FPS with 1920x1080 vs 3840 x 2160

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

Hey everyone,

I want to buy one 4GB Sapphire Radeon R9 290 OC Tri-X (not vapor x though) sold on amazon
http://

GOAL:
1) 1920x1080 resolution
2) 120 FPS without dipping,
----Vsync w/ 120Hz monitor
3) Antialiasing usually 4x
4) Anisotropic Filtering always 16x
5) Temps under 80C are fine
6) All games must play at ULTRA/MAX meeting all above criteria

So with the above expectations being met perfectly, will this GPU run games like Metro Last Light, The Witcher 2 and modded Skyrim (4096 texture packs) with the above needs being met perfectly?

I've read personal reviews from amazon where people say they have played Titanfall at 3840x2160 with 8xEQ Antialiasing and 16x Anisotropic Filtering at Ultra settings and managed 60FPS with occasional dips into 45FPS.

But what about for my 5 criteria above? I only use 1080p but want 120FPS.

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

If you want to stay in your meager $5k budget, you can downgrade to a 500GB SSD. Just keep "My Documents" with all your video, music, etc on the HDD. Either way, DEFINITELY get an SSD in this price range. You'd regret building a "monster PC" without one.

hahah nah I'm not worried about loading times when they are already under 4 seconds. I was always using a hybrid before and was happy. Boot time was 28 seconds.

I SERIOUSLY debated an SSD but I'd never do much with it. I never transfer files except once per month and so the only other visible benefits I could get from it is faster load times on programs and a few seconds off boot. Only the Samsung EVO Pro offered a reliable warranty too for its lifespan but it was $800.

I desperately want an SSD, but in the end everything zips into cache and the benefit is literally 1-2 second load time differences in programs. As it is I'm $3000 past the budget I wanted to keep lol!

 

[legend001523]

yeah, the build you posted is fine, if you wanted faster speeds a ssd is good but you don't mind so it won't be much of a difference

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

yeah, the build you posted is fine, if you wanted faster speeds a ssd is good but you don't mind so it won't be much of a difference

Yeah I gave it a massive amount of thought, and the 10k drives seem like a good mid-way point to shorten times, maintain long life and two are still less than the price of 1 reliable 1TB SSD. I'd sooner channel that $400 into a second GPU lol

 

[legend001523]

yeah, sounds good 😛

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

yeah, sounds good 😛

yeah sounds good. yeah...yeah YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH

 

[legend001523]

GNSFJGFHNDJGJGJDFGDG EEERRRRMMMUUUUGOOOODDDDDD WOOP WOOP WOOP[

 

[Rapajez]

It's your choice. I think you're really underestimating the difference in a solid ... solid state drive. You're mostly referring to sequential reads in your post, but where they shine in everyday use, is random access reads. See the article below. Besides general system responsiveness, and boot times, I personally appreciated the 1-2 second game loading. Besides performance, you're getting better reliability than a RAID 0, and much lower noise, heat, and power usage.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-840-evo-ssd-benchmark-review-test,10.html

I didn't realize how cheap the Velociraptors were. If you want the same budget, I'd grab a $250 500GB 840 EVO and a $140 2TB WD Black. 250% the capacity and 100x the speed.

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

It's your choice. I think you're really underestimating the difference in a solid ... solid state drive. You're mostly referring to sequential reads in your post, but where they shine in everyday use, is random access reads. See the article below. Besides general system responsiveness, and boot times, I personally appreciated the 1-2 second game loading. Besides performance, you're getting better reliability than a RAID 0, and much lower noise, heat, and power usage.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-840-evo-ssd-benchmark-review-test,10.html

I didn't realize how cheap the Velociraptors were. If you want the same budget, I'd grab a $250 500GB 840 EVO and a $140 2TB WD Black. 250% the capacity and 100x the speed.

YeahI thought of that too. The biggest area where I experience long wait times for HDD's is when I move files between hard drives. So an SSD and any HDD will just ruin any performance gains. The most obvious problem I face is my dual drive setup. I always make a clone of my drive so I need two drives of equal sizes, and since the only time I really would see a performance gain is when I move files between drives, I'd need 2x 1TB SSD's minimum unless I decided to compress one drive. I've done the whole compression thing and it's beyond tedious. It makes backing up and unzipping files so time guzzling.

As it is, there are two main issues I really face no matter what I think of.

1) a 1TB drive of any kind is bare bones minimum for me. I already have 45 games backed up and zipped and they eat up 200GB with 60% compression. I fully intend to decompress those due to how time consuming it is to move files in and out between drives when everything is zipped up tighter than a nun's blouse
2) Life span. My dream rig listed above is set for 8 solid years of good, healthy life before I would begin upgrading at all, an only the $800 Samsung EVO Pro offers a 10 year warranty on a drive that is 1TB

No matter how I shake it, like most people who still use SSD's the price per gigabyte is about as cheap as cocaine by the kilo, and in the end it's completely unnecessary and totally preferential. I only WISH I had the money to blow on them. As it is, my rig is insanely fast and expensive

 

[Rapajez]

I'm confused. Why are you consistently moving files between 2 hard drives? I would say cup holders are "unnecessary" for driving, but I'd be crazy to buy a car without them.

If you still need 2 1TB drives, just go with a 500GB 840 EVO for games/windows, and 2x 1TB Seagate ST1000DM003 for everything else.

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

I'm confused. Why are you consistently moving files between 2 hard drives? I would say cup holders are "unnecessary" for driving, but I'd be crazy to buy a car without them.

If you still need 2 1TB drives, just go with a 500GB 840 EVO for games/windows, and 2x 1TB Seagate ST1000DM003 for everything else.

I already wrote an explanation for my habits regarding SSD usages that would merit such an extremely high price tag! The only time I do anything with HDD data ...at all...as in... ever, is when I load programs (which takes only a couple seconds already) and when I transfer files between my main drive and the backup drive about once per month.

The only time I have to sit and wait on my slow HDD is literally for a minute or two at most per month. All other times of daily use everything is either immediate or take a couple seconds...so with that, even spending $100 would be very silly! My boot times are nearly as fast as an SSD already. I see no merit in the cost.

In all the times I would really WANT to be able to see the performance boost of an SSD, it would be stifled because of the second drive being an HDD because the only time I ever sit for more than 1 minute during slow data transfer is when I backup my hdd's. SO unless I buy two drives then loading programs and such won't even be noticed.

An SSD really is a luxury. I'd friggin love to have one but the prices are beyond unreasonable. I've chosen to put the money into an R9 295x2 instead

 

[Rapajez]

Understood. The beauty of the PC is that it's your choice. I have to make one last plea though.

It does seem strange that you're seeing that much speed from mechanical drives, especially if they're not even RAID'd. I strongly recommend just a little research on RECENT drives before pulling the trigger.

Having used SSDs for a number of systems, I, personally, find it hard to imagine building any PC without one (with a budget of $800 or more). As stated, the 7-second Windows boots and the instant application and game loading are reason enough, but there's also power, noise and heat benefits, ESPECIALLY compared to 2 velociraptors. If I was buying the latest GPU, CPU, and Memory speeds, I'd want to at least use semi-recent Storage tech.

You've mentioned cost, but I laid out a couple alternatives that wouldn't increasing your budget or lose you any capacity.

Again, it's your choice! Also, you can always add one down the road. One of the benefits of the X99 platform is it offers M2 and SATA Express connections (since 600Mb/s SATA 3 is saturated by modern SSDs), but SSDs with those connection are still not readily available.

Think about me every-time you stare at a loading bar!