DISCLAIMER: I have no idea if I'm putting this in the correct section. No computer hardware issues, just trying to catch you up on my life and it's all positive good news with no questions or concerns. If this belongs in "Off-Topic/General Off-Topic", Or "BeamNG Drive/General Discussion", then moderators-- feel free to move my post wherever: -------- I guess I was waiting carefully before pulling the trigger and going for a new gaming rig, as I know money is always an issue. I guess it started when I realized that my old computer wasn't going to run 'primo3001's "American Road" — no matter how hard I tried. Research, tweaks, over-clocks; at some point, I realized it just wasn't going to make any difference. This is a game that needs a lot of power to get the larger maps going. So I began to think about my next move. Should I upgrade the hardware in my existing computer, and carefully pick and choose each component independently? Or buy a whole new rig outright, where someone else— at a reputable manufacturer (hopefully more tech savvy than I)— ensures that all the new hardware is better than what I had, and is compatible with each other? I'm sure the first route is cheaper, and a more customized approach assures the job gets done to the highest degree, with the most efficiency. However it requires the most research. One must be careful that the GPU and CPU play nicely with the mother board— not something you want to find out (that they don't) the hard way. Or the items require a much more powerful PSU (wattage-wise) than what one is prepared for. So there are many variables to think about. Whereas, going with a large reputable corporate brand— while maybe the easy way out and not the most cost-effective route, is an assurance that for the price, the manufacturer has teamed up the right parts for the intended purpose. So my goals were this: 1. Could I install primo3001's "American Road", and Bob Blunderton's "Tennessee USA" without issue? 2. If I was lucky enough to install and run either, could I do so at normal graphics settings at, at least 60 fps? (Yes... a tall order... I know). 3. Could I score more than 4 cars on the Monkey Bench? (Excuse me... Banana Bench... but hey... monkeys eat bananas... so close enough). 4. Could I run East Coast, USA and enter the main road along the river wall from the northwest, without my frames plummeting to 30 fps? 5. And finally, (and what prompted my move, even more than wanting to run "American Road"), could I run the program without "catch and release" frame rates? When I say "catch and release", no I'm not talking trout fishing, though it's sort of the same idea. My old computer would be cruising at 65-70 fps just fine, in most of the normal default maps... then suddenly (like a trout on a hook), it would get bogged down to 13 fps.. where it would hold for maybe 10 seconds, and then jump back up to 70 fps (like the trout got let off the hook and thrown back into the water). The release would last maybe 5 to 10 minutes, and the repeated catch another 10 seconds. Rinse & Repeat. A 10sec-to-10min ratio all night long. It got very tedious and annoying after awhile. In fact, it got to the point where (in an effort to be a good sport about it)— I would pull over to the side of the road when it started bogging down, and I'd wait the 10 seconds for it to stop, and then move back onto the road and continue. Sort of like pulling over to let an emergency vehicle go by! Really not the way the game was intended to be played... but so it was. Now enter the new computer which I ordered around May 25th, and it arrived Sat, June 1st. I'll get into computer/component names and stats comparisons in a bit, but first to address the results of my aforementioned issues: 1. Frame rate "Catch and release" has totally disappeared! At least to the degree that I was experiencing it befoe. If I have hang ups, I'd say they are more in the order of quick stutters that maybe knock FPS down by 5 to 10 at the most; and so quickly that I never have time to look at the counter, before it corrects itself. Fine by me. 2. East Coast will run consistently at about 110 to 120 fps, with the limiter turned off obviously, with most of the graphics settings set around ¾ high. That is to say, many of them set high, and a few set normal, and some things I don't care as much about— completely turned off. 3. "American Road" installed 2 nights ago, and ran consistently at about 100 to 105 fps no problem. What a relief that it loaded. I haven't tried Blunderton's "Tennessee" yet, but one nail biting, finger crossing night of anticipation at a time. 4. The Banana Bench is very telling. First time to the bench it yielded a count of 20 cars. Quite a far cry from just 4 on my old computer. Now on my 2nd Banana Bench query, maybe just 5 days later, it yielded a count of 16 cars, but I suppose there is some fluctuation involved with that, depending on when the last time was that I cleared my cache, and what have you. 16... 