1440p @ ~140fps Average $2k cap H-E-L-P!

[jsoctf310]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($224.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus Z97-E ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Gaming Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($94.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial BX100 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($94.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Crucial BX100 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($94.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($48.50 @ Newegg)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($512.00 @ Newegg)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($512.00 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair Air 540 ATX Mid Tower Case ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($52.00 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($14.98 @ OutletPC)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($86.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1953.38
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-01 20:43 EDT-0400


I'm trying to cut excess spending, to get best price for performance ratio, going to run bx100's in raid 0 through sata III, anyone know what fps avg this setup should obtain say on crysis 3 1440p ? ultra settings? MSAA x4? My goal is below $2k total lower the better, but trying to obtain ~140fps avg?! possible? everything on youtube and internet is mostly about the all new and famed 4k fps, but since 4k is still expensive af and borderline undoable unless you take a second mortgage out or sell the boat lol i figured i'd settle on 1440p since that new badass monitor is out now in 144hz. Any and all advice welcomed!!! thanks.

 

[photonboy]

Hi,

1) 2xSSD is a waste of money IMO. An SSD only helps with load times but 2x versus 1x will be insignificant. Having said that, I have an SSD for Windows/apps, a 3TB HDD for most games and other storage, and a 2nd SSD for some games like SKYRIM which benefit a lot from load times as they're pretty often.

Personally I might consider a 256GB SSD + 3TB Seagate HDD (see pcpartpicker) and save $100 for now.

2) 140FPS?
Why?

I get you want to output to maintain 144FPS but that's a pretty challenging goal. I think it would be more realistic to force "Half Adaptive VSYNC" and synchronize to 72FPS. In NVidia Control Panel.

***WARNING**
You need to be very, very careful with 144Hz monitors that aren't G-Sync. If you can't output 144FPS or higher then you have a synch mismatch that causes stutter. That's why NVidia created "Adaptive VSync" which forces VSYNC OFF automatically if you can't output a high enough frame rate (which then causes screen tearing like normal though).

So if you can't maintain 144FPS+ for a non-G-Sync monitor I recommend tweaking to maintain 72FPS as said with the "Half Adaptive" method. Turn the quality settings so you rarely drop below 72FPS or screen tear is too often.

3) G-SYNC:
Still expensive but you might want to investigate that. I'd personally drop the 2nd GTX980, 2nd SSD and try to buy something like the Asus ROG Swift G-Sync monitor instead.

(I'll eventually get a 120MHz+ IPS version myself but there's nothing on the market quite yet at the price I'll pay)

If you don't understand G-Sync it's hard to explain, but for the layman it basically means games run SMOOTHER at a lower frame rate so there's really no need to try getting to "144FPS" to have the "ultimate" gaming rig.

I'd personally aim for something like:
- GSYNC ROG Swift ($800?)
- 1xGTX980 (I'd wait for the $650USD EVGA all-in-one hybrid which gets 1600MHz)
- 1xSSD
- 1x2TB or 3TB HDD
- Asus Z97
- i5-4690K
- CM "EVO" or similar (I prefer Noctua NH-U12S)
- case
- PSU..

 

[damric]

CX is a no-no, unless you want that to go BOOM!

But back to the subject of FPS and refresh rates, CPU is actually the limiting factor for that. And there isn't much more you can do, even a highly clocked Haswell i5 is going to struggle to keep any kind of consistency at such high FPS, regardless of how much graphics card horsepower you throw at it.

 

[rhysiam]

I took too long replying, so am late to the party.

