Recommended modding systems?

[FMod]

Your strategy appeals to me - a lower initial investment with a long term commitment. I can do that, but got so many questions. Finding custom build websites are tricky.

 

Keep in mind it's pretty much required to eventually maintain and update a high-end PC. Even the best hardware gets obsolete - no number of DirectX 10 cards will run DirectX 11, no number of Nehalem cores will replace four Haswell cores in games.

 

You will generally have to eventually upgrade some components yourself, though it's fairly easy. The only thing most users replace is the graphics card, and that's two standard screws, one plastic latch, and one pull.

 

Puget has a great reputation, better than that of Alienware, they don't stick in Seagate drives most builders do even in very expensive machines (to save like $3) and other junk.

You don't want to buy the monitor and the speakers through them (better ones on the market), other than that, it's one out of the few reasonable alternatives to building it yourself. So if you go that way, I can help check and correct your configuration (click edit to generate a link).

 

Note though that they don't offer dual video cards, at least not in the Serenity line. As to whether you need two, it all depends on the display you plan to run. With 1920x1080, there's no reason at all, with 2560x1440, there is, with 3840x2160, even two cards won't work well enough, so that's not an option for today.

[bootrocket]

Thanks for the tips, FMod. I plan, tentatively, to run two interfaces -- one through an Xbox style controller on a 60-inch 1920-1080, and the other through a standard PC setup on a 30-inch at 2560x1440. I'll do most of my gaming for the time being on the 1080. One, higher-end card sounds like the way to go, but i contemplate buying a MoBo with the extra slot for possible future expansions.

[Lakan]

Thanks for the tips, FMod. I plan, tentatively, to run two interfaces -- one through an Xbox style controller on a 60-inch 1920-1080, and the other through a standard PC setup on a 30-inch at 2560x1440. I'll do most of my gaming for the time being on the 1080. One, higher-end card sounds like the way to go, but i contemplate buying a MoBo with the extra slot for possible future expansions.

I have a single gtx 980 and it has a difficult time with 2560x1440, on enb that is. It's fine vanilla, in fact, that's what this thing nvidia likes to ship with it called "geforce experience" wants to set my skyrim at(too bad I have mod organizer, so my game reads different ini's :P ) But I get 60fps on 1920 x 1080 with the vividian enb and two weather mods(since they make it so you can have two and they'll place nice with each other for once)

 

I think two gtx 970s is what people are calling the "sweet spot" of this generation. I also personally wouldn't spend so much on a cpu, I got an i5 4690k, it's doing wonders, and overclocking is a valid option if it's not up to speed in the future. In terms of immersion mods, well I blasted the mod limit of 255 esps, I have a relatively script-heavy order, and I even opted in on the locational damage mod. Really, I only get crashes because something is broken, like a deleted navmesh.

 

Unfortunately, I wouldn't know too much about Amd/ati(they still call their graphics department ati right??), so I'm not much use there I'm afraid, lol.

 

I myself game on a 60 inch. I was running on a $1500 budget and was interested in using whatever I had now for a display. To be honest, I prefer this setup. Brings me back to my console days especially when I get the controller going.

 

I personally get more immersed in a game with a controller than with mouse and keyboard.

[bootrocket]

Thanks Lakan. Very helpful. In fact the 2650x1440 interface would largely be for stills, photoshop, loading, etc. I too find a controller more immersive (although I may keep a wireless keyboard near by for fails). And after reading the STEP recommendations I'm convinced Nvidia is the way to go. :smile:

[bootrocket]

So I've been exchanging emails with a Puget rep and he's of the opinion that I will not have any problems below 2560x1600 if I use the GTX 980. I politely suggested otherwise, citing ENBs and heavily modded sytems nevertheless. I think he'll try to convince me to go with an i7, but we'll see. I'm really reluctant to go with liquid cooling, however, cause I do not want to fiddle with it when up-grading on the long term.

 

Hope you guys don't mind me parroting your insight, FMod and Lakan. Your perspectives are invaluable. They also happen to square with the reading I've done and the other opinions I've solicited in file threads. Also, I haven't spoken to anyone, yet, who runs two GPUs. I'm sure they're out there, just not that many. I'm tempted to stick with just one for the team, so to speak.

 

Anyone know anything about 6 Cores and 8 Cores, or is that totally out in left field? I wish I could see Microsoft's research on the 1.17 GHz 8 Core. I've just got this feeling that something's up with that.

