If I intend to play a lot of strategy games, should I get a high end CPU and lots of RAM?

[MrCanEHdian]

Long question, sorry. So I want to know, if I intend on playing a ton of strategy games, more than any other type of game, will a high end GPU still be very important, or is the RAM and CPU more important for this genre?

I intend on going with a reasonably high end 760, 770, or high end 780, depending on in the coming months on my budget, needs, and wants.

I'm wondering, should I consider reducing the GPU to a 760 or even 750TI, and go for an i7 4770k instead of an Xeon E3 1230V3 or i5 4670k?

Basically, I guess I'd like to know which components are most important when playing turn based and real time strategy games. Is RAM and CPU more important than GPU?

Thank you for your time.

 

[geofelt]

It depends on the game.
I play a lot of the civilization games.
civ2 takes nothing, but is 32 bit only🙁
civ 4 can run on low end graphics, but is smoother with a mid range card.
civ 5 is very cpu intensive between turns.
One characteristic is that the games are usually not multi core optimized.
It looks like all cores are active, but that is only windows distributing the workload among all cores.
It seems to me that a fast quad is generally the best.
I would suggest a i5-4670K, a Z97 motherboard, and a card like a GTX770 since those seem to be in your budget range. If you want to try using a GTX750ti first, that is ok. Just buy a 650w psu so it will be easier to change out graphics if your needs should change.
You might want a larger 1440P monitor or such in the future.
It is much more difficult to upgrade a cpu.

Beginning June, we should see the devils canyon chips which support better overclocking.
It might be prudent to wait a week and see what it looks like.

In general, ram speed is unimportant to intel chips. A 8gb kit of 2 x 4gb of 1600 ram is fine. You get marginal returns past that.

 

[MrCanEHdian]

It depends on the game.
I play a lot of the civilization games.
civ2 takes nothing, but is 32 bit only🙁
civ 4 can run on low end graphics, but is smoother with a mid range card.
civ 5 is very cpu intensive between turns.
One characteristic is that the games are usually not multi core optimized.
It looks like all cores are active, but that is only windows distributing the workload among all cores.
It seems to me that a fast quad is generally the best.
I would suggest a i5-4670K, a Z97 motherboard, and a card like a GTX770 since those seem to be in your budget range. If you want to try using a GTX750ti first, that is ok. Just buy a 650w psu so it will be easier to change out graphics if your needs should change.
You might want a larger 1440P monitor or such in the future.
It is much more difficult to upgrade a cpu.

Beginning June, we should see the devils canyon chips which support better overclocking.
It might be prudent to wait a week and see what it looks like.

In general, ram speed is unimportant to intel chips. A 8gb kit of 2 x 4gb of 1600 ram is fine. You get marginal returns past that.

I LOVE Civ 5, I haven't really played the others though. I played IV a little bit, but not enough. The turn times in Civ 5, late game are brutal, so I will need a very good CPU I guess. I like your suggestions. I was leaning towards the i5 4670k, but many people prefer the Xeon 1230v3 on this site, so I am also considering that. I will definitely go for a Z97 Mobo around $150-$220, and probably GTX 760 or 770, I'm leaning towards the 770. I don't think I'd go for the 750, but I don't know if I need anything more than it. So 16Gbs of RAM is a waste then, and 1866 MHz is not really worth it either?

Thanks for the detailed reply!

The games dominating my game time would be: Civ 5, Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes, Age of Wonders 3, Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, anything like Civ 5 or Fallen Enchantress (I love both very much), Planetary Annihilation.

These games I would play to a lesser extent: maybe X3: Terran Conflict, probably Far Cry 3, Planetside 2, DayZ standalone, and any future or present games that I am unaware of.

 

[Smallfilou]

If I were you, I would not only take an i5 model, I would indeed overclock it. You can maybe take a 4690k (higher base clock and better thermal interface material)? I play civ5 on my qx9650 that has 4*3,5 GHz (sadly no turbo..). My graphics card's a 7770, and it definitely is the processor which drives the system down, even if I set everything to max at FHD res... RAM hardly matters in my experience (I have 4GB of DDR...2, 1066MHz)

And I was surprised that even if the game is not particularly well threaded, task manager (ok not that much of a great tool) indicates 60-65% use on average of all 4 cores?

