Jump to content
Basard

Ongoing Discussion Building a PC for Star Citizen? Tech tips and build guidance.

Recommended Posts

If you like many are in the process of building a machine powerful enought to play Star Citizen, and require build guidance. This page may help you choosing the right hardware to give you a decent and enjoyable experience in the PU going forward.

 

As time goes forward i'll update this post with current and new specs as time pass's.

 

CPU 8 Core+ With the latest open dev interview at Citizencon, we have word from the horse's mouth (CIG graphics engineering dev), that this game will indeed favour Threads > IPC. Meaning a CPU with more cores will in general give you better performance. "Multicore is the key though, going wide (more threads) is the direction we're going, it's where everyone is going like high end I7's and I9's there's plenty of bandwidth there". Currently people on 3.0 are reporting that 4C/4T CPUs are struggling with the 3.0 PTU, so suggesting an I5 is foolheartedly at this point in time. It's hard to even recommend a 6 core with Hyperthreading from both vendors, simply because the industry standard in 2018 will be 8 cores and 16 threads. Mainly thanks to Intel releasing there Z390 boards 1st half of 2018 with support for 8 core CPU's. As Well as Ryzen and which there new refresh that's scheduled to release around Feb 2018.

 

Be careful if you are considering a Z370 motherboard! As this is more than likely a dead end platform much like the Kabylake Z270's just after 6 months. As they are not supported on Coffee lake hardware (considering they technically should be by an ASUS dev interview), as Z390 is designed for 8 cores, so you can realistically bet that your Z370 motherboard won't support the 8 core later on, if history is anything to go by.

 

 

Ram 16gigs+ (32gigs if possible) 3.0 is capable of chewing a heavy 12.5 - 15.5 gigs of volatile ram; (partly due to optimization needed on the higher side of the memory limits shown, aka memory leakage). This will only go up as we get closer to launch of the Beta, and 16gigs is soon becoming the limiting factor not too far off. As we'll start seeing more assets and features being introduced into the game, which will reduce memory bandwidth. Don't forget alot of back ground process's use up ram aswell, so having to close down web browser tabs and other programs might be a common annoyance for people opperating with 16gigs.

This could change with optimization but by how much is unknown so deside at your own discretion!

 

Motherboard When it comes to motherboards (in general) and CPU overclocking, the rule of thumb is not to cheap out. A good power delivery equates to a better and more stable overclock. A Lot of board manufactures cheap out on PCB components, resulting in poor quality boards. My personal advice would be to research your boards in your given price range, to get your best bang for buck. But considering this is going to be a build for Star Citizen, you'll want to have something decent that will last you awhile, as Overclocking these days is so incredibly simple and very safe from the times of the past, so there's no reason you shouldn't have even a small overclock.

A good  Example of what boards may suit people in a given price range; (look up relative board types depending on our build or vendor "Intel / AMD", / Enthusiast / Workstation, (Z390-AM4  /  X299-Thread-Ripper) .

 

 

GPU While graphics is one of the most expensive parts of the build, it’s generally deemed not as high on the priority list over CPU and Motherboard. This is generally because GPU’s 'had' a shorter life span over the rest of the system. This is changing mainly due to the price gouging both vendors are doing mainly for two reasons.

 

(1) lack of competition on the high end. Nvidia can price whatever they like, because they know the majority customers will buy their products. $3000 Titan V over last gens Titan Xp $1200 for over double the price? You'd expect double the performance in both applications and gaming. But realistically it will be only a 15% increase.

 

(2) Cryptocurrency mining. AMD’s cards are very good workstation cards that are excellent at mining, as Vega GPU are basically cut down deep learning cards and rebranded gaming GPU's; (Which is why their gaming performance is pants over Nvidia). This is why theres both a shortage of GPU's and a price hike aswell.

 

Much Like Motherboards some vendors cheap out on components. I would avoid powercolor for example as they are repeat offenders when it comes to this practise. Youtube break down videos from tech outlets like Buildzoid are the places to go to, apon looking for a decent built GPU.

 

4k Max -1080TI / Titan (pascal)+

4k - 1080 / Vega 64

Ultrawide 3440x1440 - 1080 / 1070TI / Vega 64 / 56

2k / 1440p Max or high refresh rate - 1070 / Vega 56

Ultrawide 2560x1080 - Rx580 / 1070

1440p 60-100 FPS -  RX580

1080p - RX580 / 1060 (6gig)

8 gig Vram minimum on the GPU would be a wise and safer bet.

