| Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 11:41 Post subject: 400€ / 560 $ computer |
|
 |
Athlon II X3 - 2.9Ghz x 3
MSI 770-C45 - AM3 Mainboard
2 x G.Skill DIMM 2GB DDR3-1333 (4GB Kit)
XFX Radeon HD4770
Be Quiet 530W - 87% efficiency
Hitachi 7200 RPM 24/7 HD with 640GB
Miditower with 2x120mm fans
--
399,77€ (I don't need an optical drive)
The 4770 should be enough for sub-full hd gaming with 2AA, right? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 12:27 Post subject: |
|
|
i would add 20 xtra and get 4850 instead of 4770
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 12:36 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Mortibus, although here in NL it's not even 20 extra, more like 10 including shipping 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 12:59 Post subject: |
|
|
hmmm... I heard that the 4850 is just ~5% faster @ 100% more power consumption? and that the build in overclocking function of the ati should handle the small difference without problems without using much more power, as the 4770 is 40nm.
:O
What about the 4870 with 1GB? it would cost 35 euro more. Is it worth it?
eeh and would the 530W power supply be enough for the 4870?
+3,3V 24 A
+5Vsb 2,5 A
+5V 24 A
+12V1 22 A
+12V2 22 A
+12Vtotal35 A
-12V 0,3 A
Combined power 12V = 420W ...
It reads like if it is a pretty good one
=> NFOrce GIF plugin <= - Ryzen 3800X, 16GB DDR4-3200, Sapphire 5700XT Pulse
Last edited by PumpAction on Mon, 25th Jan 2010 13:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 13:03 Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, yes the 4870 is worth it, if you can afford.
Second, no way is a 4850 comparable in any way with a 4770, haha.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 14:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| PumpAction wrote: | | hmmm... I heard that the 4850 is just ~5% faster @ 100% more power consumption? |
Depends on the settings used. You're saying you're gaming sub-full-HD resolutions, so I'll assume 1680x1050? Enable AA and set details to max at that resolution, and the 48xx's will do just fine. 47xx's will fall behind at that point. The whole point of a videocard is giving it something to do, which is absolutely nothing at 1280x1024 without AA. AA on its own adds a lot more work for the card, and that's when the faster cards show their worth - especially when you also up the resolution.
| PumpAction wrote: | | eeh and would the 530W power supply be enough for the 4870? |
More than plenty.
I can't stress enough that power consumption in a pc is _highly_ exaggerated. It is much more important to get a high quality PSU, rather than a high wattage one. 530W is more than plenty, I can't see you even getting to 300W. I've been running on a 550W PSU for well over 4 years now, has lasted through an Intel EE 955+8800GTS (later 9800GTX) up to my current system, an E8400+5870. Anyone who knows Intel's old EE series will tell you what a power hungry piece of shit it is, and the 8800GTS wasn't exactly a powersaving piece of equipment either.
Quality > Quantity 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 14:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Well thats great news
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 14:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Just make sure the PSU is a good one, not some generic model you got with the case. I learned that the hard way, and was fortunate there was no damage on the hardware.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 15:17 Post subject: |
|
|
The one he picked is a good one anyway, good choice mate
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 25th Jan 2010 16:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks wanted to see what a good, cheap and quality gaming system would cost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 00:41 Post subject: |
|
|
stick with the 4770 instead of 4850
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 00:58 Post subject: |
|
|
New nickname?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 01:06 Post subject: |
|
|
What was his old? 
Edit: Stefan F
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 01:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Guy Incognito! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 06:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| Paintface wrote: | | stick with the 4770 instead of 4850 |
Maybe if he's only going to use it as a HTPC, but he's not so... Anyway if you plan to play with photoshop as well as with games, I would recommend a 256-bit card rather then 128-bit...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 06:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| Paintface wrote: | | stick with the 4770 instead of 4850 |
Absolutely not. Sorry mate, I usually agree with you about hardware stuff - but not this time. For the minuscule price difference, it's best to get the 4850 - or, to be perfectly honest, get the 4870 instead.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 08:53 Post subject: |
|
|
well i dont care if its 1 bit 128 or 1gb, its all about performance.
when i had my 4770 and my brother the 4850 i could visually not tell the difference performance wise, when benchmarking a few random games they both came out on top , and the benchmarks on websites show the same to me, that the difference really is too small to tell.
