Another new computer decision help request

[428CJ]

Help needed in deciding on new computer, dont want to spend more than AH needs to run all the eye candy at 60 fps. Looking at Digital Storm computers site & trying to decide

1. i5-3.2 duo core  or  i7-3.06 quad core  ?

2. video cards GT240,  GTS 450 1gigbyte,  GTX 460 1 gigbyte,   GTX 470 1.2 gigbyte

3. SSD 40 gig for boot and game with  500gig 7200 rpm for storage  or 1TB 7200 rpm for all

You that know - Skuzzy and the other gurus what would you do ?

Thanks in advance

[columbus]

if your gonna do it right go i7 and GTX 460
if those are already in your buy plans as a option dont beat around the bush.

[delta7]

i7 950 and a gtx 470 will do it. That is what I have.
 Don't know if the gtx 460 will?
 Maybe someone will reply.

[Tigger29]

To be fair the i5, GTX460, and 1TB hard drive should be plenty good enough to max out AH except MAYBE not being able to max out the self shadows.  I'm not sure I would bank on an SSD drive just yet.. it's still a developing technology which still has issues.

But, also to be fair, a good C2D processor, DDR2 ram, and GTS250 video will run AH at 95% maximum.

You won't see much difference in AH performance on a i5 vs. an i7 processor... BUT as Aces High evolves, we're obviously going to see higher system requirements in the future.. granted this could take years, but it all really comes down to how 'future proof' you want your system to be.

[1701E]

How maxed do you want?  Maxed, or so close to maxed it may as well be maxed?
If you want fully maxed one thing you'll need is a GPU with at least 1GB VRAM (only way to handle 8K shadows at ~60FR).  Aside from that I'll let other who know Intel/SSDs better comment.

[zeromajin]

Buy the best components you are willing to spend the money on.

Be careful of bottle necking performance by mixing mid-grade and high-grade parts. Your PC will perform only as well as its worst component, example : a slow CPU / fast GPU combo will be a waste of money on the GPU since it's performance will be throttled to some degree by the CPU speed.  The only real exception being system memory (RAM) in which you should not go super high-end even in bigger rigs, just stick with reputable brands and get as much capacity as you can for your price range.

[zeromajin]

I'm not sure I would bank on an SSD drive just yet.. it's still a developing technology which still has issues.

For the record "SSD drive" (Solid State Drive drive) is a redundant statement, a very common mistake. (people also tend to make the same mistake with "HDD drive" for the same reason)

SSDs perform and operate perfectly fine. With the introduction of TRIM and other functions specific to SSDs, the only inhibiting factor remaining is capacity to price ratio.
Even that is ultimately a good thing when you consider it drives down the price of HDD storage options. Also my Crucial C300 comes with a 3yr warranty, and I store only re installable programs and games on it.
So if for some unforeseen reason it fails, I'm out nothing. (esp. since I have a system image on my storage drives that would allow my PC to cont. operating seamlessly without it)   

The performance, I'm sure your all well aware of, is simply comparing bicycles to motorcycles.


Single HDD 7200 rpm read speed

The same HDD in a x4 Raid 0 Config


A single Crucial C300 128 Gig SSD


As you can clearly see, even a x4 Raid 0 config falls considerably short of a single SSD.
Now you could make the same comparison using 10k RPM Raptors, however you'll see little difference and still be confronted with the problem of volume/cost.
Also rememberer, that the more HDDs you add to an array, the greater the risk of a single drive failing and losing all the stored data.

The question you should ask yourself before purchasing an SSD is if the cost is worth the performance to YOU. The performance, even to the casual PC user, is very noticeable, but not worth the added cost to most people.

[Tigger29]

For the record "SSD drive" (Solid State Drive drive) is a redundant statement, a very common mistake. (people also tend to make the same mistake with "HDD drive" for the same reason

First of all, welcome to Aces High!  I'm assuming you're fairly new here, due to your low post count, but if not then I'd imagine this would be a very common mistake.

While I completely understand that the term "SSD Drive" is redundant I did so to remove any confusion.  I.E. had I said "SS Drive" or "Solid State Drive" then there was a chance the OP may have mistaken what I was referring to.  The point that you pointed out this redundancy in the manner in which you did makes you appear to be certified Mensa and we all know how popular THOSE guys are!