 

 

PSU is the beating heart of a PC system. Buying a high grade “gold plus” is sensible as a poor grade PSU’s can and will destroy any if all of your components if they fail. Good top quality brands are Superflower and Corsair and EVGA.

 

Superflower are one of the best OEM's for power supplies on the market. They make the highest quality power supplies.

 

The EVGA G2 and G3 are based on Super Flower's Leadex Gold platform.

 

  1. Base Level: Between 80% and 82%.

  2. Bronze: Between 83% and 85%.

  3. Silver: Between 85% and 88%.

  4. Gold: Between 88% and 92%.

  5. Platinum: Between 92% and 94%.

  6. Titanium: The highest 80 PLUS rating; any power supply that operates at 95% or above efficiency.


 

 

Case the golden rule is air flow. While some may look amazing like the Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass it suffers with very poor air flow.

Whereas something like the Anidees AI-Crystal has both looks and great airflow.

 

Make sure your case supports the motherboard size of your choosing also!


 

 

Storage, it goes without saying that Flash memory is far superior to HDD’s in terms of read writes and load times. So having your OS on 250GB SSD Drive, and having SC on another 250GB SSD would be ideal for headroom later on, depending on expansions and additional content.

Having a big HDD (2TB) for random files and photos is a good idea as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I built a gaming rig "for Star Citizen" 3 years ago... :rolleyes: It might be another 3 years before Star Citizen's retail release.

I agree with what others have said: Don't buy a gaming rig just for Star Citizen. If you play other PC games that require a powerful gaming rig, then it's worthwhile to buy a new gaming rig. But if it's only for Star Citizen, WAIT!

My gaming rig is starting to show its age. I believe it's the graphics card that's holding me back, so I'm planning to buy a 1070 Ti over Christmas. This is just an interim solution that'll hopefully buy me 2 more years before I need to replace my full rig. That's why I'm considering the 1070 Ti instead of a 1080 Ti. Although if there are good sales, I might get the 1080 Ti after all.

The only component category I'll comment on is the CPU: Don't bother with an 8-core proc if your building a gaming PC for Star Citizen. You'll pay more than twice as much as a quad-core and you won't see any real performance gains, in Star Citizen or virtually any game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is aimed generally at 3.0 and going forward considering this is the 1st step into the PU and many are coming back to play for the first time in a great while.

We get alot of people asking build questions regarding SC so this guide gives them a basis into what they can build now aswell as the future. Giving them guidance and knowledge which they may lack.

 

This Post will get updates as the time pass's.

24 minutes ago, Reavern said:

 

The only component category I'll comment on is the CPU: Don't bother with an 8-core proc if your building a gaming PC for Star Citizen. You'll pay more than twice as much as a quad-core and you won't see any real performance gains, in Star Citizen or virtually any game.

 

Sadly you'd be mistaken to think a 4 core is ok by todays standards of gaming, theres no head room left as they are running 100% CPU load in most games. Alot of games from 2016 onwards have been utilizing multi core processing for more than 4 cores since. "recomending a 4 core today is like recomending a dual core 5 years ago".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Basard said:

Sadly you'd be mistaken to think a 4 core is ok by todays standards of gaming, theres no head room left as they are running 100% CPU load in most games. Alot of games from 2016 onwards have been utilizing multi core processing for more than 4 cores since. "recomending a 4 core today is like recomending a dual core 5 years ago".

I didn't say there wouldn't be any difference between a 4-core and 6-core or 8-core. I said you wouldn't be able to see any significant performance gains. Check out this i7 8700k 6-core proc Review and the benchmarks comparing various Intel and AMD procs. The difference between the 6- and 8-core procs and the quad core procs is less than 5 fps! For Ghost Recon: Wildlands (2017), the difference the 8700k and my 4790k is only 3 fps for both 1080p and 1440p. For Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, the difference is only 1 fps! I own a i7 4790k and those benchmarks indicate there's no justification to upgrade.

The only reason to buy 6- or 8-core procs is if you want to run benchmarks and show off your e-penis.

