You actually completely missed the weakest point in his system atm, which is the CPU. If I was looking at upgrading it I would update the CPU first, but hes getting more then enough FPS atm so wouldn't bother, unless you have cash to burn or want to play some new release games on max settings.steve wrote:hmmmm i see 3 options depending on what you wanna spend you already have an okish quad but cn be changed
1 bif the 9600 yer it ok but you gt 8 gig ram get ya self a nice ati card 1 gig gdr5 wrks well with quads
2 Definatly power supply yes it says 500 watt but i bet if you look at the (12 volt rail) sum psus have 2 and some only 1 min ov 22amps to run decint graphics..
P.s if you have 2 12 volt rails you CANNOT join them i have been asked....
3 a nice case with efficent cooling Best Air flow large rear top.. large front bottom....... side fans can disrupt air flow and can disrupt air around the cpu fan intake... to many dos hurt...
4 sum cool neons just to zazz it up lol....
p.s is your ram match sets or just watevers thrown in ...
depending wat u run ddr2 or ddr3 higher mhz ram utilizes well with quads also 1333mhz 1066mhz ect ect cough or sum corsair 4 gig 2000mhz chips be good
The only way things can look "Crisper" is if you have also turned Graphic settings/resolution etc Up as well.steve wrote:lol on the first line bull he has okish quad but tht can be changed...
the biggest thng iv noticed with larger fps above 250 is the pole line is alot crisper and more defined and groves in track show up alot better ect
and taking screenshots tht look like photos well say no more
I don't.Aaron wrote:You are getting pretty good fps as it is. I get around 200 fps on average on everything high except special effects.
Oh and bull your comment about anything over 60 inst noticeable go on cod4 play at 60 then change it to 250 then tell me you cant notice it.
It's not often I agree with Bull on anything....but....Bull wrote:I don't.Aaron wrote:You are getting pretty good fps as it is. I get around 200 fps on average on everything high except special effects.
Oh and bull your comment about anything over 60 inst noticeable go on cod4 play at 60 then change it to 250 then tell me you cant notice it.
Ive played BC2 on 40 to 200 and don't notice the difference one bit.
Should say, TL DR And I agree with Bullslobb11 wrote:It's not often I agree with Bull on anything....but....Bull wrote:I don't.Aaron wrote:You are getting pretty good fps as it is. I get around 200 fps on average on everything high except special effects.
Oh and bull your comment about anything over 60 inst noticeable go on cod4 play at 60 then change it to 250 then tell me you cant notice it.
Ive played BC2 on 40 to 200 and don't notice the difference one bit.
Anyone who says they can see the difference between 60Hz and 100Hz+ is either misguided, or FoS.
The human eye can NOT see more than about 70Hz. Personally...I'd say about 50Hz is the limit where I can detect a flicker, and even then I can only see it in my peripheral vision.
That said....I've had games supposedly running at 150 odd fps, and I've noticed a jerkiness that would seem about 25fps. Not sure what causes this, but I'd guess that the game itself is running at the reported 150fps, but something somewhere else is causing a bottleneck that reduces the effective fps to a noticably low speed.
If you have 100fps, but something isn't updating fast enough, then the actual view might only be updated once every 4 frames....effectively showing you 25 DIFFERENT frames per second.
Someone more in the know with how graphics adapters work might be able to shed light on this.
Ben62w....for rFactor your specs are fine.
Any game released in the last few years will run better on a high speed dual core (3 - 3.5Ghz for example) than on a low speed quad core like you have. Only the very latest games are making decent use of more than 2 cores.
I'm looking at upgrading as well...and I think a happy medium to look at is a 3Ghz quad core. You'd still have decent processing power for software that can only utilise two cores, but you've got 4 available for those that can utilise more than 2 cores. Happy to hear other opinions on this....
You've got heaps of memory...8GB is great.
Power Supply....500w is heaps provided it's a decent quality PSU. You're better off with a stable 500w, than an unstable 750w.
Graphics-wise....a 9600gt is fine for rFactor, but will definitely struggle with any game released in the last couple of years.
At the end of the day.....if you can run everything you want to run, why waste money upgrading. Wait until you find something you want to play but can't, THEN upgrade.
In response to my own post....
TL.DR
No worries mateben62w wrote:Hey slobb..
Thanks for that thats huge help.. ANd i understood it all lol (give self a pat on the back)
I was told when i built my pc that in some cases Duals were still better than Quads. But i went with the quad anyway. Im pretty happy with it all. Its never lagged on any games at all. I havnt really pushed it though i think Halflife 2 would be the highest graphics game ive played on it and thats a pretty old game now.
Might have to see how she goes with some of the new games. Then upgrade the CPU and Graphics card in a year or so.
Thanks heaps for your help guys
Chur
and Bull xoxox