Short answer... a couple of (possibly) important points on Gsync:
1) Most of the reviews I've read suggested that it's less and less important at higher frame rates. The difference between 20-50fps gaming with an without Gsync is night and day, no question... but all the reviews I read suggested that once you start getting over 80fps and definitely towards 100+ the difference with and without gsync is extremely marginal.
2) You pay a lot of money for a gsync monitor
3) VR is probably less than a year away. Usually a good quality monitor is a solid investment because (unlike lots of things inside your computer) it will probably still be a solid and completely useful monitor for 4 to 6 years. Now, with VR approaching... I just don't think it's a good time to lay down nearly $1K on a monitor. I don't know whether VR will be a massive revolution, hell, it might flop completely. But there are very few people who've had a go at a dev kit and come away underwhelmed, and some people are coming away mind-blown. There is large support from across the industry, game engines, developers, DX/OpenGL and AMD/Nvidia.... Will it be all that it's cracked up to be? Maybe not, who knows, but I'd rather wait and see than lay down $800 for a monitor that I could have invested in VR 8-12 months later if it does turn out to be game-changing.

Just my musings for what they're worth.

 

[jsoctf310]

Hi,

1) 2xSSD is a waste of money IMO. An SSD only helps with load times but 2x versus 1x will be insignificant. Having said that, I have an SSD for Windows/apps, a 3TB HDD for most games and other storage, and a 2nd SSD for some games like SKYRIM which benefit a lot from load times as they're pretty often.

Personally I might consider a 256GB SSD + 3TB Seagate HDD (see pcpartpicker) and save $100 for now.

2) 140FPS?
Why?

I get you want to output to maintain 144FPS but that's a pretty challenging goal. I think it would be more realistic to force "Half Adaptive VSYNC" and synchronize to 72FPS. In NVidia Control Panel.

***WARNING**
You need to be very, very careful with 144Hz monitors that aren't G-Sync. If you can't output 144FPS or higher then you have a synch mismatch that causes stutter. That's why NVidia created "Adaptive VSync" which forces VSYNC OFF automatically if you can't output a high enough frame rate (which then causes screen tearing like normal though).

So if you can't maintain 144FPS+ for a non-G-Sync monitor I recommend tweaking to maintain 72FPS as said with the "Half Adaptive" method. Turn the quality settings so you rarely drop below 72FPS or screen tear is too often.

3) G-SYNC:
Still expensive but you might want to investigate that. I'd personally drop the 2nd GTX980, 2nd SSD and try to buy something like the Asus ROG Swift G-Sync monitor instead.

(I'll eventually get a 120MHz+ IPS version myself but there's nothing on the market quite yet at the price I'll pay)

If you don't understand G-Sync it's hard to explain, but for the layman it basically means games run SMOOTHER at a lower frame rate so there's really no need to try getting to "144FPS" to have the "ultimate" gaming rig.

I'd personally aim for something like:
- GSYNC ROG Swift ($800?)
- 1xGTX980 (I'd wait for the $650USD EVGA all-in-one hybrid which gets 1600MHz)
- 1xSSD
- 1x2TB or 3TB HDD
- Asus Z97
- i5-4690K
- CM "EVO" or similar (I prefer Noctua NH-U12S)
- case
- PSU..

I see, so you think i shouldn't worry as much about getting crazy fps 140fps+ and just use a single 980 setup and wait for which evga 980 version? Also, single ssd? raid 0 ssds on linustechtips youtube showed two run of the mill raid 0 ssd's outperformed every other top of the line ssd including the m.2 plext0r pcie raid card setup. and i do need to study up on my knowledge of g-sync vs vsync freesync. and so for the g-sync enabled ips monitor @144hz with g-sync enabled it would be still amazing visually on say less that 144fps? also i do ike the idea of larger hdd size may come in handy with gaming being so huge nowadays.

 

[jsoctf310]

CX is a no-no, unless you want that to go BOOM!

But back to the subject of FPS and refresh rates, CPU is actually the limiting factor for that. And there isn't much more you can do, even a highly clocked Haswell i5 is going to struggle to keep any kind of consistency at such high FPS, regardless of how much graphics card horsepower you throw at it.

