Will this build let me play Skyrim with 60+ FPS (at Ultra graphics)? - Hardware & Software

As the title says. If not (or if so), what FPS would you estimate? Thanks in advance. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FaC28KZ.png[/IMG]

Without all the insane mods that make it look like a cinematic - you're going to have much more than 60 fps.

[QUOTE=Killervalon;39681878]Without all the insane mods that make it look like a cinematic - you're going to have much more than 60 fps.[/QUOTE] even with mods you should be able to run it easily. have a GTX 570 and 2500k (which I have overclocked) and I run cinematic lighting, 2k textures, improved meshes, etc. at 70 fps average. According to a lot of Skyrim benchmarks, the 7850 should actually run this better than my setup, so you should be just fine. I am running 1920x1080 resolution, though, so if you're running something like 2560x1600, you might not wanna run a ton of mods.

Thanks guys, good to know. I plan on using mods, and I also have a 1920x1080 resolution. So I should be fine. Also, why are 31 guests reading this thread?

Because that's what happens on facepunch? It may be people who just aren't logged in... [sp]Can I have Bioshock Infinite ? :v:[/sp]

Do you really need 16GB of RAM? If you're doing video rendering or something that's fine, I just want to see. 8GB is just fine for gaming.

[QUOTE=Naaz;39684867]Do you really need 16GB of RAM? If you're doing video rendering or something that's fine, I just want to see. 8GB is just fine for gaming.[/QUOTE] More RAM is always a good thing. Also, I already bought it. [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Killervalon;39683564]Because that's what happens on facepunch? It may be people who just aren't logged in... [sp]Can I have Bioshock Infinite ? :v:[/sp][/QUOTE] Still, that's a lot of guests to be hovering around my thread at the same time right? And no, sorry.

Probably a little off topic, but the more RAM, the longer loading times you get in games. 4 GB is [i]perfect[/i] for a gamer, but if required, 8 GB should be more than enough. After that, you should only buy more if you're into rendering and stuff.

[QUOTE=PredGD;39697803]Probably a little off topic, but the more RAM, the longer loading times you get in games. 4 GB is [i]perfect[/i] for a gamer, but if required, 8 GB should be more than enough. After that, you should only buy more if you're into rendering and stuff.[/QUOTE] That makes absolutely no sense.

[QUOTE=PredGD;39697803]Probably a little off topic, but the more RAM, the longer loading times you get in games.[/QUOTE] And where did you hear that?

[QUOTE=Rents;39700313]And where did you hear that?[/QUOTE] Some elf he found in the woods

[QUOTE=Rents;39700313]And where did you hear that?[/QUOTE]Back of a cereal box.

[QUOTE=Del91;39698835]That makes absolutely no sense.[/QUOTE] The game needs to distribute its memory over all of the RAM, which takes more time. The change is there, but not a big one. [img]http://img.gfx.no/834/834219/badcompany2.png[/img] It does, however, give a slight FPS boost. [img]http://img.gfx.no/834/834220/badcompany2-2.png[/img]

[QUOTE=PredGD;39702029]The game needs to distribute its memory over all of the RAM, which takes more time.[/QUOTE] Random Access Memory It doesn't matter where something's stored in RAM, it takes the same amount of time to access it, it's in the name. [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] Also a source on those excel graphs would be nice.

[QUOTE=Rents;39702094]Random Access Memory It doesn't matter where something's stored in RAM, it takes the same amount of time to access it, it's in the name. [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] Also a source on those excel graphs would be nice.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.hardware.no/artikler/saa_mye_minne_trenger_spilleren/93672[/url] Norwegian hardware site. Learning something new everyday. Didn't have any other "logical" conclusion to why the loading times were faster. :v:

8GB RAM is ideal for now and a bit down the road unless you want to future proof your rig or if you require more because you will be using your rig for things like video rendering. If you want fast loading times, it's suggested you get an SSD alongside your HDD, which you have in your shopping cart. An SSD speeds up game/progam/windows loading times by quite a lot and once you use one you will most likely never go without an SSD in any future rigs. The system you have put together is pretty much the rig I have, albeit with 8GB RAM, a 600w PSU and a smaller HDD, as well as some different manufacturers. That system is basically the best you can use for gaming unless you're going for something like 2 690s. Anyway OP have you bought all those parts yet? I'm just wondering because personally I would change a few of the manufacturers around, for example XFX graphic cards are sketchy as fuck, really. Their PSUs are fine since as far as I know they're made by SeaSonic but I wouldn't buy a GPU from them if I had a choice.