[VileTouch]

i7 in general have 8 cores. actually it's 4 physical cores with hyperthreading. another thing: i7 does not equal water cooling. i have one air cooled (big heat sink though) and it hardlly ever goes above 40°C

 

err.. i'd suggest you steer clear of the Xeon line, unless you have PLENTY of cash to burn for no good reason. unless you DO have a need for dual procs. (highly unlikely)

 

just keep it clean. if you think you can afford a gtx 980 that's awesome. get some ddr4, an i7 and a smoothie to go with it. if you are on a budget, a less boombastic gpu can do the job too. but if you need it for something else other than gaming (like video editing, 3d rendering, or editing really big artworks in photoshop) then the hyperthreading makes all the difference. sure, the biggest gpu available always help too. my point being don't create yourself a bottleneck from the get-go.

[bootrocket]

That can't be a speeding ticket! It's gotta be for littering while stoned. Guilty as charged! :D The hyperthreaded i7 Core 8 is called a Haswell-E right? Still working this stuff out ... :sweat:

 

Yeah, I just picked up an article on recomparison about the differences between Xeon and i7. This is how I understand it. A chip's potential is divided by the purpose of its design and the software that is written for it. Xeons, for example, are based on the Pentium II design, making them more suitable for servers, and right now the only thing that's written for Xeons, from what I understand, is Data Center Management. One might, hypothetically, use a Xeon for gaming, but he would only be using a fraction of the chip making it a complete waste of bread.

 

The Haswell and Broadwell based i7s on the other hand are based historically on the Core 2 design engineered for desktops, making them best suited for "photo editing, video encoding and gaming." For gaming purposes, if only by virtue of its design, we're already using more of the chip, but the efficacy of each i7 design, in turn, is limited by the software that is written for it as well. I know I'm over simplifying here (way - leaving out hyperthreading, for example), but I gather that's the idea behind the efficacy, or inefficacy, of the i7 Core 8. They are designed for gaming, but the degree to which the chip's design is harnessed depends on the software that's written for it.

 

The usefulness of the Xbox One AMD Core 8 depends on the games that are designed for it, accordingly, and 8 core games remain in development. Moreover current games will only use part of an 8 Core's architecture. Benchmark and core count tests remain hard to find nevertheless. Should one buy an 8 Core, he's buying one as an investment. Factor in the delayed and limited release of Broadwell 14nm microarchitecture (Sept 2014) with the soon to be released Skylake 14nm microarchitecture (Sept 2015), and purchasing a 22nm 8 core i7 for gaming may be, for me, a bit premature.

 

That's the best I can make of the CPU consumer's conundrum, on the short term at any rate. I'm finding the reports on this stuff are really conflicting. Wikipedia's "Tick-Tock" Roadmap appears to directly contradict its list of Broadwell processors. But maybe I'm reading it incorrectly. I left links to some of my references below.

 

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2863885/intel-brings-next-gen-broadwell-processor-tech-to-mainstream-notebooks-desktops.html

http://recomparison.com/comparisons/100492/comparison-of-xeon-vs-i7/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core

 

 

"Not so funny meow, is it?" :laugh:

[bootrocket]

The hyperthreaded i7 Core 8 is called a Haswell-E right? Still working this stuff out ... :sweat:

 

My bad. As you said, VT, through the use of simultaneous multithreading (SMT) for every processor core the operating system addresses two virtual or logical cores. That is to say, a hyper-threaded, four-processor "Quad Core" would have eight virtual cores.

 

And the i7 Exteme Edition Core 8 uses the Haswell microarchitecture, it is not the only chip code named Haswell (duh). Not what you have I'm guessing.

 

I suppose that would mean if the Xbox One has 8 processors it would have sixteen virtual cores using something like SMT, but SMT is an Intel technology. I guess AMD's Bulldozer floating point core is similar to SMT in that regard.

 

Blah blah blah ... I ain't buyin' no Xbox, and I do not believe any current game can take full advantage of any 8 Core, yet. So the 8 Core is overkill, for the time being. Guess I'm going with the 4 core i7 4790.

 

Hyper-threading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bulldozer (microarchitecture) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haswell (microarchitecture) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[VileTouch]

no. not all haswell i7 have 8 physical cores. the only instance being the 5960x extreme. the 4790 have 4 cores and multithreading, just like the one i have. Performance wise, to be honest, there's not much of a difference between these two models ...aside from the price. in my case i got it for less than $200 so that's a big plus imho. the noticeable benefit would be that it uses a different socket (1150 vs 1155) and motherboards with a different chipset (Z87 vs Z77 in my case) but as i mentioned earlier, if i can cut the price in more than half while maintaining a very similar performance and quality level, that in itself is a...

 

[bootrocket]

So my Puget rep says that an i7 system will be 15% faster than an i5, but the S.T.E.P. Gamer Poets say that i7s will not improve performance strictly for the gamer. I don't trust my intuition. I'm too new at this. Anybody here have a position on this? I'm not exactly sure when the STEP article was updated.