I need a computer that will play COD 4 and crysis also UT3 and WoW possibly with over 70 fps on a 32 inch tv. Here are the specs. NZXT Zero Aluminum Full Tower 420W Case AMD Phenom™ X4 9650 Quad-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology CoolerMaster Hyper TX2 Gaming CPU Cooling Fan 4GB (2x2GB) PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory ASUS M3A78-T AM2+/AM2 AMD 790GX HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Ultimate w/ Service Pack 1 64-bit 800 Watts Power Supplies Xfire ATI Radeon HD 4850 PCI-E 16X 512MB Video Card
You won't get Crysis at 70FPS, but the rest most likely. I am assuming that your 32" TV is 768p, so you will be playing at 1360x768. Crysis you will probably average around 40FPS with some eye candy. For the power supply, I recommend you get a Corsair 450vx or 650TX: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139003 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005 For the CPU, add an extra $10 and get the 9950BE: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103291 I think running two HD 4850s in crossfire is overkill at 1360x768. I can't think of any game that is unplayable with a single HD 4850 at that resolution with Very High or Max settings. You can save some money by either getting a single HD 4850, or a single HD 4870. Either card will be more than sufficient for that resolution. If your TV happens to be the a 1080p TV, then the HD 4870 would be where you want to start and possibly the 1GB version. The HD 4850 crossfire is a possibility, however, I believe the HD 4850x2 comes out to be cheaper and has a slight performance edge over a crossfire setup so you can consider that. If you plan on overclocking the CPU, you may want to consider a different CPU cooler. I think the TX2 is about average. I use a Tuniq Tower which on my Q6600 and I am impressed with its cooling. It would probably cool your CPU about 10 degrees cooler than the TX2, however, it costs about $25 more. If you can find a Thermalright Ultra 90, that would be a good CPU cooler. I believe they are around $30 and perform very well. With the RAM, make sure it is a good brand. Corsair and G.Skill are good brands to buy and have good deals at the moment: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145214
The Phenom 9650 is a rubbish CPU, one of the slowest Quad cores ever made, if not the slowest. There are also a few questionable component choices in that build too. I'm not forcing you to go the Intel route, but for Crysis, I would recommend it, AMD CPUs do not fare well in Crysis. If you do go AMD, go for a Phenom II 940, nothing less. Similarly priced, however, is the Core 2 Quad Q9400 which is overall a superior system. You wil never need an 800W PSU, nor should you buy a case that comes with them. Find the version of the case that doesn't already come with a PSU (it's there) to save money, and buy a decent PSU, like a Corsair VX 450W. Crossfire isn't really a great option in Crysis either, it's much better to get one card that's better, such as an HD4870, or crossfire those if you have the money. TVs have a very low screen resolution and picture quality compared to monitors, so you don't need a blistering fast graphics card to play games on. One HD4870 should do for the reasons you require. As JaguarGod says, you will never see 70fps in Crysis, because it just isn't possible, no matter what hardware you have. Fortunately, it's not necessary either.
Here's a couple reviews you may like: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/ http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/1 The first uses a single HD 4850 when testing games. You will see that a single HD 4850 can run Crysis Warhead in Enthusiast mode at 1024x768. For the games, it is not really a CPU test since settings are set pretty high, but you will at least see how each setup performs with a single HD 4850. I don't know what the future of Phenom II will be. And i7 not using 3 channel setup and Hyper Threading will perform on par with the C2Q equivalents. Maybe the AM3 motherboards will make a difference performance with DDR3... As of now, the Phenom II compares with the Q94xx just as sammorris said.
Crysis' CPU requirement scales with settings even higher than the graphics requirement does. At enthusiast the CPU ceiling is less than 25 for something like a Q6600, which is far superior to a Phenom 9650. However Overclockersclub are well known for using inappropriately low-end test systems to test high end products, so the pointlessness of the games tests is hardly surprising. An HD4850 to run 'Enthusiast' in Crysis Warhead is poor, as is not owning a 30" monitor to test cards like the HD4870X2 and GTX295. Similarly, Guru3D have used Gamer, which is very light on CPUs, not quite as light as normal FPS games of this era, but still far more reasonable.
Yeah, those test setups looked weird The only thing I wanted the OP to take note of was that the HD 4850 is capable of running the game without the need of crossfire. I would think that optimal settings would be 'Gamer' mode with a 32" TV. Also, the reviews seemed ok in that it showed how the 940 "kept up with" the Q9450 There is a chance that AM3 will make a difference in non-gaming applications, but we'll have to wait about a month or so for that.
Definitely. Hopefully Deneb will be some competition for Intel once AM3 motherboards are out and we will see some prices dropping.
Right now the Phenom II is similar to the Q9450, and costs slightly more than it, it's a promising start.