Nobody was arguing that SSD drives (drives you crazy, doesn't it?) don't perform many times faster than a conventional HDD drive.  This is common knowledge... BUT referring back to the OP's statement, "dont want to spend more than AH needs to run all the eye candy at 60 fps" I can vouch that an SSD drive is NOT REQUIRED to run Aces High at full settings.  Also since not all operating systems support the TRIM function and since the long-term usability of these drives still has yet to be established I have a hard time recommending SSD drives to anyone, ESPECIALLY when the most intensive thing they plan on doing with their system is Aces High.

To me it doesn't make much sense financially, it doesn't make much sense as far as reliability is concerned, and it just simply isn't necessary.

Now if you wanted to see just how fast you could make your system go, or if you really wanted something fun to play with and bragging rights "I booted Linux is 3 seconds flat!" then by all means go buy an SSD drive... but for 90+% of computer users out there, and probably 99.9+% of Aces High players... I can't recommend it.

[zeromajin]

Thanks for the welcome Tigger29! I am new to these forums and the game, I've been a FPS, RTS, RPG etc. enthusiast my whole life and I'm just now breeching the flight combat sim. genre.

Your absolutely correct in stating that SSDs are unnecessary for an average user/gamer. As I clearly stated in my post

The performance, even to the casual PC user, is very noticeable, but not worth the added cost to most people.

However, the only reason I addressed your post is because this wasn't your core point. You implied that the tech was imperfect and in a preliminary state. This is simply inaccurate, and outdated.

In so far as the requirements of AH@Max settings, I would certainly have to defer to the knowledge and experience, of the senior players/forum users. I tend to play far more resource intensive games and my PC doubles as a workstation at home so my needs differ greatly from many users.

However, you seem to be under the impression that using an SSD is akin to having a i7 980x hex-core, in that it provides little practical gain, for a premium price tag.

SSDs provide a substantial net-gain in performance aside from boot times and benchmark bragging rights.

It loads nearly all programs instantaneously within windows and this will be the most noticeable gain for casual users.  It more or less eliminates loading screens in games that are not stored on a media disc (such as AH/Steam/Most modern games).

However, perhaps the best gain is the ability to manipulate large files (copy/encode/compress) very quickly ,so that wielding 10gig+ files isn't an overnight ordeal. I noticed you guys have a pretty good "Fraps" caps crowds here that deal with large game play videos, this will certainly benefit them tremendously.

Also, lacking moving parts, makes them far more reliable then HDDs.

So, to portray them as undeveloped (SSDs have been used/developed for 40+ years), or only for the e-Napoleon complex inflicted, is a false argument. Now, if these gains are not worth the cost to you, thats fine, but it's misleading to say it's faulty or unreliable tech simply because you feel its too expensive.

This is of course the case with any new emerging tech, it launches at high price points because the the manufacturers are attempting to recover the, sometimes years of, research and development cost.

If thats the case just say so, "It's too darn expensive for me to justify". But, rehashing concerns that were unfounded even a year ago, I feel will confuse people seeking advice about new components.

   

[Tigger29]

While I don't quite understand why you are so adamant *FOR* the use of SSDs, I suppose you are wondering why I am so adamant *AGAINST* their use.  In any case regardless of the maturity of the technology you have to admit that they are still more expensive than traditional drives.

This still comes down to the OP's statement, "dont want to spend more than AH needs to run all the eye candy at 60 fps" and since the use of an SSD is not necessary to run Aces High with full eye-candy at 60fps I feel that recommending an SSD would defeat the purpose of the original post.

For the record, I'm not necessarily against the use of SSDs, but you have to understand that the vast majority of users here have limited computer experience as most of the people here are older, using dated systems, and will likely rarely (if ever) use their systems for anything more demanding for Aces High.  Keeping that in mind will reveal that there are other things that money can be spent on for recommendations of system upgrades that will improve AH performance much more than a SSD.

Upgrading from a conventional Hard Drive to an SSD while producing a noticeable improvement in bootup speed, the speed in which programs load, and an increase in any application that requires constant disk access, is not a good real life solution for someone who is trying to get a few extra frames out of Aces High.  Personally, I don't care if my computer loads in 5 seconds instead of 25.. and I don't do any video editing or any manipulation of large files (And I think I fall in the 99% class of Aces High users) so to me while an SSD might be a fun 'toy' to play with, it really wouldn't improve my game play experience any at all.  If I wanted the best of the best then YES an SSD would be high on the list, but if I wanted to get the most 'bang-for-my-buck' out of a computer rebuild and/or upgrade then it would not even make the list.