20... I can live with a variance of 4 lousy cars, when I get to that level. I'm quite satisfied with those numbers indeed! So now that the results have been shared, let me share the specs comparisons between the old and the new... just for the fun of it. Now realize, I'm not trying to toot my own horn and say that my computer is the best there is. I'm sure there are people on here that have rigs that can wipe up the floor with mine. The point is that I'm humbly happy and sincerely just want to share. No boastfulness is intended, as I'm just simply relieved that it works, and that it's the viable solution I was hoping it would be. ----------------------------- Brand Name: Old— (2012) None. It was a Craigslist special, built by a private party where he purchased the components on his own, and installed them in his own empty case. Then he sold it to me, March 2013. New— (2018) HP Pavilion Gaming Desktop 690-00-001SXT (the name wasn't crucial other than as a reference point). I was really looking at specs and price. Purchased May 2019. Operating System: Old— Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-bit New— Windows 10 Home Edition, 64-bit Mother Board: Old— Gigabyte Technology 970A-DS3P New— Intel Lincs H370 DDR4 DIMM Hard Drive (HDD): Old— Toshiba P300 HDWD 110 (1 TB) New— (Brand unknown?) SATA (2 TB) CPU: Old— AMD FX-8120, 8-core, 3.4 GHz New— Intel Core i7-8700, 6-core, 3.2 GHz GPU: Old— AMD Radeon HD XFX R7870 2gb GDDR 5 New— NVIDIA GeForce 1060 3gb GDDR 5 RAM: Old— Corsair Vengeance 1600 8 GB New— NECC 2666 DDR 4 12 GB PSU: Old— Corsair 600 CX (600 watt) New— ESTR Sirius-GFX (Gold) (310 watt) ----------------------- So an interesting mix of specs— both high and low— where at times, it would seem my old rig's specs on some components may have edged out my new rig... ever so slightly. But I think the proof is in the game performance itself, and if that's any indication, then those numbers apparently don't matter. For example the higher number of cores and slightly higher clock speed on the old computer's CPU, seems like it would give it somewhat of an advantage, but I believe it's true to say that a newer Intel i7, high 8000's series; trumps an older AMD 8100's series, no matter what the core count or clock speed. The more powerful PSU in the older computer at 600 watts, would seem to dwarf the seemingly more anemic PSU in the newer computer, at the paltry 315 watts. But if the newer, more energy efficient hardware is designed to run at cooler temps, and use less power, then I'm thinking the nearly 300 watt decrease doesn't matter. In fact, if anything, it's a good thing. All the other stats only point in favor of the newer rig, with those for the GPU, the RAM, and the HDD space... overwhelmingly favoring the new computer. So there it is. If it can run the cars, run the AI, on the default maps, and the most demanding 3rd Party Repository maps, then I'm a happy camper and certainly have nothing to complain about whatsoever. Thank goodness for progress and upgrades! And thanks for taking the time to read this.
This is by far the biggest upgrade you got. That FX would be holding you back majorly. The i7 should provide smooth gaming for years to come, though you may need to upgrade the GPU eventually. As for the PSU, upgrade that ASAP, a desktop i7 can draw up to almost 200W in boost mode alone. That 300W rating is also for peak output, not continuous. You're really pushing it.
Thanks for your input on the single component you felt made the biggest difference. That’s really fascinating, and something I completely forgot to think about. (I just assumed it was an *EQUAL* and collective combination of everything together). As for the PSU, yipes! Didn’t realize the danger I’m putting the computer in. So what minimum wattage do you think I should replace the 310w with? And as I step the wattage up in the PSU, does the physical dimensions of the component increase, thus requiring a larger desktop/tower box? I guess I’m like a lot of “consumer grade” computer users out there. I don’t like to have to think about the viability of each component independently, (you know... because that would require too much research & work on my part), so I am easily lured into that whole— {“one stop shopping” & “some expert put all this stuff into one box together, so it’s gotta be okay”} —kind of thinking. ♂️ Main point being, thank you for your feedback.
What an update I must say! Now to the question: I usually go for double the power your pc draws, with a bit less wattage when possible since most PSUs have their peak performance right around 50 to 70% of usage. Assuming your pc is something like this (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/3s2RQZ) you could buy a 550W/600W power supply (> Gold Rated would be good both for your pc and you electricity bill) in order to have some spare wattage in case you want to upgrade your GPU down the line without changing the power supply too. And no, PSU are generally all the same size except SFX power supplies wich are smaller or high wattage PSUs (1000W and more) wich are slightly longer; here is a post if you want to know more of PSUs dimensions. Now, the last question: should you need a new case when you'll upgrade the psu? Usually pre-builts prevent you from upgrading them, so before buying a brand new power supply, check if the mounting holes are standard and check inside whether you have enough space to fit in the new psu. I hope this helped a bit
@B3_Burner some games depend more on CPU than GPU, for others its the opposite. BeamNG will use that i7 more than it will the GPU if you have a lot spawned. As for PSU, DO NOT SKIMP. I can not emphasize this enough. A cheap knockoff PSU can die easier in the best case, or even catch fire when heavily loaded in the worst case. The PSU is a very important component, so get a respectable brand with sufficient wattage. Also, prebuilt PCs use inferior parts to custom builds most of the time. Custom builds are more reliable if good parts are used. I pushed a Core i7 920 to its limit with overclocking (2.66 GHz turned into 4.0 GHz!) and it ran stable like that for 5 years straight with no signs of failure. In that same period I have had prebuilts suddenly just die (motherboard or PSU failures seem common on them).