If you believe you need more than a quad core for gaming, you're just buying into Intel and AMD's marketing bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reavern said:

I didn't say there wouldn't be any difference between a 4-core and 6-core or 8-core. I said you wouldn't be able to see any significant performance gains. Check out this i7 8700k 6-core proc Review and the benchmarks comparing various Intel and AMD procs. The difference between the 6- and 8-core procs and the quad core procs is less than 5 fps! For Ghost Recon: Wildlands (2017), the difference the 8700k and my 4790k is only 3 fps for both 1080p and 1440p. For Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, the difference is only 1 fps! I own a i7 4790k and those benchmarks indicate there's no justification to upgrade.

The only reason to buy 6- or 8-core procs is if you want to run benchmarks and show off your e-penis.

If you believe you need more than a quad core for gaming, you're just buying into Intel and AMD's marketing bullshit.

You're welcome to your informed opinion but factually you're very wrong.

I'd suggest you watch the video above that proves a 4core-4thread CPU is outdated in today / tomorrows games.

This topic is not to be drag into a hardware "holy war". It's here to give build guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the thread is to give perspective for those new to the game or to those considering upgrades before they commit to their purchases. As has been mention, everyone is welcome to their opinion, but refrain from ad-hominem or emotional responses to make your point. 

If you have nothing constructive to add then simply do not reply to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer my rules:

Get the cheapest components that do the job 'reasonably well', as you'll pay less than half the price of the expensive stuff and when you upgrade next you'll still have spent less money and you'll haver higher performance as well. Too may people get obsessed with manufacturers numbers and specifications or uber-geek reviewers that don't actually make a difference to a standard user.

I've been building and overclocking PCs for 20 years and I am gobsmacked by the amount of bullshit that gets posted. I class myself as reasonably savvy and I even replaced the VRMs myself on one motherboard to stabilise the voltage for overclocking. It looked great on an oscilloscope, but made no noticeable difference what so ever to any of the games I played on the PC, because I really can't tell the difference between 67 FPS and 64 FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Snakebyte said:

I prefer my rules:

Get the cheapest components that do the job 'reasonably well', as you'll pay less than half the price of the expensive stuff and when you upgrade next you'll still have spent less money and you'll haver higher performance as well. Too may people get obsessed with manufacturers numbers and specifications or uber-geek reviewers that don't actually make a difference to a standard user.

I've been building and overclocking PCs for 20 years and I am gobsmacked by the amount of bullshit that gets posted. I class myself as reasonably savvy and I even replaced the VRMs myself on one motherboard to stabilise the voltage for overclocking. It looked great on an oscilloscope, but made no noticeable difference what so ever to any of the games I played on the PC, because I really can't tell the difference between 67 FPS and 64 FPS.

Completely agree, don't buy gear if you dont intend on pushing it to the limits. But also don't buy hardware just because a friend has somthing overly expensive either.

Also it sounds like your bottle neck was not CPU related for such a small gain, what clock speeds were you trying to achieve before and after?

kudos to you on changing the MOSFETS  / chokes on a motherboard, I guess you mainly saw a reduction in heat correct with better power delivery?

I'm currently learning electronics at College and doing alot of the math side with ohm's & kirchhoff law, oh what fun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, going forward clock speeds on the CPU will have much less of an effect on performance. Everything, and I mean everything, is becoming more and more GPU dependent. Also, more and more programs, including the games of the future like Sta Citizen, will be designed in a way to take advantage of EVERY core your CPU has available. This technology isn't mainstream just yet, but it is coming.

While there is no way you can "future proof" a PC build, there are ways you can extend it's useful life. One of those it to get the most CPU and GPU that you can reasonably afford and DO NOT overclock either. The performance gains are negligible unless you are doing some heavy duty encoding or something of that nature. This however has proven to reduce the life of the core components.

With that being said, building a PC for Star Citizen at this point is really pointless unless what you currently have will not run the game at all. At that point I would be more inclined to recommend small upgrades to get close to satisfactory performance. Like it has been said, Star Citizen has at least a couple more years of development to go until it is considered a complete product. There will, however, be a ton of playable/testable content but I'm not convinced that this content justifies spending the dollars to get even a mid ranged PC to play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Reavern said:

snip

Where you're wrong is in using games as an example of performance. No game is the same, and each game draws power from different places depending on factors like the engine, DirectX version, or how the game was optimized. ArmA III can still murder systems that even have a 1080 in them because that game is mostly CPU-driven. Some games run entirely in RAM. Other games draw most of their rendering power from the GPU. Some games will perform the same regardless of systems because they will allocate the maximum amount of power they will need and run off that.

