Got a new PC!

You might have seen me post on the forum before that my PC has been broken for a few months and I eventually found out that the motherboard was the source of the problem. I was going to build a new PC, but if I wanted a modern motherboard that I could later upgrade, then I also needed a modern CPU and a better case for it. As you can imagine, the price point eventually reached a point that was a bit too high for me.

You see, the problem with building a PC is that you have to have the cash and pay when you buy each component. I decided to buy a new gaming PC altogether. I'm sure I could have saved a lot of money by building something similar to it, but here I picked a "buy now, pay later" option that lets me pay the price of the PC over the period of a year. Anything I pay them during this year is interest free. Anything that's left to pay after that year is up, I will have to pay with interest. So, this way I managed to get a gaming PC without having to pay anything for it. I'll be doing that gradually, in separate payments, over the period of interest free time.

Anyway, enough about that. It's time for the specs. This was basically the most expensive set-up (that I know I could pay most of its price before the interest free time runs out) that I could have went for:

Operating System: Windows 8 (64-bit)
Motherboard: Acer Predator G3620
Processor: Intel Core i5-3350P 3.10GHz (four cores)
Memory: 8GB (DDR3 RAM)
Graphics Card: AMD Radeon HD 7770 (1GB GDDR5)
Hard Drive: 1TB

I know, it's certainly not the best out there - but it's brilliant for me. I think it's a high mid-range gaming PC, or maybe just mid-range. But since my monitor supports a max resolution of 1440 x 900, I should be able to run most games at highest settings without worrying about an unplayable frame rate. I've already performed a few tests myself:

1. Crysis 2 (on the highest "Ultra" settings, with DirectX 11 features and high resolution textures pack downloaded and enabled) runs with an average frame rate of 40fps. It never went below 30 during my tests, except for two occasions: for a split-second when right next to a larger explosion and when in water and shooting at it (probably the PhysX). The lowest it ever got was 25fps.
   
2. Metro 2033, on the highest settings with all DirectX 11 features turned on, runs with an average frame rate of 35fps when in tunnels (tested on Frontline) and 30fps when on the surface (tested on Prologue and Dead City 2). The lowest it ever got was 17fps, on the surface, but only in one section and for a very brief period of time.
   
3. Saints Row: The Third and Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad work on highest settings with an extremely smooth frame rate and no fps drops at all. Obviously though, that was expected since neither of these is as demanding as Crysis 2 or Metro.

I'm satisfied with these results, but I will do a few more on other games. If Metro: Last Light is optimized as well as 4A Games/THQ/Deep Silver claimed it is, then I should have little trouble running it at the highest settings with a good average frame rate of 30fps - except for occasional drops. When the time comes - and when I have the money for this - I will get a new GPU and maybe even another 8gigs of RAM (which is, unfortunately, the maximum amount of memory that this PC can support - but that's how it is with pre-built gaming computers). hwell: It's nor like 8 isn't enough for now, but who knows what Crytek, 4A Games or CDProjekt RED will come up with next. :lol:

Lastly: I borrowed some money from my brother and pre-ordered Last Light for PC.

 

I haven't paid anything for it yet (I can pay it over a year interest free, so I can save up and pay much later), but the total price that I will eventually have to pay is £650. It wasn't the best option, but it was the best option available to me.

To others who are suggesting building a PC: I agree, it would have saved me money - I said so myself in the first post and that was my initial plan anyway. However, I just didn't have the money to pay for it all right now and I've been needing a PC for months now ever since mine broke - not just for gaming & entertainment, but for school and my book as well.

 

As I said, that was my initial plan. The only parts I could have used were the DVD drive, GPU and hard drive. I would have had to buy a new motherboard, OS, PSU, CPU and case if I was to have something that could be upgraded in the future. If I wanted a more capable PC, I would have had to get more RAM too. The cost was nearing 400 quid in total and it would have still been a fairly weak PC. I didn't have the cash for this anyway, so I decided to go with something a bit more expensive and pay for it later; something that I can actually get. Besides, it's ended up as the better choice for me. You see, I was in need of a PC for months, but if I wanted to build one then I would have had to wait for at least a year to save up enough money for it and then get the PC. This way I got a much better PC instantly for a higher price, but I will have to pay much later.