So I believe if you do not play QHD (1440p), any of the graphics cards you mentionned is fine...

 

[MrCanEHdian]

If I were you, I would not only take an i5 model, I would indeed overclock it. You can maybe take a 4690k (higher base clock and better thermal interface material)? I play civ5 on my qx9650 that has 4*3,5 GHz (sadly no turbo..). My graphics card's a 7770, and it definitely is the processor which drives the system down, even if I set everything to max at FHD res... RAM hardly matters in my experience (I have 4GB of DDR...2, 1066MHz)

And I was surprised that even if the game is not particularly well threaded, task manager (ok not that much of a great tool) indicates 60-65% use on average of all 4 cores?

So I believe if you do not play QHD (1440p), any of the graphics cards you mentionned is fine...

The main reason I'm not all for overclocking is because I've never done it, don't know how to do it, and don't know how "dangerous" it is. I can't find a price for the 4690k, so has it not been officially released yet? Interesting, and the game runs fairly well on your system?

I'll likely play on 720p for a while, I honestly don't need 1080p, but may upgrade to it down the road. I certainly will not be going for 1440p, not in my budget and it's a luxury i would only get if I were very wealthy.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Smallfilou]

OK so for you I believe a 770 or more is definitely overkill, even if you upgrade to a FHD screen! I recommand the 4690k even if it is not out yet as it will be in 8 days! 2 options:
- You might as well take the 4690 (which is out already), keep the boxed cooler and keep the money...
- If you spend on the k model, take a proper tower cooler(I love the noctuas but they are certainly expensive), would be 70$ more than 1st option (discard water cooling which is noisier and will overclock only little more especially if you are new to this). Overclocking would give you 15-20% more speed easily without hassle (leave everything to the software provided by the motherboard manufacturer except the multiplier which you can easily raise in the BIOS)...

So it is you choice but as long as you have 4 cores and Intel, think big in GHz for those games...

 

[MrCanEHdian]

OK so for you I believe a 770 or more is definitely overkill, even if you upgrade to a FHD screen! I recommand the 4690k even if it is not out yet as it will be in 8 days! 2 options:
- You might as well take the 4690 (which is out already), keep the boxed cooler and keep the money...
- If you spend on the k model, take a proper tower cooler(I love the noctuas but they are certainly expensive), would be 70$ more than 1st option (discard water cooling which is noisier and will overclock only little more especially if you are new to this). Overclocking would give you 15-20% more speed easily without hassle (leave everything to the software provided by the motherboard manufacturer except the multiplier which you can easily raise in the BIOS)...

So it is you choice but as long as you have 4 cores and Intel, think big in GHz for those games...

The reason I want the 770 is for a bit of "future proofing" and because I may find some games I'd like to play at high settings, down the road. It's well within my budget, the 780 is pushing it a bit, although in the budget, it's a bit more than I'd like to spend.

The 4690k won't be much more expensive than the 4570k? I see why you say the non "k" model, but I may consider trying to overclock, it seems like wasted potential to not give it a try. So the CoolerMaster Hyper EVO 212 that seems to be all the rage would be insufficient for overclocking cooling? 15-20% is pretty siginificant for a very minor price hike, and I imagine you could clock it much higher if you get a good chip.

Intel is better than AMD for Civ games?

 

[Smallfilou]

So your questions:
-770 is a good card, no questions. If you can afford and want some future-proofness, you might as well go for it. I would not spend too much there because this is also the 1st sector where things loose value fast (as performance increases are far bigger in GPUs than CPUs today, especially high end GPU are worth nothing after 4-5 years, which is not the case for CPUs).
-I recommand the i5 4690k because nobody knows it and it has not been reviewed... 🙂
... and because it will probably stay within intel price politics (no i5 above 230USD...their prices are already out for haswell update) and provide better OC. Performance will only be marginally better than with 4570k anyway, but maybe new termal interface material will make it OC even better? Check for a compatible motherboard though...
- Cooler master is the cooler everybody buys/can afford. It is dirt cheap and provides a significant upgrade (compared to stock cooler). Noctua is quite a bit more expensive. If you want better OC or/and less noise, you may want the bigger cooler (but you have to take care with your case with big tower coolers and their 12cm fans...). OC globally depends as much on your ability to cope with noise as on the quality of your cooler...
- Globally, at this price level, intel is better than AMD for pretty much everything, especially not so well treaded games like civ.... so the answer is YES