Using applications like rendering software would be a better way of judging performance because then you're using programs that will tap into the power of the system more. Regardless, quad-core gaming will not be the standard forever, and we are nearing the point where because games are becoming more demanding (or in the case of some ports, just very poorly optimized) and the jump will likely be to 6 or 8 core CPUs.

6 hours ago, Reavern said:

If you believe you need more than a quad core for gaming, you're just buying into Intel and AMD's marketing bullshit.

No, I'm seeing with my own eyes that my top of the line system from 4 years ago is not cutting it anymore. I'm having to turn graphics presets and visual quality down in order to sustain a stable 1080p60fps, and just this year is when some games have been hitching up. And no, its not because of anything wrong with the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 9:26 PM, Reavern said:

The only component category I'll comment on is the CPU: Don't bother with an 8-core proc if your building a gaming PC for Star Citizen. You'll pay more than twice as much as a quad-core and you won't see any real performance gains, in Star Citizen or virtually any game.

1

As I regularly build PC's as part of my job on a weekly basis I find 4-cores to be very lacking.

I've actually got two older identical PCs at home an i5k (4cores) and an i7k (4 cores 8 logical) each of them has the same single threaded performance. The performance of the extra 4 local cores (8 total via hyperthreading) is a huge bonus and I notice the difference running certain games and apps.

That's not to say there is anything wrong with 4 cores but more the better. It's up to the game engine to take advantage. same when everyone used to hit the 32bit 4GB ram limit per application. 64bit software and modern games take a huge performance boost with extra CPU.

It's up to everyone to budget what they have there is nothing wrong with a dual or quad core, it just won't perform as much as an 8, 12, 16, or 24 core processor and that's not even including dual processor systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that buying the R7 1700 or greater would be the better choice for most people.  It regularly goes on sale and along with a B350 board would come in a cool couple hundred under the 8700k setup.  I personally purchased the 8700k over a Ryzen setup only because of the 900p and higher single core performance which I desired.  That is not a recommendation but only my personal requirement as my 3930k had similar performance to a R5 1600.  I do however suggest AMD to most of my clients looking at a solid setup unless they specifically request Intel as it will give them more frames per dollar and allow "splurges" like a beefier GPU, bigger SSD, or better peripherals for the same total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my, a PC build guide (sort of)! 

A few points:

1) The Phanteks Evolv Glass case is going to cause ambient temps to be a couple degrees higher than something like a Corsair Air 540. I know this because I recently built a new rig with the Evolv case and my temps are only a couple degrees higher. It's worth noting that my old rig was running an i7-6700k locked at 4.4GHz, and my new rig is running an i7-8700k locked at 4.7GHz. Two extra cores and a higher clock speed lead to higher temps naturally. My GTX 1080 (EVGA FTW) was carried over from the old rig and is running at the same temps at the same speeds in the same games. So, if form is more important to you than function if you don't have a problem with temperatures being a few points higher, then you will love this case. (This isn't an Origin 600i Exploration vs. Carrack situation. The temp differences are so minor that they can easily be considered arbitrary.) 

2) As to Juntau's point regarding overclocking: unless you are planning to keep the same PC for over eight to ten years, overclocking really doesn't matter. It's the voltage, not the temperature, that matters with regard to the lifespan of a CPU. If you can overclock your CPU with even a moderate increase to voltage, it really won't matter much. 

3) While CIG has stated the game "should" be optimized for as many threads as you have, there should also be very little variance between 4/8, 6/12, and 8/16 CPU given that it's spreading the load evenly across all threads and no threads are being pushed over ~85% at any time. For example, a 40% load across 8 threads is the same as a 30% load across 12 threads is the same as a 20% load across 16 threads. Everything else being equal, i.e., given processors of the same generation from Intel for example, the one with the highest clock speed will win every time with regards to gaming regardless of thread count. Unlike "hardcore" professional software which can spread a the same 95% to 100% load across 8, 12, and 16 (or more) threads, you're just not going to see any difference by increasing core / thread count. (This, of course, requires that the game will not have excessively massive CPU spikes across all threads in certain situations. But, if a spike is bad enough to cause a hitch or soft freeze on an 8 thread CPU at 40%, the chances are pretty damn good that it will cause the same thing to the 12 and 16 thread CPU's because it's most definitely the same type of horrid physics optimization and netcode issues we are currently seeing in the 3.0 PTU.)