The 4770 is very low power and heat , and very cheap at the same time, it would fit that system perfectly.
Also many seem to loose track of how fast those cards are. Its not cause they sell for less than 100 euros that they are crap, i played all my games on max settings on a 1080p screen besides arma 2, so i doubt that that qualifies it as a HTPC card.
MY advise for the 4770 is the Saphire 4770 with custom blue pcb and artic cooling, very quiet and overclocks very well. ITs the one i personally owned
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?psn=000101&pid=276
BIG EDIT :
looks like those 4770s arent easy to find anymore, especially the one i adviced you to buy.
Luckely ATI released new follow up cards, 5750 is about the same performance as the 4770/4850 but has also 1GB videomemory
Actually its a bit above it, this should keep the 4850 guys off my back ( they are all awesome cards for its price glad we all agree on that )
on the german site where i order my hardware the cheapest one with custom cooling ( i consider that a huge requirement ) is the power color with the same artic cooling as the 4770 i adviced you to buy
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/info/p636360_1024MB-Powercolor-Radeon-HD5750-GDDR5-PCIe.html
price is 112 euros
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/info/p633465_1024MB-HIS-Radeon-HD-5750-iCooler-IV-GDDR5-PCIe.html
HIS one with a blue pcb is 118 euros
dont know if there is a price difference, get the gigabyte instead of the MSI 770 mobo if possible.
I dont know if you think about putting a mild overclock on the cpu ( to 3.0- 3.3ghz or so, they hit 3.6-3.7 )
If so i would take the AMD x4 620 2.6ghz instead, if its for a friend or so and you rather leave everything at stock then the x3 2.9ghz is the better choice indeed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 09:22 Post subject: |
|
|
cod4 is one old ass game which is based on old ass q3 engine and should not be based as a benchmark as a new game
it's like advising 9600 gt instead of 9800 gt for practically the same price
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 12:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Paintface wrote: | | well i dont care if its 1 bit 128 or 1gb, its all about performance. |
128 bit has absolutely NOTHING to do with the SIZE of the memory, it's about the bandwidth.
That said, dingo_d is still wrong, and I messed up at this point as well, didn't know what's next. The 4770 has a 128-bit memory bus, 4850 256-bit; double the bandwidth. But hold on, the 4770 also has GDDR5 instead of GDDR3/4, so in the end they have equal memory bandwidth!
I agree a 5750 would be an even better choice though, especially with DX11 games coming up. Turn Tessellation off and get more FPS on DX11 than on DX9/DX10 yay <3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 12:43 Post subject: |
|
|
yeah I didn't considered the mem type :\ then 5750 is the card ftw for PA imo...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 21:36 Post subject: |
|
|
i know what he meant with the 128bit, just rediculed the numbers to make a point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 26th Jan 2010 22:43 Post subject: |
|
|
what i meant is i dont care what bandwidth it has, if a 128bit card outperforms the 256 but one you clearly go for the 128bit one, in the end performance charts matter to compare, not the specs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 27th Jan 2010 00:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks guys, I think it will be a 4870 in the end, as it is only a 35 euro difference )
The 4x2600 costs 30 euro more :/ And I would need a better cooling for overclocking :O
--
I intend to use it for rendering and gaming Should be a huge improvement to my core2duo 2x2ghz + GeForce7600go (ddr2 lol)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Tue, 16th Feb 2010 17:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mortibus wrote: | cod4 is one old ass game which is based on old ass q3 engine and should not be based as a benchmark as a new game
it's like advising 9600 gt instead of 9800 gt for practically the same price |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_duty_4#Game_engine
the only thing left from quake (id tech 3) engine has to be "some" of the console commands lol...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 16th Feb 2010 17:32 Post subject: |
|
|
How naive can you be? Check the sources to the claimed facts - all come from interviews with the company, and what company will ever come out publicly and say their engine is based on 10 year old engine? Modding of CoD4 has proven that there are a lot of elements that are exactly the same as CoD2, and that had a lot of elements that were exactly the same as Q3. Reading Wikipedia is good, but it is also very important to read the sources behind the text.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 16th Feb 2010 17:37 Post subject: |
|
|
COD4 CODWAW CODMW2 all use the same old engine. More shiny surfaces doesn't make it newer, just means the shaders were modified.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