 

[MrCanEHdian]

So your questions:
-770 is a good card, no questions. If you can afford and want some future-proofness, you might as well go for it. I would not spend too much there because this is also the 1st sector where things loose value fast (as performance increases are far bigger in GPUs than CPUs today, especially high end GPU are worth nothing after 4-5 years, which is not the case for CPUs).
-I recommand the i5 4690k because nobody knows it and it has not been reviewed... 🙂
... and because it will probably stay within intel price politics (no i5 above 230USD...their prices are already out for haswell update) and provide better OC. Performance will only be marginally better than with 4570k anyway, but maybe new termal interface material will make it OC even better? Check for a compatible motherboard though...
- Cooler master is the cooler everybody buys/can afford. It is dirt cheap and provides a significant upgrade (compared to stock cooler). Noctua is quite a bit more expensive. If you want better OC or/and less noise, you may want the bigger cooler (but you have to take care with your case with big tower coolers and their 12cm fans...). OC globally depends as much on your ability to cope with noise as on the quality of your cooler...
- Globally, at this price level, intel is better than AMD for pretty much everything, especially not so well treaded games like civ.... so the answer is YES

I'll have to decide on the GPU then... I could always upgrade down the road if need be, but I believe the 760 may in fact be more than I need, if I stick with 720p gaming right?

I'll wait for the 4690k, I won't be building until around August, I won't have the time to do it until then unfortunately. I'm glad they will keep the price in the competitive low to mid 200 range, that's very, very nice! Yes, thermal interface improvements would be very nice, as i hear the 4670k runs quite hot under load. For motherboard, I'm currently leaning towards MSI's Z97 Gaming 5 or Gaming 7, they seem to be very good, and have decent price points (around $200 CAD).

Noise is no issue for me, but heat and damaging hardware is a big fear of me. But I can handle a lot of noise, I will game with a headset, and I won't be buying speakers.

I'll stick with Intel then, I feel better with them too, probably because I've spent so much time reading about their products.

Thank you for all the help!

 

[Zircoben]

OK so for you I believe a 770 or more is definitely overkill, even if you upgrade to a FHD screen! I recommand the 4690k even if it is not out yet as it will be in 8 days! 2 options:
- You might as well take the 4690 (which is out already), keep the boxed cooler and keep the money...
- If you spend on the k model, take a proper tower cooler(I love the noctuas but they are certainly expensive), would be 70$ more than 1st option (discard water cooling which is noisier and will overclock only little more especially if you are new to this). Overclocking would give you 15-20% more speed easily without hassle (leave everything to the software provided by the motherboard manufacturer except the multiplier which you can easily raise in the BIOS)...

So it is you choice but as long as you have 4 cores and Intel, think big in GHz for those games...

The reason I want the 770 is for a bit of "future proofing" and because I may find some games I'd like to play at high settings, down the road. It's well within my budget, the 780 is pushing it a bit, although in the budget, it's a bit more than I'd like to spend.

The 4690k won't be much more expensive than the 4570k? I see why you say the non "k" model, but I may consider trying to overclock, it seems like wasted potential to not give it a try. So the CoolerMaster Hyper EVO 212 that seems to be all the rage would be insufficient for overclocking cooling? 15-20% is pretty siginificant for a very minor price hike, and I imagine you could clock it much higher if you get a good chip.

Intel is better than AMD for Civ games?

Intel is much better because the CPU is considerably more powerful.

I always recommend the Xeon 1230v3. You get the 8 threads of an FX-8xxx and i7 CPUs for a price just $20 more than the i5-4670K. You cannot go wrong with it.

 

[Smallfilou]

Yes, a Xeon might be a great idea as well, check out here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2367204

The real advantage of i5/i7 is if your computer does work without a graphics card (unsuitable for 90% of games of course), there is no graphics controler on board with the xeon.
You put a lot of money in that MB. You plan to overclock your RAM, MB? You plan to SLI your graphics card? If not, I recommend you stick to cheaper boards.