If the Crysis Benchmark utility is accurate, it looks like 70 FPS is possible for a single HD 4850 to achieve with a 32" HDTV. I ran several tests at 1280x720 and at medium settings, I averaged a little over 78 FPS. At High, it went down to 48 FPS, but with 16xAA it went down to 39 FPS. The odd thing was that 8xAA was lower at 34 FPS. The lowest frame rate I noticed was 26.xx. This means that the game can run very smooth on a 32" HDTV at High settings and eye candy. I did not take screen shots, which I should have... I can't imagine a crossfire setup making much difference at that resolution. The biggest change in frame rate was going from medium to high. Maybe Very High will not work well... I'll try the Very High mod and report back. Edit: Ran the benchmark at 1360x768 at High with 8xAA. Result was Frame Rate of 30.42 with minimum of 22.96 and max of 39.75. So this would probably be optimal settings with an HD 4850. Will try the mod now. Edit: Finished the Very High Benchmark at 1360x768 With 8xAA, it averaged 22.27 FPS Max/Min of 27.80/0.36 Strange that minimum was at less than 1 FPS With 2xAA: average 25.12 FPS Max/Min: 30.70/0 Strange that FPS dropped to 0 on this one... Didn't notice either of the frame drops. Will try again maybe... Edit: Ok, here are the GPU benchmarks for 1360x768 Very High (Average FPS was from average of 3 runs of the Benchmark): 0xAA: Average 30.31; Minimum 21.32; Maximum 41.72 2xAA: Average 25.19; Minimum 18.86; Maximum 31.45 4xAA: Average 24.62; Minimum 17.71; Maximum 30.24 8xAA: Average 22.32; Minimum 16.26; Maximum 28.50 My Setup is as follows: CPU: Q6600 @ 3.24GHz RAM: 2x2GB Corsair Dominator @ 1080MHz GPU: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 with Dual Slot Cooler (stock speeds) HDD: Western Digital Blue 640GB SATA II PSU: PC Power & Cooling Quad 750 Case: NZXT Alpha Black HSF: Tuniq Tower 120 MB: Gigabyte EP45-UD3P So the AMD Equivalent would be as follows: CPU: AMD Phenom 9950BE MB: GIGABYTE GA-MA790GP-DS4H All other components would be the same. So, if you want more frame rate than I would get on Crysis, you would have to upgrade the CPU to a Phenom II 940 and upgrade the Video card to an HD 4870. This will make the game very playable on Very High, but nowhere near 70 FPS. Maybe 35 - 40 with eye candy. Also, I noticed that AA does not take a huge toll on frame rate once it is on. With the HD 4870, you should be able to get 8xAA and hover around 30 FPS. AMD CPUs are known for higher minimum Frame Rates! So, even if the average frame rate is lower, the higher minimum may make the game more playable. Oh, and I was running the 64 bit version.
The average frame rate could potentially be 70, but there are certain sections of the game where the frame rate will drop severely. The Crysis benchmark utility does not accurately reflect these. You must also consider that the benchmark uses the island map, which is much less demanding than 'Paradise Lost' or 'Reckoning', by a factor of 2 or more. I also agree a single card is enough to play Crysis at that resolution, however, as Crossfire has a relatively poor impact on Crysis' performance. Also note the very high mod for XP does not have anywhere near the performance impact of genuine Very High in Vista, and on top of that, I can see the difference, it's not huge, but it's there. Where did you read this? Oh by the way, the 9950BE is equivalent to your Core 2 Quad at stock. Since the 9950BE can hardly overclock at all, it will never match the current speed of your Q6600. A more accurate comparison is a Phenom II 920.
I think I should have stated that AMD have a lower Standard Deviation vs. Intel when looking at frame rate average over time. The absolute minimum may or may not be higher. What I meant is that even if average frame rate is less than 30 FPS, the lower standard deviation may make the game more playable than the average frame rate suggests. As for overclocking, you are definitely right. It seems that teamed with a 790GX/FX motherboard, the Phenom overclocks better than before but still not like the Q6600. They seem to average a 3.1GHz overclock, so it is possible to match my current set up or at least get very close, but it seems like 3.1 is a wall for the 9950 and getting higher takes more tweaking than it would on the Q6600. The main point I was trying to get across to the OP was about the crossfire and how it is unnecessary for Crysis at Very High. The 9950BE and the DS4H would be the equivalent to the UD3P and Q6600. The 9950BE should be able to get close to 3.2GHz with the DS4H. The complication would be if the overclock were to be pushed higher. Also, the other thing I wanted the OP to get was that the upgrade for higher FPS would need both a better CPU and GPU to get more playability than what I have. In my case, I could do crossfire since I recently built mine (and get maybe 5 FPS more ), but I have no interest in playing Crysis although it is fun to kill the quail or whatever those birds are. I think the best the OP can do is a 9950BE/Q6600 or better with an HD 4870. Anything more GPU-wise is going to be overkill and even the HD 4870 will be overkill on most titles, but will have more future proofing. By the time that card will not work at his resolution, a new gen upgrade would outperform a crossfire setup and probably cost less. The Intel build makes sense with 9950BE vs. Q6600. If you go up a step, then the Phenom II 940 makes more sense because the 940 + HD 4870 is the same price as Q9550 + HD 4850. In this scenario, the AMD build will perform better in games since the GPU is better.
You've skimmed over the Q9450, which works out cheaper in some places than the Phenom II 940 it rivals.
Yeah, the Q9450 would be a better comparison, but it is deactivated in the US, however, for some reason it was priced the same as the Q9550 (both were $320). I bet it is still available in many shops, just I don't look at too many. The Phenom II 940 is $270, so the price is right. Just the DS4H is a little more than the P45 equivalents. There is this motherboard on an insane sale: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813186149 Makes no sense to me unless the board is garbage. It is utterly useless for a normal setup, but a it is less than half price I guess if anyone wants to do Quad Crossfire??? If the board is good, it would be a nice choice to save some money. There is also the Dual PCIe version for the same price, but I don't know about Foxconn motherboards...
The Q9450 has been replaced by the slightly slower, but much cheaper, Q9400: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115131
