Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
My current Rig
it's the fastest thing i've ever touched
3570k
z77-UD3H
8GB DDR3 1600
Gigabyte 7950
Phantom 410
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
The Raid 0 on those SSd's, for gaming, seems like a total waste of an SSD to me. I am 99.99% sure he would see no difference with only 1 of those SSD, and then having double storage on SSD's would be nicer imo!
BTW, I still use my 2500K stock and have been able to run things so smoothly with it. I even played BF4 beta with no lag. Got a GTX 570 and 16g of ram with it (8 would have been way enough, but it was so cheap and 1600 MHz too). I have absolutely no need for better rig since I play mostly at LOL.
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
The Raid 0 on those SSd's, for gaming, seems like a total waste of an SSD to me. I am 99.99% sure he would see no difference with only 1 of those SSD, and then having double storage on SSD's would be nicer imo!
BTW, I still use my 2500K stock and have been able to run things so smoothly with it. I even played BF4 beta with no lag. Got a GTX 570 and 16g of ram with it (8 would have been way enough, but it was so cheap and 1600 MHz too). I have absolutely no need for better rig since I play mostly at LOL.
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/073.gif)
Raid 0 ssd is good for transcoding.. who knows, maybe the guy transcodes on his x79.. which many people get to do transcoding...
why you always assume the worst..
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..[/img]
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
The Raid 0 on those SSd's, for gaming, seems like a total waste of an SSD to me. I am 99.99% sure he would see no difference with only 1 of those SSD, and then having double storage on SSD's would be nicer imo!
BTW, I still use my 2500K stock and have been able to run things so smoothly with it. I even played BF4 beta with no lag. Got a GTX 570 and 16g of ram with it (8 would have been way enough, but it was so cheap and 1600 MHz too). I have absolutely no need for better rig since I play mostly at LOL.
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/073.gif)
Raid 0 ssd is good for transcoding.. who knows, maybe the guy transcodes on his x79.. which many people get to do transcoding...
why you always assume the worst..
I assume there is very very little chance he is having any performance gain for having the SSD's in raid 0 since the game won't be loading much from the disk once launched, and even if it does during map load, 1 SSD will probably deliver quite the same performance and he won't see any difference. I don't say it is not faster, I just say he won't see it while gaming and if I had those 2 ssd I would simply use them as 2 distinct disks for having double space, but that's me, not him.
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..[/img]
But even if I run BF3 at Ultra my CPU is only utilized 20-40% all the time...
I can even run video compression in the background (limiting it to 2 cores -> max eating 50% CPU usage)
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
The Raid 0 on those SSd's, for gaming, seems like a total waste of an SSD to me. I am 99.99% sure he would see no difference with only 1 of those SSD, and then having double storage on SSD's would be nicer imo!
BTW, I still use my 2500K stock and have been able to run things so smoothly with it. I even played BF4 beta with no lag. Got a GTX 570 and 16g of ram with it (8 would have been way enough, but it was so cheap and 1600 MHz too). I have absolutely no need for better rig since I play mostly at LOL.
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/073.gif)
Raid 0 ssd is good for transcoding.. who knows, maybe the guy transcodes on his x79.. which many people get to do transcoding...
why you always assume the worst..
I assume there is very very little chance he is having any performance gain for having the SSD's in raid 0 since the game won't be loading much from the disk once launched, and even if it does during map load, 1 SSD will probably deliver quite the same performance and he won't see any difference. I don't say it is not faster, I just say he won't see it while gaming and if I had those 2 ssd I would simply use them as 2 distinct disks for having double space, but that's me, not him.
raid zero is the same capacity as 2x drives non-raid
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
The Raid 0 on those SSd's, for gaming, seems like a total waste of an SSD to me. I am 99.99% sure he would see no difference with only 1 of those SSD, and then having double storage on SSD's would be nicer imo!
BTW, I still use my 2500K stock and have been able to run things so smoothly with it. I even played BF4 beta with no lag. Got a GTX 570 and 16g of ram with it (8 would have been way enough, but it was so cheap and 1600 MHz too). I have absolutely no need for better rig since I play mostly at LOL.
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/073.gif)
Raid 0 ssd is good for transcoding.. who knows, maybe the guy transcodes on his x79.. which many people get to do transcoding...
why you always assume the worst..
I assume there is very very little chance he is having any performance gain for having the SSD's in raid 0 since the game won't be loading much from the disk once launched, and even if it does during map load, 1 SSD will probably deliver quite the same performance and he won't see any difference. I don't say it is not faster, I just say he won't see it while gaming and if I had those 2 ssd I would simply use them as 2 distinct disks for having double space, but that's me, not him.
raid zero is the same capacity as 2x drives non-raid
Oh, wrong raid then, haven't played with them for a while, I was sure Raid 0 "sacrificed" a disk for performance gain. If not then forget what I said lol!
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
In the united states.. that's a budget build.. Go "murica"Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/bikep1.gif)
that PSU is way too huge for that computer which probably tops out at 500-600 watts or so
Is he getting 4.2ghz plus out of the 3820?
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
In the united states.. that's a budget build.. Go "murica"Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/bikep1.gif)
that PSU is way too huge for that computer which probably tops out at 500-600 watts or so
Is he getting 4.2ghz plus out of the 3820?
I don't think most "budget" PC's have 32 gigs of RAM. As for the RAID 0, yeah, I would have went with RAID 1 as well but, not my computer.
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
In the united states.. that's a budget build.. Go "murica"Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/bikep1.gif)
that PSU is way too huge for that computer which probably tops out at 500-600 watts or so
Is he getting 4.2ghz plus out of the 3820?