4) Save a bit of money on the CPU, spend it on the GPU (or an SSD!). 

5) How to know when you have hit CPU nirvana, aka, "future proofing": when you are running a chip that has single threaded performance >30% over another chip of similar type -- say, an i7-8700k vs. a Ryzen 1600X -- and you are hitting either the same or very similar frame rates in the same game with the same GPU, then you know you're going to be fine for a long time to come. An example: a Sandy Bridge i7-2600k from 2011 overclocked to 4.7GHz (which was relatively easy to achieve because Sandy Bridge was awesome), is at least as good as 2017's Ryzen chips and holds it own against 2017's i7-7700k. Boost the resolution above 1080p and there is likely little to no difference as you become GPU bound at that point. (It's worth driving home that the i7-2600k turns 7 in a month or two and is held back by slow DDR3 memory to some extent.) So, if you are running resolutions above 1080p, you're even more "future proofed" than the guy with the 1080p monitor.

 

TL;DR: There is and will be no need to buy an 8c/16t (or higher) CPU for gaming for a long time to come given 4c/8t and even 4c/4t CPU's are still performing as well as ever. I will be shocked if SC gets better frame rates with CPU's with over 8 threads simply because "more than 8 threads". I would suggest that you go with a CPU capable of no less than 4c/8t or 8c/8t if you are building a PC for SC, however. It's always nice to have headroom. Save money on your CPU and get an SSD / upgrade video card. Skip Intel's "X" enthusiast platform entirely and upgrade more stuff. There is no reason to pay more than $250 for a mobo because no one needs that many PCIe lanes. Seriously, SLI and CrossFire are fading into nonexistence. E.g., I'm running a 6c/12t i7-8700k, a GTX 1080 (16x), two PCIe Optane SSD's (4x each), and 3 M.2 SSD's on a $200 Gigabyte Aorus 7, and it's the smoothest, fastest PC I've ever built by a significant margin.

 

Takeaway:

CPU: 8 threads minimum (and recommended)

GPU: Use money saved on CPU to bump up from 60 or 70 series to 80 series. 

Mobo: No need to go crazy. Try not to spend over $200. 

SSD: Yes. Yes. Yes. Get one with enough space to use as your boot drive and for SC. 250GB should be sufficient. (I would note here that the Optane 900p is noticeably faster than a 950 Pro. The $200 Raven is icing on the cake while the promotion lasts.)

Memory: 3200MHz max. Anything faster is an even bigger waste of money. 16GB minimum.

PSU: Don't skimp. Use http://www.jonnyguru.com/ when you find some options at the right price.

Don't forget about the peripherals! I believe most people will enjoy the game more with at least one joystick -- it significantly changed my feelings about the game in a wonderfully positive way -- and you shouldn't underestimate the awesomeness of moving into resolutions beyond 1080p. Having G-SYNC / FreeSync is a nice perk, too. 

Remember your budget, though. Save where you can so you can spend more where you want / need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dragon-Knight said:

As I regularly build PC's as part of my job on a weekly basis I find 4-cores to be very lacking.

I've actually got two older identical PCs at home an i5k (4cores) and an i7k (4 cores 8 logical) each of them has the same single threaded performance. The performance of the extra 4 local cores (8 total via hyperthreading) is a huge bonus and I notice the difference running certain games and apps.

That's not to say there is anything wrong with 4 cores but more the better. It's up to the game engine to take advantage. same when everyone used to hit the 32bit 4GB ram limit per application. 64bit software and modern games take a huge performance boost with extra CPU.

It's up to everyone to budget what this have there is nothing wrong with a dual or quad core, it just won't perform as much as an 8, 12, 16, or 24 core processor and that's not even including dual processor systems.