 

[MrCanEHdian]

Yes, a Xeon might be a great idea as well, check out here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2367204

The real advantage of i5/i7 is if your computer does work without a graphics card (unsuitable for 90% of games of course), there is no graphics controler on board with the xeon.
You put a lot of money in that MB. You plan to overclock your RAM, MB? You plan to SLI your graphics card? If not, I recommend you stick to cheaper boards.

I don't know how to overclock any of that, but I would like to. I'm not sure about SLI, not right away anyway.

The Xeon is very compelling too. So you think the Xeon would be better than the 4670k or 4690k?

 

[Smallfilou]

Well if you read that page, you will notice that:
- being non-k, the xeon is more difficult to overclock
- its advantage is it offers hyperthreading (as on i7) without you having to pay the price of an i7. If you do not need ht, drop it...

So my guess would be if you want more performance on modern games (that still mostly do not support multi-threading above 4 threads), you are better of with an OC'd I5...

 

[MrCanEHdian]

Well if you read that page, you will notice that:
- being non-k, the xeon is more difficult to overclock
- its advantage is it offers hyperthreading (as on i7) without you having to pay the price of an i7. If you do not need ht, drop it...

So my guess would be if you want more performance on modern games (that still mostly do not support multi-threading above 4 threads), you are better of with an OC'd I5...

Ya... I'm thinking i5 too, the future is uncertain, and I'll probably pass on HTfor now, although I will keep the Xeon in mind. thank you!

 

[WhiteSnake91]

having the built in graphics in the i5 is a nice backup if your GPU ever croaks. HT really isn't used in games. You can go for a cheaper locked i5 and a cheap 1150 socket h81 motherboard and be fine. A gtx 760 is BEYOND overkill for 720p. You could max stuff out with the cheap 100 dollar hd7750 or hd7770ghz edition on only 720p.

Make sure you go intel though for the stronger single thread performance. Something like the i5 4440 would serve you very well, and if you're only going to be on 720p for awhile, a cheap but still good gpu like the 750ti would be fine, check out vids of it playing stuff even on 1080p ultra on youtube, it does well in BF4 even with msaa turned on, turn off MSAA and you get a big FPS boost. I even have to turn off MSAA with my much stronger hd7950 to get better FPS, I can't notice a difference.


I never tried playing civ 5 with a sucky cpu, it was always extremely smooth and fast even on a HDD based install on my seagate 1tb 7200rpm hdd and using my i5 3570k back on stock clocks, never any lag at all even late in game.

That reminds me I've been meaning to pre order the new sid meyer space game coming out, beyond earth I think it's called

 

[MrCanEHdian]

having the built in graphics in the i5 is a nice backup if your GPU ever croaks. HT really isn't used in games. You can go for a cheaper locked i5 and a cheap 1150 socket h81 motherboard and be fine. A gtx 760 is BEYOND overkill for 720p. You could max stuff out with the cheap 100 dollar hd7750 or hd7770ghz edition on only 720p.

Make sure you go intel though for the stronger single thread performance. Something like the i5 4440 would serve you very well, and if you're only going to be on 720p for awhile, a cheap but still good gpu like the 750ti would be fine, check out vids of it playing stuff even on 1080p ultra on youtube, it does well in BF4 even with msaa turned on, turn off MSAA and you get a big FPS boost. I even have to turn off MSAA with my much stronger hd7950 to get better FPS, I can't notice a difference.


I never tried playing civ 5 with a sucky cpu, it was always extremely smooth and fast even on a HDD based install on my seagate 1tb 7200rpm hdd and using my i5 3570k back on stock clocks, never any lag at all even late in game.

That reminds me I've been meaning to pre order the new sid meyer space game coming out, beyond earth I think it's called

Well, I want a decent motherboard for future upgradeability, and the 760 just in case I go 1080p down the road because 720 isn't enough or something, although I suspect I'll be fine with 720p. How would the 760 do on 1080p?

Yes, I'd like to be able to play Civ 5 smoothly through a whole game, I would be soooo happy. And I can't wait for Beyond Earth! I hope it's optimized and properly programmed. Interesting.... I should look into the 750ti, then maybe the 760 is overkill for me, even though I want to be prepared for the future..