OKay gotchya about the CX is a no-go. But do you really think a quadcore without hyperthreading is that much worse for fps?! I doubt that games are anywhere near efficently using hyperthreading and/or i7-4790k power to multitask. I guessing anywhere from +-3-8+- fps. max. I just thought the newer the games have been the more reliant on the gpu's for power not so much the quadcore processors, but if i'm misled and all f***ed up please let me know! Lol. because honestly i'm pretty new at this sort of thing! haha thanks

 

[jsoctf310]

I took too long replying, so am late to the party.

Short answer... a couple of (possibly) important points on Gsync:
1) Most of the reviews I've read suggested that it's less and less important at higher frame rates. The difference between 20-50fps gaming with an without Gsync is night and day, no question... but all the reviews I read suggested that once you start getting over 80fps and definitely towards 100+ the difference with and without gsync is extremely marginal.
2) You pay a lot of money for a gsync monitor
3) VR is probably less than a year away. Usually a good quality monitor is a solid investment because (unlike lots of things inside your computer) it will probably still be a solid and completely useful monitor for 4 to 6 years. Now, with VR approaching... I just don't think it's a good time to lay down nearly $1K on a monitor. I don't know whether VR will be a massive revolution, hell, it might flop completely. But there are very few people who've had a go at a dev kit and come away underwhelmed, and some people are coming away mind-blown. There is large support from across the industry, game engines, developers, DX/OpenGL and AMD/Nvidia.... Will it be all that it's cracked up to be? Maybe not, who knows, but I'd rather wait and see than lay down $800 for a monitor that I could have invested in VR 8-12 months later if it does turn out to be game-changing.

Just my musings for what they're worth.

#1 Gotchya
#2 Gotchya
#3 I have not a dang clue what we're talking about! VR?! Virtual reality? haha now sure how that'd play into monitors, i heard they'd have to have a hpu for holographics processor if thats what your even talking about haha

 

[damric]

CX is a no-no, unless you want that to go BOOM!

But back to the subject of FPS and refresh rates, CPU is actually the limiting factor for that. And there isn't much more you can do, even a highly clocked Haswell i5 is going to struggle to keep any kind of consistency at such high FPS, regardless of how much graphics card horsepower you throw at it.

OKay gotchya about the CX is a no-go. But do you really think a quadcore without hyperthreading is that much worse for fps?! I doubt that games are anywhere near efficently using hyperthreading and/or i7-4790k power to multitask. I guessing anywhere from +-3-8+- fps. max. I just thought the newer the games have been the more reliant on the gpu's for power not so much the quadcore processors, but if i'm misled and all f***ed up please let me know! Lol. because honestly i'm pretty new at this sort of thing! haha thanks

For purely gaming, nothing will get much better than an OC'd Haswell i5. Extra threads are nice if you want to record gaming sessions in highest quality for youtube or whatever those new gaming site social media sites are. That is a trend that is catching on fast, but if you don't ever plan on it, your i5 will be fine. Otherwise I concur with photonboy on rethinking much of your rig. RAID SATA SSDs seems like a waste when there are much faster PCIE and M.2 SSDs. I'm glad to see that you do value the importance of SSD though.

 

[rhysiam]

#1 Gotchya
#2 Gotchya
#3 I have not a dang clue what we're talking about! VR?! Virtual reality? haha now sure how that'd play into monitors, i heard they'd have to have a hpu for holographics processor if thats what your even talking about haha

Of course you'll still need a monitor. My question was whether it's worth spending $800-$1000 on a gaming monitor, which is only better than a $200 monitor because of the gsync and framerates... both features only useful for gaming. If VR headsets do come out soon (which is looking very likely) and they become to the go-to gaming display (which is much less certain), then your super-expensive gaming monitor might suddenly seem like a pretty poor investment.

If you haven't been following the VR trends, it's worth having a read of this hands-on: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/htc-vive-virtualy-reality-hands-on,4102.html

I'm not suggesting that this will take off, there's a lot we don't know and so many things need to go right for the tech to reach its potential... but the thing is that it just might take off in a big way... and if it does an expensive gaming monitor will take a distant second.

That's all I'm saying.