Why?  Because even if the price difference were only $50, I could invest the $50 in a faster processor... more ram... or a better video card that would provide a much faster system than simply upgrading to an SSD ever would.

And I still stand by my claim that SSD is still a developing technology.  If I had one, I would definitely not store anything critical on it (especially not backed up) and I can even quote you as stating, "I store only re installable programs and games on it".  If you were so confident in its reliability, then why not store anything else on it?  I'm sure that you are correct in your statements that they are a lot more reliable and durable than they used to be, but I still don't feel that they are up to the same level as traditional hard drives are.

Most people here simply have a single drive/single partition because it is the easiest to deal with.  I've even seen several people convert from RAID arrays and multiple drives/partitions because it just became too much of a hassle to keep track of, especially when something failed.  While the difference in drive speed is significant, what it comes down to is that the significant increase in drive speed simply isn't needed for the vast majority of people.  Recommending an SSD to them would be like recommending a Firebird to a family of seven.  Yes, it can get them there fast but it's not at all practical and becomes very uncomfortable to use.

So while you are taking my posts as a bash against SSDs, that's not necessarily the case.  When someone is asking about the 'least expensive' way to get something to happen and then someone else recommends an option such as... SSDs that is more expensive, "traditionally" less reliable, and more complicated... well I'm going to express my argument against that case.

[Skuzzy]

Really quickly.

1)  SSDs have not proven they are more reliable than HDs.  Get back to me in 5 years and tell me how well your SSD is doing.  I have already killed one SSD (trimmed its brains out), while I have Seagate Cheetahs that have been operating for 10 years nonstop.  There is not an SSD, which would survive at all, for anything close to that time period.  Not yet.

2)  Windows caches executables once they are loaded, unless Windows needs more memory space for the next loaded executable, it stays in memory.

If you use an SSD to mostly read data from it, they are fine to use.  They still are not the best solution for constant read/writing, over a long period of time where data integrity is the primary concern.  TRIM is not a panacea for the fixing the problems with SSD.  It simply works around a limitation in the design of the current SSDs.  Eventually, all SSDs will fail due to lack of spare cells.

[Chalenge]

And I will will (LOL) chime in with my 2 bits.

SSDs are a waste of money anyway. SSDs make sense in heat producers like the XBox 360 but in a PC running Windows they only help by trimming a few seconds off of boot times. Your really worried about a few seconds? If you have more wait time then you would be better off uninstalling a few hundred programs.

As to starting AH and the time it requires to load... again a few seconds. And once the page file has loaded the program once it will load no faster with an SSD than it does off a HD.

An SSD is good news for archives. So if you back up to a True Image or other type archive then using an SSD makes sense and it will speed up your restores. Other than that I dont see the need.

[skribetm]

A single Crucial C300 128 Gig SSD
(Image removed from quote.)

excellent bandwidth and more importantly, access times. 
i have a mushkin on the newegg cart for $99.00. mind running ATTO on the C300 please?
be patient with the risk-averse folks, as with all things you become one with age.   

to OP:
if you want performance, go with an SSD. it's the slowest I/O you have on a 'puter second to the one between the K/B and chair.
just dont use it as a heavy write/erase/write drive, you have about ~10,000 write/erase cycles MTBF on those cells.
HDD's are just as prone to failure, if not more. there's a reason why theyre called hitachi deathstars.

[Chalenge]

Your advice is like telling people that "if you want the fastest gaming experience you should run a 64 bit OS." It simply isnt true and your wasting their money.

[columbus]

Your advice is like telling people that "if you want the fastest gaming experience you should run a 64 bit OS." It simply isnt true and your wasting their money.

32-bit and 64 bit cost the same actually with windows 7 you get both versions with the upgrade version.  not sure about vista not that i would use it but 64 bit vista is roughly 10% faster then 32 bit vista. from what i read the windows 7 64 bit  is only a small percentage but it is faster then its 32-bit version.  the only real advantage of both is using more then 4 gigs of memory.