You can claim whatever subjective observations you want, but in real world game performance, the extra $$$ of a 6 or 8 core processor does not provide proportional improvement in performance -- and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. For example, the i7 7700K 4-core proc costs around $300 now, and i7 8800K 6-core proc costs around $400. Does 50% more cores provide 50% greater performance???

HELL NO!

Does spending 33% more money provide 33% greater performance?

Again, NO!

It's more like 5%, if you're lucky -- and it depends on the game. But it'll never be +33%. Never.

The Intel Xtreme procs range from $800-2000, and they'll only provide an extra 10%, maybe, in real game performance. But most gamers won't notice the difference. Only benchmarking will show a difference.

Why don't more CPU cores provide proportional performance improvements? Because games don't take full advantage of multi-core procs. Games are certainly better at utilizing multi-core and multi-thread procs than 5 years ago, but they're still nowhere close to full utilization.

That's my point. I'm not saying that 6/8 core procs are pointless. I'm saying their prices are unjustifiable for most games. For Star Citizen, a graphics card and a fast internet connection matter far more than an 8-core proc. Gamers should spend their money wisely, not get into an e-penis contest.

People are free to spend their money however they want, but for anyone to recommend to someone less knowledgeable that 6 or 8-core procs are worth the extra money, that is absolutely wrong. You're telling someone to go spend their hard earned money on something they do not need. You can make that decision for yourself, but it's wrong to advise others to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind going a little premium for an extra 5%.  But for a game that won't be out for at least another year?  Hells to the no.  In that situation I'd get an 4C/8T CPU over its more expensive siblings for sure.

1) While CIG has said they want to go highly-threaded, the proof is in tasting the pudding.  I'll believe it when SC actually performs better in a release state with more threads.  Especially when you're comparing 4C/8T vs. 6C/6T vs. 6C/12T.  The latter-most is very likely to be complete overkill, and either of the first two might be the sweet spot of clock-speed vs. threads.  Its possible the latter might be the best, but it has to overcome its lesser clockspeed to achieve it.  That means CIG has to be running at least 7 threads flat out in Star Citizen, or else the 6C/6T would be best.  No game maker has shown the ability to do this yet.  I don't believe they can on faith.  They have to show me first.

2) Whatever you buy now probably will be obsolete by the time SC is released.  So if you need to buy now (because you're a gamer of other games, or you just need a computer) anyways, spend your money wisely, and buy a CPU that runs today's games best.  Today, that's a 4C/8T CPU.  A 4C/8T will save you money today vs the more-cored alternatives that you can go invest in bitcoin or TSLA or something, and then when Star Citizen is out, use that money go buy whatever is best in actual Star Citizen benchmarks (timedemos hopefully).


To sum up, just be smart and consider the fact that Star Citizen isn't out yet.

Oh yeah, all this assumes Intel, not AMD.  AMD doesn't have the best gaming CPUs, not even their Ryzen 5s.  I best the new 4C i3s beat the Ryzen 5 in gaming, measured both when cores are even and when cost is even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Boildown said:

I don't mind going a little premium for an extra 5%.  But for a game that won't be out for at least another year?  Hells to the no.  In that situation I'd get an 4C/8T CPU over its more expensive siblings for sure.

1) While CIG has said they want to go highly-threaded, the proof is in tasting the pudding.  I'll believe it when SC actually performs better in a release state with more threads.  Especially when you're comparing 4C/8T vs. 6C/6T vs. 6C/12T.  The latter-most is very likely to be complete overkill, and either of the first two might be the sweet spot of clock-speed vs. threads.  Its possible the latter might be the best, but it has to overcome its lesser clockspeed to achieve it.  That means CIG has to be running at least 7 threads flat out in Star Citizen, or else the 6C/6T would be best.  No game maker has shown the ability to do this yet.  I don't believe they can on faith.  They have to show me first.

2) Whatever you buy now probably will be obsolete by the time SC is released.  So if you need to buy now (because you're a gamer of other games, or you just need a computer) anyways, spend your money wisely, and buy a CPU that runs today's games best.  Today, that's a 4C/8T CPU.  A 4C/8T will save you money today vs the more-cored alternatives that you can go invest in bitcoin or TSLA or something, and then when Star Citizen is out, use that money go buy whatever is best in actual Star Citizen benchmarks (timedemos hopefully).


To sum up, just be smart and consider the fact that Star Citizen isn't out yet.

