What would my FPS be with this?

FIREAGLE · June 2011

FIREAGLE · June 2011

The average human eye can only see 120 FPS, Thus a 120 Hz monitor is a waste.
SSD's burn out faster
I knew I needed new ram, Couldnt find any. thats the best I found. 2x 6 GB 1866 Mhz please
I'll have 3 screens >.> I can do more on them!

20mL · June 2011

I'm not that savy with computers, but isn't that hard drive a little too slow for the amount of money you're spending?

[MOD]BlindRob · June 2011

FPS caps at 200, so 200. If you're getting $3,500 is suggest you be reasonable and only spend 1500 max on a new computer that would last you 3 years. Save the rest and then upgrade from there. The price per what you get ratio climbs ever so sharply. Almost as fast as prices drop over time.

$3,500 is a whole lot of money to be spending on a computer.
I hope you plan on playing a lot more than CF. Also, eyefinity support for games is few and far between. [link]
This is over the top, over priced, and unreasonable. Just my two cents.

FIREAGLE · June 2011

20mL wrote: »

I'm not that savy with computers, but isn't that hard drive a little too slow for the amount of money you're spending?

I don't care much for the hard drive, Hell if I could I would only use a 300 GB. But sadly I can't....

Anyways I just need new ram. and what would my FPS be?

20mL · June 2011

FIREAGLE wrote: »

I don't care much for the hard drive, Hell if I could I would only use a 300 GB. But sadly I can't....

Anyways I just need new ram. and what would my FPS be?

No im talking about the RPMs. I read somewhere that the faster the Hard Drives RPMs the faster the computer will be. And the RPMs on that dont seem very high.

FIREAGLE · June 2011

[MOD]BlindRob wrote: »

FPS caps at 200, so 200. If you're getting $3,500 is suggest you be reasonable and only spend 1500 max on a new computer that would last you 3 years. Save the rest and then upgrade from there. The price per what you get ratio climbs ever so sharply. Almost as fast as prices drop over time.

$3,500 is a whole lot of money to be spending on a computer.
I hope you plan on playing a lot more than CF. Also, eyefinity support for games is few and far between. [link]
This is over the top, over priced, and unreasonable. Just my two cents.

200 FPS on this? Bull. my PC now gets 230 and it got a poop celeron and a crappy 4850 GPU and 2 gb ram.

FIREAGLE · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

There is no set limit to what a human eye can see, everyone is different. I've bought a 120hz for it's capability of 120fps and I will never be going to back to standard 60hz LCD's. The difference is phenomenal, and most people that have bought that would agree with me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CML9GaMSdg)

SSD's burn out faster? SSD's are rated to last 10 years, where as the average HDD lasts what... 2? You're comparing a spinning disc to digital technology, please use some common sense here as to what is the least reliable. My computer boots up in less than 10 seconds, and I can open numerous resource hogging files at once in seconds, where as your HDD would probably take close to 45 seconds to open numerous programs at once.

If you think 120hz is useless, at least get an IP panel monitor. You don't even know what you're missing in terms of quality. I mean, with $3500? Common now, you should be looking at something better than regular $150 TN panel LCD monitors.

The screens are included with the price.

FIREAGLE · June 2011

iuashhuashu wrote: »

Congratulations ,very good your topic.

... English please?

FIREAGLE · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

Would you take into consideration a build if I posted it? The one you're aiming at getting is a mistake.

How so? I got not much of a use for an SSD. I have 2! already that burned out after constant re-writing.

So how is this a mistake? my screen and ram?

I have seen people with 9,000 FPS.

All I wanted to know was my FPS with this.

Falloutt · June 2011

you will get 1 fps.

FIREAGLE · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

a lot more fps than your monitor will be able to render. let's just say you'll be seeing 60 fps your entire time playing this game.

Then suggest screen and ram. What will the FPS the PC it's self put out?

Falloutt wrote: »

you will get 1 fps.

Cool.

SooperPickle · June 2011

I would recommend you let tasty give you a build, with $3,500 you can do so much better than what you listed.

SooperPickle · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

No no, I'm going to let him be and buy this poor $3k+ build and he'll suffer the consequences in time.

Haha xD

FIREAGLE · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

Just like the thing you said about AMD processors "burning" out? Really, I am just trying to help you with your build which is poorly chosen. 990x is unnecessary, go with the 2600k and 1155 socket. The 990x while being powerful, is used by a "dead" socket which is already old technology. It seems to me as if all you did is sort newegg by the highest price and pick out every thing that way. Do some research.

And about the FPS, I would estimate around 400-500 in 8v8's?

Alienware M17x can get over 600 in a 8v8.

Then how the how do players get 9K FPS?

Falloutt · June 2011

FIREAGLE wrote: »

Alienware M17x can get over 600 in a 8v8.

Then how the how do players get 9K FPS?

they listen to tasty

FIREAGLE · June 2011

Falloutt wrote: »

they listen to tasty

Why would I listen to you?

I want most of the stuff I got now.