Ew. An intel motherboard. Imo, the 1060 3gb is an insanely stupid card but it performs okay. Prebuilts tend to skimp on parts like the mobo and psu, and like @PriusRepellent said, your system needs more than 300w
Thank you for the input. So Intel motherboards and NVD 1060's are not your thing I see, but I'm hoping if nothing else the i7-8700 will remain relevant, a little longer than after the 1060 is considered "put out to pasture" by most. I realized that there may have been a downside going the pre-built route, but wanting results quickly and not having to do the legwork myself, I felt it was a decision I could live with. For me the benchmark is Bob Blunderton's Roan, Tennessee map; if it could handle that with little problem-- which I found out it could, then I resigned myself to the fact that I made a decent enough decision to be happy. When it comes to gaming, I'm not a young pup always thinking forward to the next latest and greatest. I'm a two-trick pony. 13 year old Flight Simulator X (a-la shades of 2006), and BeamNG. If it can do those two for the next 5 years, I'm content to call it a day and move on. However, the PSU is a completely different issue and I will be addressing that post haste! Everyone I've talked to said, "Get that thing outta' there before you burn your office and the whole house down".
1060 6gb models are great, the 1060 3gb model is the problem one. 8700 is fine. Technically, Intel don't make a desktop processor that's much faster, they're cheating and breaking their own spec to get the 9700/9800/9900 working
Protip: if you absolutely can not build a custom PC but want one anyways there are companies who build custom PCs to order. You tell them what parts you want, pay for it and they will build and ship that custom PC to you. The two I know of are CyberPowerPC and iBuyPower. This may be more expensive that buying the parts yourself, or cheaper if there are specials going on. I personally had a good experience with iBuyPower around 2009. In fact, the 800W PSU from that 09 build is still powering my 2014 build. I also reused the DVD burner.
Curious what's the problem with a 3gb? I came from the land of 2gb before this, so to me, a 150% increase seems okay to me. But hence, my lack of knowledge on these things, and consequently my hesitation on attempting to build a gaming computer myself. Oh thanks, good to know. And I'm curious what they did to "cheat" and make higher/later model numbers out of that CPU? --- Post updated --- Wow! I thank you for the input. 5 to 8 years from now when I'm back to the drawing board, I'll look into these.
It's not the quantity of memory that matters, it's clock speeds and core counts. Except for some absurd reason, the 3gb model has a bunch of cores disabled and the clock speed decreased, it legitimately performs significantly less than the 6gb and has very poor value for money versus the 4gb 1050Ti (which while slower, isn't that much slower) --- Post updated --- The cheat, intel claim 95 watts of power on their later processors. Hahaha. The 8700 (not 8700K) Intel rates at 65W, this itself is a lie, it's an 80W part, the 8700K they rated at 95, this is not a lie. The 9700K is an overclocked 8700K, but overclocking increases power requirements, it does still have a 95W limit programmed into it though, meaning it will throttle not based on temperature, but based on the amount of power it's consuming. On a multi core workload, it will perform very similarly to the 8700K. Single core, it's faster. 9800K they upped the ante. It's an 8 core part, but hyperthreading was disabled, however it also has a 95W limit programmed into it and isn't realistically any faster multithreaded and in some benchmarks is slower (basically any benchmark where hyperthreading can do it's thing more effectively) 9900K, overclocked 9800K, with hyperthreading turned on. Intel still advertising it as a 95W part, but, if you set a 95W limit on it with a high end motherboard, you suddenly find that the 8700, 9700, 9800 and AMDs Ryzen 2700X *all* catch it, you just can't have that many cores running with that amount of power. While Intel advertising claims 95W, the programmed limit is 125W. They're false advertising their parts to hide that they can't get them working properly on the current manufacturing process. This has angered quite a few people and some magazines have attempted to do new reviews based on either manually throttling the 9900K to 95W, or ramping up other chips to 125W
so it does, still doesnt change that intel arent managing to do anything extra with those 2 cores due to TDP limitation
Well, that TDP limit can be controlled with the BIOS, and Intel's own tweaking software (this is how I bypass the turbo boost limit and allow all cores to full turbo)... at least with my 4790k. Has Intel done anything to prevent that? If so, then that's a REAL reason to be upset with them.