Oh yeah, all this assumes Intel, not AMD.  AMD doesn't have the best gaming CPUs, not even their Ryzen 5s.  I best the new 4C i3s beat the Ryzen 5 in gaming, measured both when cores are even and when cost is even.

 

Boildown, I never said in my post that AMD were the best CPU hands down, I don't get where you're going with that statement?

My post was presented on data from various legit sources that indicate why a 4 core CPU is outdated, (being that 100% CPU loads means it's bottled necked). This can be seen in a lot of benchmarks for newer games now including Star Citizen where you have people reporting this to the issue council.

 

Sources

Spoiler

source.jpg

tavern_upload_large.png

Spoiler

"Upon arriving at the cargo destination (i was the passenger, not sure which quest he had, some random player) in the Constellation, we were attacked. I entered the top turret and once it aligned and gave me control, i could only move the cursor around the middle square window pane, and not any further left or right, and could not move the turret itself at all. Upon entering the lower cockpit turret, it left me staring at the yellow warning band and a wall, and I was able to spin around, but not see anything at all. My pilot at this point spoke of being literally stuck in the roof of the ship, and I upon boarding aafter the pilot got the cargo and returned to the ship, that is when he got stuck in the ceiling. I tried to re-board the ship and heard player gunfire, small arms, and began to lag badly, and saw my CPU usage maxxing out in task manager. The game would lock up for 10 seconds at a time, then a split second of sound and movement, then lock up again. Eventually I had to just end task in task manager as the game became unresponsive (screenshot below taken while game running, no other apps running)"

 

 

 

The game is already showing decent multi threaded task handling in 3.0 as show below.

tavern_upload_large.jpg

"I7 5820k, 6 cores + SMT @3,6 GHz , 35-45% overall load, single cores spikes up to 70%, SC 3.0 likes more then only 4 cores. "

 

Also I don't believe you fully read my post as I said; "This page may help you choosing the right hardware to give you a decent and enjoyable experience in the PU going forward." As of right now recomending a 4 core proves this point entirely. But also the fact that people whom are looking to build a system to play now, and yes I agree it's best to wait for the game to come out before spending "top dollar". But to mine and everyones benefit in my post, I didn't encourage people to go out overkill pc style to do so either at this current moment in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since my role on this thread is apparently to provide a contrarian "opinion" so innocent gamers don't waste their money on $1000+ processors, I have plenty of sources to support my point that 6+ core procs do not provide significant performance improvements for the majority of PC games.

Firstly, we know for a fact that Star Citizen is in bed with Intel because of the Optane drive's Sabre Raven exclusive, and CIG has admitted that Intel provided them with Optane drives (and probably CPUs and other hardware) that they're now using in their game dev PCs. I don't think anyone should be surprised that CIG is touting that Star Citizen benefits from Optane drives and high-end Intel procs.

Now, on to my sources:

PC Word: "Tested: How many CPU cores you really need for DirectX 12 gaming"

dx12_cpu_3dmark_api_overhead_feature_tes

dx12_cpu_gears_of_war_19x10_medium_dx12-

PC Gamer: THE BEST PC GAMING PROCESSOR - NOVEMBER 2017

PC Gamer chose the i5-8400 as the Best Gaming Processor, which has 6 cores, 6 threads, and NO HYPER-THREADING. It's only 7 fps slower less than the i7-8700K, which has 6 cores, 12 threads, and Hyper-Threading. The extra $200 doesn't buy you much performance gains, does it?

But yunno the ol' saying: A fool and his money are soon parted.

FXVmQF2aMTjtCMoPeRyfTi-650-80.png

Legit Reviews: PUBG CPU Core Benchmarks – How Many Cores Do You Need

pubg-cpu-core-performance.png

 

And for those who don't like reading:

There's tons of info out there on this subject, because every gamer is asking if they need the over-expensive 6+ core CPUs. Gamers are concerned (paranoid) that their hardware is obsolete and isn't powerful enough to run today's games. We have Intel and AMD's marketing machines, and their accomplices in the PC news media, to thank for that. They play on our doubts and our desires to have the best tech to play the games that we love. They're salespeople and hustlers, doing their very best to convince you that the path to gaming nirvana is a $1000 CPU (and a new $500+ mobo to go with it!). Don't fall for it!