 

That's the plan, but the reason why I picked it is because I don't have the money at the moment and can only afford this in smaller payments. I'll pay it off as soon as possible, but it will still take a while unfortunately. Still, I'm confident that I'll be able to pay it all interest free and if not, then at least there will be much less to pay with interest than the original price.

I won't upgrade it until at least two or three years from now, maybe even later. I just tested Skyrim maxed out and I'm getting an average frame rate of 55fps - keeps jumping between 50 and 60. Very good, but then I also didn't expect this to be very demanding because it was running with probably about 30fps on my old set-up. Can't wait to test The Witcher 2. I could never get a playable frame rate with Ubersampling on my older set up... it will be interesting to see what happens now.

I don't see much point, tbh. My current resolution - though obviously low for high-end gaming standards - is fine for me. I'd rather save the cash for paying off this PC.

 

Tested The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings today. On the highest possible settings (though without ubersampling), I got an average frame rate of 47fps. I'm really happy about this - the game looks extremely beautiful. The tests took place in the last area of the game and spanning five fights in the arena.

 

Out of curiosity, I decided to reinstall the first Crysis and see how my PC performs on it. I did two benchmarks spanning two different levels (one quite calm and the other much more action packed). Surprisingly enough, calculating all of the tests together, I got an average frame rate of 36fps. Moreover, dips below 30fps (that usually didn't go below the high 20s) were common during firefights. I thought this was strange at first, since Crysis 2 performed better - but then I realized that Crysis is just not as well optimized and, in addition to that, it is a lot more open world than its sequel. Still, it's an interesting result and a random fact for anyone who wasn't played both games and was wondering.

 

Once again, I was curious and decided to test Metro 2033 on the highest settings but this time without Advanced PhysX or Tessellation. I was surprised at the result of 32fps, especially considering the previous result of 33fps. It seems really strange to me that Tessellation and PhysX reduce my frame rate by only 1fps. Very strange...

Could anyone please explain why this is and how it is possible? I'm pretty sure that Metro 2033 isn't a very well optimized game, not to mention that I'm playing on an AMD card and 4A Games favours Nvidia hardware in their games.

EDIT: I just realized what I wrote... :facepalm: What I meant to say was that PhysX and Tessellation actually increased my frame rate, but not noticeably. Tbh, the difference in performance when having these settings on or off is so minimal that it makes no sense. What the heck is going on here?

 

Nope, but I was just testing Tessellation and Advanced PhysX here.

 

AMD cards support Advanced PhysX (well, the modern ones do that have DirectX 11 enabled), it just decreases frame rate a lot more than it does on Nvidia GPUs - which is why I was so surprised that there was practically no change during my tests.

However, I will run some tests without DOF to see if that has a large effect on my performance too or not. Thanks for the tip.

 

So I tried the game without DOF and it also made pretty much no difference to my frame rate, just like Advanced PhysX and Tessellation. However, I launched up the benchmark application and set everything to highest settings, apart from the preset (which I changed to High instead of Very High) and DOF/Adv.PhysX/Tess (all of which I switched off). I was surprised when I got a juicy average frame rate of 43fps (NOTE: the Metro 2033 benchmark application puts your PC through more stress than the game itself does at any moment, so the results for gameplay are even higher)!

I also tested Prologue, which was probably the part of the game where my frame rate dropped to the lowest ever (at the highest settings with everything enabled, the game dropped to 16fps for a split-second when opening the gate with Miller). This time, the lowest it ever got was 29fps. I am really happy about that, so I've come to the conclusion that when Last Light arrives in the mail - I'll put all the fancy SSAA, Tessellation and Advanced PhysX fancy stuff to the side. I'll also play the game on High instead of Very High. That way it will still look brilliant but the frame rate will also be good.