Still! I really want a MOBO that will be upgradeable in the future, with Broadwell and maybe Nvidia GTX 800 series.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

The 760 is good, it's on par with my hd7950 pretty much and I play any game on 1080p ultra fine always around 60fps once I turn msaa off. The Devil's canyon cpu's are supposed to have an improved TIM similar to Sandy Bridge...I'm sure you've heard all the complaints about how haswell gets extremely hot quickly overclocking. The 750ti can handle 1080p, it just won't be 60fps, maybe around 40 totally maxed out, but you can turn down settings to get it to 60.

The 760 would get 60 with only turning off msaa I'd imagine since it's about as good as my gpu. The only games that bring even top tier cards to their knees are crysis 3 and metro last light. I turned the settings down for Last Light and it still looked really good, certainly nothing to worry myself to sleep at night wishing I could have cranked up msaa and paid 500+ for a gpu >_>

 

[MrCanEHdian]

The 760 is good, it's on par with my hd7950 pretty much and I play any game on 1080p ultra fine always around 60fps once I turn msaa off. The Devil's canyon cpu's are supposed to have an improved TIM similar to Sandy Bridge...I'm sure you've heard all the complaints about how haswell gets extremely hot quickly overclocking. The 750ti can handle 1080p, it just won't be 60fps, maybe around 40 totally maxed out, but you can turn down settings to get it to 60.

The 760 would get 60 with only turning off msaa I'd imagine since it's about as good as my gpu. The only games that bring even top tier cards to their knees are crysis 3 and metro last light. I turned the settings down for Last Light and it still looked really good, certainly nothing to worry myself to sleep at night wishing I could have cranked up msaa and paid 500+ for a gpu >_>

The 760 seems like a better bet, for the long run. But why even go with the 770 if the 760 seems to be fine for 1080p gaming, not to mention, 720p gaming. Also, would the GPU remain relevant longer if one played at 720p? How much does a resolution change impact performance? Why do they make games so demanding? Do they look significantly better? 500+ seems like a lot for msaa+, something anti-aliasing I'm guessing.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

yeah the 760 would be good for 720p for many years to come, it has to render double the pixels if you go to 1080p which it can still handle well. I'd just save money with the gtx 760 and get an overclockable i5 and rest easy for many years, my i5 handled civ 5 with ease even before I overclocked it

 

[MrCanEHdian]

yeah the 760 would be good for 720p for many years to come, it has to render double the pixels if you go to 1080p which it can still handle well. I'd just save money with the gtx 760 and get an overclockable i5 and rest easy for many years, my i5 handled civ 5 with ease even before I overclocked it

Thank you so much! I think I will take your advice. The 760 will save me hundreds, clearly the 770 and definitely the 780 are way more than I need. I'll look into the i5 4690k, but otherwise the 4670k or Xeon 1230 will be my go to CPUs.

Is there any reason to get 16Gbs of RAM? Will it ever be useful/relevant? I know predicting the future is tricky haha, but do you think 8GBs of 1600Mhz DDR3 will be enough or should I pump money into 16? I know the price will only rise..... Tough call.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

only if you like to have your browser open in the background with a LOT of tabs and stuff going on at once, I actually ran out of memory a couple times with lots of chrome tabs open and BF4 going at once with only 8gb so I got another 8gb set cheap, and you're right, it seems like stuff is only going to keep going up in price. RAM prices doubled since when I bought mine. When I got mine, it was those fancy expensive low profile black corsair vengeance ones, now they go for 90+ dollars for only 8gb at times, when I bought them mine were only about 37 or 39 dollars.


so if you're going to multitask, I'd go ahead and get the 16, but if you only have the game running 8 will be fine, but if you ever want to upgrade, don't be surprised if the ram prices maybe double from what they are now >_> just look how expensive the old ddr2 is, 100+ bucks for an 8gb set. Even more expensive if you want 4gb modules instead of four 2gb modules >_>

if you won't overclock at all, the Xeon 1230 v3 is a really nice cpu, it's an i7 4770 without any built in graphics. If I could do it all over again I'd probably personally have gotten a Xeon. They will age very well due to the 8 threads, and already very strong per core performance.

>_> many days I contemplate selling my i5 3570k and using the money made to put towards an i7 3770k or a Xeon, or even the older i7 2600k