[QUOTE=PredGD;39702188][url]http://www.hardware.no/artikler/saa_mye_minne_trenger_spilleren/93672[/url] Norwegian hardware site. Learning something new everyday. Didn't have any other "logical" conclusion to why the loading times were faster. :v:[/QUOTE] [img]http://img.gfx.no/834/834017/half.life2.png[/img] [img]http://img.gfx.no/834/834265/metro2033-2.png[/img] I'd say it's down to something else, especially since they only tested one setup and didn't get consistent results. That and it was always under a second difference, not worth worrying about anyway, the HDD read speed has far more impact.

For perfection, it would have to run on a SSD or something alike and would only run a certain operating system built for it - to exclude stuff like updates & other random stuff happening.

You might be onto something there. 16 GB was always the slowest in these tests when it came to loading (or equal as it showed in Metro 2033), so I guess it has something to say. But as you said, the difference is small so its nothing game breaking. My point still stands, though. You get teeny weeny bit of faster loading, and you spare yourself from buying too much. Why have 16 GB when you only use 3 GB under load (as an example)?

[QUOTE=PredGD;39702599]You might be onto something there. 16 GB was always the slowest in these tests when it came to loading (or equal as it showed in Metro 2033), so I guess it has something to say. But as you said, the difference is small so its nothing game breaking. My point still stands, though. You get teeny weeny bit of faster loading, and you spare yourself from buying too much. Why have 16 GB when you only use 3 GB under load (as an example)?[/QUOTE] Ehhh with some space for error I think its the same as most of them aren't even in the 1 second of difference

[QUOTE=striker453;39703235]Ehhh with some space for error I think its the same as most of them aren't even in the 1 second of difference[/QUOTE] [i]teeny[/i]

If you think that he should get less RAM because of speed increase. Then you can just get a ssd or some faster RAM. The real issue is if he doesn't need it.

[QUOTE=Rathlin1;39702320]8GB RAM is ideal for now and a bit down the road unless you want to future proof your rig or if you require more because you will be using your rig for things like video rendering.If you want fast loading times, it's suggested you get an SSD alongside your HDD, which you have in your shopping cart. An SSD speeds up game/progam/windows loading times by quite a lot and once you use one you will most likely never go without an SSD in any future rigs.The system you have put together is pretty much the rig I have, albeit with 8GB RAM, a 600w PSU and a smaller HDD, as well as some different manufacturers. That system is basically the best you can use for gaming unless you're going for something like 2 690s.Anyway OP have you bought all those parts yet? I'm just wondering because personally I would change a few of the manufacturers around, for example XFX graphic cards are sketchy as fuck, really. Their PSUs are fine since as far as I know they're made by SeaSonic but I wouldn't buy a GPU from them if I had a choice.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the info. I bought all the parts already, and from what I've heard, XFX graphics cards are top notch. I'm in the process of building the computer now. EDIT: And for you guys arguing about the RAM, it's good and worth it. 32 gigs would be overkill, but 16 is good.

Just get 8. Or 4. 16 isn't worth it

[QUOTE=harryh11;39705469]Just get 8. Or 4. 16 isn't worth it[/QUOTE] It only helps, and it's future proofing. It's also already installed in my machine.

[QUOTE=Killervalon;39703814]If you think that he should get less RAM because of speed increase. Then you can just get a ssd or some faster RAM. The real issue is if he doesn't need it.[/QUOTE] I don't think he should get less ram, just not too much. My comouter, for instance, has never used more than 6 GB, and that is when it has run constantly for a week, 20+ tabs in chrome and a resource intensive game in the backgrijnd.

[QUOTE=PredGD;39711197]I don't think he should get less ram, just not too much. My comouter, for instance, has never used more than 6 GB, and that is when it has run constantly for a week, 20+ tabs in chrome and a resource intensive game in the backgrijnd.[/QUOTE] lol. I open Adobe Premiere and BAM it's gone

But when its only going to be used for gaming there's no point spending extra 'dosh' on surplus RAM when you could splurge that money on the gpu or something. I'm sure the parts you've chosen, John Egbert, will certainly run Skyrim at 60fps