, that I can recall all of about 2-3 of them ever having any failure, that at my business they run 24/7 including running production equipment where a single computer hang can ruin up to about $30,000 worth of product, that we've been using some Dell computers on those machines for over 5 years before replacing them with newer models, and that we have some Dells that are 10 years old and still being used.

For 650 dollars a better system giving 140-200 fps can be built. A ready built box rarely a good value is.

[Spikes]

For 650 dollars a better system giving 140-200 fps can be built. A ready built box rarely a good value is.

Hello rubber bullets.

[GSakis]

Hello rubber bullets.

Hello slow computer. Not talking about disabling vsync.

[Spikes]

Hello slow computer. Not talking about disabling vsync.

I guess, if you want to spend $600 on a mediocre sized monitor that supports 240hz refresh rate...but that $650 just jumped to $1250.

[GSakis]

I guess, if you want to spend $600 on a mediocre sized monitor that supports 240hz refresh rate...but that $650 just jumped to $1250.

I think you not thinking right. A computer with capable of 300fps with AH does not need one needs to buy 300hz screen. Besides in one game speed can be 300fps and other 59fps. Btw a 144hz monitor only costs 350 dollars. Makes for a very good improvement already.

[Brooke]

For 650 dollars a better system giving 140-200 fps can be built. A ready built box rarely a good value is.

I am doubtful.  Can you post a list with prices and links that shows a better system for $650?

I think that the best you can do for $650 is a tie (and then it will rely on using a large number of mail-in rebate deals and counting any time you spend shopping and assembling at $0/hour).

[GSakis]

I am doubtful.  Can you post a list with prices and links that shows a better system for $650?

I think that the best you can do for $650 is a tie (and then it will rely on using a large number of mail-in rebate deals and counting any time you spend shopping and assembling at $0/hour).

Here's just one example. Does at least 140fps in AH2:

[Brooke]

Here's just one example. Does at least 140fps in AH2:...

I wouldn't count that as better than the Dell system since the CPU is significantly inferior to that in the Dell.  To me, that is a major factor, as I use my computer for other tasks that are CPU dependent.

Also, it has no keyboard, mouse, or DVD+/-RW; the price of the graphics card is $15 more today than when that list was made; and it has a non-pro version of Windows.  Change all of that, and you add $5 + $5 + $20 + $15 + $40 = $85 to the total cost (which was $655) and it is now a $740 system.  If I apply that extra money to the Dell system, it could then have a better graphics card, too, and then it would have a comparable graphics card and a much better CPU than the system you reference.

At any rate, you say it does 140 fps in AH2.  With what settings?

[GSakis]

I wouldn't count that as better than the Dell system since the CPU is significantly inferior to that in the Dell.  To me, that is a major factor, as I use my computer for other tasks that are CPU dependent.

Also, it has no keyboard, mouse, or DVD+/-RW; the price of the graphics card is $15 more today than when that list was made; and it has a non-pro version of Windows.  Change all of that, and you add $5 + $5 + $20 + $15 + $40 = $85 to the total cost (which was $655) and it is now a $740 system.  If I apply that extra money to the Dell system, it could then have a better graphics card, too, and then it would have a comparable graphics card and a much better CPU than the system you reference.

At any rate, you say it does 140 fps in AH2.  With what settings?

Keyboard+mice can be had for 15 bucks even if you disregard most people already have those. The graphics card is much faster than yours. Nobody needs pro version of windows for home use.

[mikev]

Keyboard+mice can be had for 15 bucks even if you disregard most people already have those. The graphics card is much faster than yours. Nobody needs pro version of windows for home use.

 lol with what setting can you get 140 fps? that i want to see.

[Gman]

lol with what setting can you get 140 fps? that i want to see.

Feel free to drop by anytime, all three of our gaming systems in our home have 144hz Asus monitors, 1 ROG Swift, one MG279Q, which is a Freesync 144hz but is an IPS panel, not a TN one like the Swift, and another PC that has an older 24" Asus 144hz monitor it shares with an Acer 4k Gsync.  There is no specific "setting" in AH or the video cards for 144hz, it's part of the monitor settings in nVidia control panel, plus on the Asus monitors above, there is a hardware switch that allows you in game to drop to 60, 85, 100, or 144 - not that I understand the purpose for this, why you would want LESS fps is something I haven't quite figured out.  Maybe to reduce issues with some games, I don't know, but I've never needed it, and I have over 1 gig of Steam games folders, and a pile of others outside of it I've tried.  I usually set my AH game to 1080p, as at 1440p, while the game looks better, the targets also shrink a bit, and it's harder to get hits, at least in my experience.  I know this isn't some "head" thing, as Drex used to drop his resolution to 800x600 from 1024 back in the day for similar reasons.  Anyhow, the ability to set the monitor refresh rates is in pretty much the same place, and once it's set to 144hz, nearly every game or program I've tried seems to let it run there.


144fps is where I play both AH and the new Alpha, well, it usually says 143 on the FPS counter, but i can live with the single missing digit.  Only time it drops is with environmental cranked to max or the 2nd/3rd notch down, on 1 or 2, it still is maxed 95% of the time, only drops below 100 when over tank town with many cons around.


So far as rubber bullets, Spikes is right, if you disable vsync on a 60hz max monitor to achieve higher fps, you're asking for trouble IMO, but with Vsync or Gsync enabled with the newer vid cards and a 144hz capable monitor, I've not had any issues with that.  Once you try a 144hz monitor out, you won't want to go back to 60, I can instantly tell using the Pepsi Challenge between the two, despite the stuff you can read online about "the human eye can only detect x amount of fps".  Show me any game on 60 or 144, and the difference is obvious, and worth it IMO.

That said, 60hz isn't bad or anything, but for the extra 50 or 100$ with a 24", IMO 144hz is one option well worth the price.

So far as the OP, good for you Brooke, anytime you can upgrade a good used system yourself and get results you're happy with is a win.  I did that myself when I got back into gaming in 2010, got a decent HP system that was an early i7, and put a 5770, the "it" card of that time in it, and it still runs AH pretty well on our projector screen as it became a HTPC.

Brooke's op post is a good example to others with older systems the new version may tax, that it doesn't have to break the bank to get a workable rig going for it.

[GSakis]

Once you try a 144hz monitor out, you won't want to go back to 60, I can instantly tell using the Pepsi Challenge between the two, despite the stuff you can read online about "the human eye can only detect x amount of fps".  Show me any game on 60 or 144, and the difference is obvious, and worth it IMO.

You have to see it to believe. When I bought my first 144hz screen my friend came over and bought himself 144hz a new screen the next day.

[Gman]

Yep, I have had similar experiences with other gamers here when I've showed them the difference up close and personal.  Guys who play online FPS games especially see a major difference and improvement, but DCS and Aces High certainly benefit big time as well IMO.

I understand it isn't always an option when building on a budget, but there are times when I've seen the Asus or BenQ 144hz 24" LCDs on sale for 225$ Canadian, so easily under 200$ USD if you look around is possible.  It's something to consider if the budget allows it, in fact it should be pretty high on the list if you ask me.