GPU
CPU
MOBO

DontExistence · June 2011

Besides what tasty has covered, I would also suggest a water cooling kit, as I think the corsair hydro is still air from what I read from the description, as you are able to overclock (if you are going to) a lot more with water cooling than regular fan cooling, if the corsair hydro is water cooling, than just ignore this post, I didn't read into the description very long

SooperPickle · June 2011

DontExistence wrote: »

Besides what tasty has covered, I would also suggest a water cooling kit, as I think the corsair hydro is still air from what I read from the description, as you are able to overclock (if you are going to) a lot more with water cooling than regular fan cooling, if the corsair hydro is water cooling, than just ignore this post, I didn't read into the description very long

It's water cooling, I think it uses a solvent you dont need to replace. Not quite sure, though.

[dot] · June 2011

why would anyone with a pretty relaxed budget refuse to run the OS on an SSD

SSD for OS and heavy load programs like Photoshop, mechanical for storage until ssds drop in price.

[dot] · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

Because apparently....

they do
but its not like we're talking a couple months.. bought mine september 22, '10.
going fine and in perfect health so far.

a burnout, and with that a new hdd, would be a small price to pay for the boot and loadtimes i'm getting now compared to my old mechanical hdd.

DontExistence · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

I'm talking average here. There is no way the M17x gets anything greater than 350 average fps. I don't know why all of this matters though, you're buying crappy $150TN 60hz monitors. My current $2500 PC is better than this $3500 build that you're planning on getting.

What do you use a $2500 computer for? Didn't you say you don't play games

I'm not trying to troll I'm being serious just wondering

On topic, if all your going to do is play crossfire or some other low graphic intensive games, I would just get a $1000-$1500 computer, because you don't need that 9k fps your talking about, in cf anything above 100-200fps I seem to find unnecessary, especially on those monitors, which I would think 2 would be good instead of three

Also a question, can you link those double slot graphics cards?

[dot] · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

Yes, but it would have already been replaced by newer technology by the time it "burns out"

the lifespan of ssd's are approximately 10 years for the average consumer. who keeps a hard drive for 10 years anyway? 10 years ago we had like 1000rpm drives.

meh, just look at how long it took for ssd to enter the market properly even with the technology available for some time in the form of usb-sticks

ssds won't get out of fashion for quite some time.
but anyway, expected lifetime varies depending on application but 2-4 years if treated right is about the same as a mechanical one.
very much worth the price.

DontExistence · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

Yes, but it would have already been replaced by newer technology by the time it "burns out"

the lifespan of ssd's are approximately 10 years for the average consumer. who keeps a hard drive for 10 years anyway? 10 years ago we had like 1000rpm drives.

My hdd has lasted approximately 5 years, it's a 120gb 5400rpm seagate barracuda, but of course I'm getting a new one, mainly because I feel it's too slow, which is probably true

I'm only upgrading to a 500gb 7200rpm, mainly because I don't have the money for an ssd

So basically hdds can last long, just won't compare to new standards

DontExistence · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

No, I don't play games. I did, and that was when I went out and built a $2500 computer. To be honest, $2500 for a computer isn't a lot when there are people paying $2500 for their workstation graphic cards (usually architects, designers etc)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195102&cm_re=firepro-_-14-195-102-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133347&Tpk=quadro%206000

Usually the top of the line computers aren't gaming computers, but workstation computers. Not that mine is a workstation computer, but $2500 isn't a lot taking into consideration the price of SSD's and whatnot. When I built this computer, I wasn't trying to maximise my gaming performance, but leave myself the ability for the best possible future expansions and also the overall best computing experience, not just games and fancy watercooling systems which are of no use to me.

I see, so basically just for future planning

I understand the workstation part, but I come from the Midwest, so 2500 on a computer just seems a lot

[dot] · June 2011

ssd lifetime is directly related to size.
mechanical drives will fail because of their mechanical nature - sh1t spinning at extreme speeds. not to mention the hdd will lose the data eventually.

give him an ssd, this is really annoying.
choosing the inferior alternative rubs me the wrong way.

FIREAGLE · June 2011

This is why I don't want people helping me build PC's,
I Hate Nvidia. I Hate AMD.

I will probally upgrade to an SSD 500 GB, and get a 75 Hz screen, Any suggestions on RAM? (I want 6chips, Final.)

I am keeping the case, mobo, GPU/CPU. That is not going to change.
for ram: 6x 2 GB 1866 Mhz.
For SSD: 400+
Monitor: 75 Hz.

SooperPickle · June 2011

FIREAGLE wrote: »

This is why I don't want people helping me build PC's,
I Hate Nvidia. I Hate AMD.

I will probally upgrade to an SSD 500 GB, and get a 75 Hz screen, Any suggestions on RAM? (I want 6chips, Final.)

You do know that AMD owns ATI now, right?

FIREAGLE · June 2011

SooperPickle wrote: »

You do know that AMD owns ATI now, right?

Yes. I like certain products from certain companies. I love Radeon, Hate their CPUs

SooperPickle · June 2011

FIREAGLE wrote: »

Yes. I like certain products from certain companies. I love Radeon, Hate their CPUs

You should be specific next time then

and AMD processors are good if you're on a budget.

SooperPickle · June 2011

Limeeeee wrote: »

He hates Nvidia because their GPU's burn out too. Good luck with your computer.

I've never used nVidia so I honestly dont know, but my brother in law built two seperate gaming rigs both of which used nVidia graphics and the graphics were smooth and very nice looking.

What would my FPS be with this?

Comments

Categories