I don't think most "budget" PC's have 32 gigs of RAM. As for the RAID 0, yeah, I would have went with RAID 1 as well but, not my computer.
ah.. yea it would. he used all 8 slots with 4gb sticks.. that's being budget minded.. Since you can use 4x 8gb sticks and get higher OC, but that would cost more...Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/th_113_.gif)
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
The Raid 0 on those SSd's, for gaming, seems like a total waste of an SSD to me. I am 99.99% sure he would see no difference with only 1 of those SSD, and then having double storage on SSD's would be nicer imo!
BTW, I still use my 2500K stock and have been able to run things so smoothly with it. I even played BF4 beta with no lag. Got a GTX 570 and 16g of ram with it (8 would have been way enough, but it was so cheap and 1600 MHz too). I have absolutely no need for better rig since I play mostly at LOL.
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/073.gif)
Raid 0 ssd is good for transcoding.. who knows, maybe the guy transcodes on his x79.. which many people get to do transcoding...
why you always assume the worst..
I assume there is very very little chance he is having any performance gain for having the SSD's in raid 0 since the game won't be loading much from the disk once launched, and even if it does during map load, 1 SSD will probably deliver quite the same performance and he won't see any difference. I don't say it is not faster, I just say he won't see it while gaming and if I had those 2 ssd I would simply use them as 2 distinct disks for having double space, but that's me, not him.
raid zero is the same capacity as 2x drives non-raid
Oh, wrong raid then, haven't played with them for a while, I was sure Raid 0 "sacrificed" a disk for performance gain. If not then forget what I said lol!
LOL, I wish I could sacrifice disk space for performance..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/sillyp1.gif)
Literally EVERYONE would do this.. if possible.
Good friend of mine has a monster gaming PC which he uses to play Battlefield on. Which means that when I go over for a session, it usually lasts a while.
Intel i7-3820 3.60
Asus Sabertooth X79
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB's
ASUS GTX680
2 Corsair Force 240GB SSD's in RAID 0
4TB WD for storage
1350W Thermaltake power suppy
Thing is a monster.
In the united states.. that's a budget build.. Go "murica"Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/bikep1.gif)
that PSU is way too huge for that computer which probably tops out at 500-600 watts or so
Is he getting 4.2ghz plus out of the 3820?
I don't think most "budget" PC's have 32 gigs of RAM. As for the RAID 0, yeah, I would have went with RAID 1 as well but, not my computer.
ah.. yea it would. he used all 8 slots with 4gb sticks.. that's being budget minded.. Since you can use 4x 8gb sticks and get higher OC, but that would cost more...Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/th_113_.gif)
That's what he has. You're just assuming you he used 8 slots, when in fact he used 4 slots with 8GB sticks in each slot.
.. the 3820 and sabertooth is though..Nope, a Sabertooth X79 cost >300USD, that is far from being budget.....mid-high range would be more appropriate. X79 boards are never budget.....a budget board would be anything less than 150USD imo. I know of many gamers with pretty good mid range gaming systems with mobo + CPU that cost less than what an LGA i7 3820 + Asus Sabertooth X79 would cost. FYI, an i7 3820 + Asus Sabertooth X79 comboa cost about 600USD, this is far from being budget....heck, some would say it's high end. While I'd say an i7 3820 + Sabertooth X79 is not quite enthusiast level, they certainly can qualify as high end.
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..[/img]
But even if I run BF3 at Ultra my CPU is only utilized 20-40% all the time...
I can even run video compression in the background (limiting it to 2 cores -> max eating 50% CPU usage)
well yea.. in low load situations ur are correct...
but i speak of highly competitive situations where minimum framerates matter.. and high ghz/ core count is what keeps those frames from dipping, and getting you killed in the heat of battle... WHICH is where the frame rate dips most.. because you can't turn off those damn lighting effects that chew through cpu cycles just to blind you and blur the screen..
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..[/img]
But even if I run BF3 at Ultra my CPU is only utilized 20-40% all the time...
I can even run video compression in the background (limiting it to 2 cores -> max eating 50% CPU usage)
well yea.. in low load situations ur are correct...
but i speak of highly competitive situations where minimum framerates matter.. and high ghz/ core count is what keeps those frames from dipping, and getting you killed in the heat of battle... WHICH is where the frame rate dips most.. because you can't turn off those damn lighting effects that chew through cpu cycles just to blind you and blur the screen..
But I have a constant framerate (I lock it to 60 because I'm recording the gameplay) ;)
My guess is that almost everything "demanding" is done on GPU, hence the CPU utilization never exceeds 40%
JPG is lying. Battlefield games requires as many cores and mhz as you can throw at it..[/img]
But even if I run BF3 at Ultra my CPU is only utilized 20-40% all the time...
I can even run video compression in the background (limiting it to 2 cores -> max eating 50% CPU usage)
well yea.. in low load situations ur are correct...
but i speak of highly competitive situations where minimum framerates matter.. and high ghz/ core count is what keeps those frames from dipping, and getting you killed in the heat of battle... WHICH is where the frame rate dips most.. because you can't turn off those damn lighting effects that chew through cpu cycles just to blind you and blur the screen..
But I have a constant framerate (I lock it to 60 because I'm recording the gameplay) ;)
My guess is that almost everything "demanding" is done on GPU, hence the CPU utilization never exceeds 40%
I think probably 90% of the time, you're covered... but in the 64player maps, if enough people show up at the same time... and you want to kill them all... You will need a beasty cpu to make sure the frame rate remains high..Show Image(http://s1.postimage.org/15vsws9tw/160.gif)
64 player Metro with USAS/Frag rounds :D
Man those were the days.
64 player Metro with USAS/Frag rounds :D
Man those were the days.
Frag rounds and hallway bipodding :D
But I went bolt action a year ago, challenging but fun!