Fortunately, if you seek out the objective opinions and benchmarking data provided by real experts, who don't have any monetary incentives to push high-end PC hardware on gullible consumers, the overwhelming consensus is that 6+ core processors are not worth the extra money.

Maybe by the time Star Citizen's retail release (2020? <_<), games will more effectively utilize 6+ core CPUs, but today, the price vs. performance ratio does not justify them for gaming. Save your money by buying a $300 proc today and wait and see what happens in 2-3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reavern said:

holy fuckballs that's a big snip

Again, you seem to be missing the idea that there are a lot of limiting factors regarding performance. The biggest bottle neck to performance is what a machine is running, and what a machine is running on.

All of these benchmarks and charts all assume controls of some kind in their testing, whether it be the GPU, storage, RAM, OS, DX, Drivers or power supply, etc. This means that no matter what the CPU, there will always be something that will bottleneck a system from utilizing its full power because things like the OS or DirectX. And again, it also depends on how the computer is being measured. A quad-core CPU might perform similarly to an 8-core when playing Crysis III or on render software, but when you get into things like raw calculations or mining, the leap in hardware will definitely matter. So spending that $200-$300 now might mean you don't have to spend money on another CPU down the line until you're building a whole new machine.

This is how it has been for years. Even if the cost is not proportional to the performance the more you go up the ladder, there is a cost/time benefit to going for higher end CPUs. Please stop acting like you've taken some red pill just because you looked at some videos and a few graphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reavern I don't like to be accused as a liar and someone who is conning other people out of their hard-earned $$$

 

I'm providing advised based on my own experience, this is on the games I play which do get huge performance benefits with hardware changes, stating facts is ok, but please do not attack fellow forum members.

 

Nowhere did I state double the cores, will double the performance. Just that going for an i5 to i7 I notice the difference running certain games and apps.

 

Quote

It's up to everyone to budget what they have, there is nothing wrong with a dual or quad core

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2017 at 12:02 AM, J. Coren said:

Again, you seem to be missing the idea that there are a lot of limiting factors regarding performance. The biggest bottle neck to performance is what a machine is running, and what a machine is running on.

All of these benchmarks and charts all assume controls of some kind in their testing, whether it be the GPU, storage, RAM, OS, DX, Drivers or power supply, etc. This means that no matter what the CPU, there will always be something that will bottleneck a system from utilizing its full power because things like the OS or DirectX. And again, it also depends on how the computer is being measured. A quad-core CPU might perform similarly to an 8-core when playing Crysis III or on render software, but when you get into things like raw calculations or mining, the leap in hardware will definitely matter. So spending that $200-$300 now might mean you don't have to spend money on another CPU down the line until you're building a whole new machine.

This is how it has been for years. Even if the cost is not proportional to the performance the more you go up the ladder, there is a cost/time benefit to going for higher end CPUs. Please stop acting like you've taken some red pill just because you looked at some videos and a few graphs.

It seems that whenever facts, evidence, and experts contradict people’s opinions and preconceived conclusions, those people try to undermine and dismiss those facts rather than actually considering the information (or even bothering to read/watch it — better to remain willfully ignorant than open-minded :rolleyes:).

Benchmarks are designed to provide a level playing field. All the same hardware, the same games/software, same settings; the only variable is the PC component being tested and compared: the CPU. You’re obviously trying to refute the validity of all benchmarks because the evidence in those videos and graphs disprove your unsubstantiated opinion.

This thread about PC hardware for GAMING, specifically Star Citizen. It doesn’t matter that 6 or 8-core procs have performance increases for video editing, number crunching, and bitcoin mining. The vast majority of gamers don’t use their PCs for those applications, so those attributes are irrelevant.

Your argument seems to be that, when building a new gaming PC today, it’s “smarter” to buy a 6 or 8-core CPU for $600+ instead of a 4-core CPU for $300, because you believe that in a few years the former will still be powerful enough to run future games, whereas the 4–core CPU will lag behind and need to be replaced. Firstly, the benchmarks indicate that the 6-8 core CPUs are only 5% faster (at best) for most games. How will that extra 5% make the difference between being happy with the CPU and needing to buy a new CPU? Second, in a few years, the gamer can simply buy a new $300 CPU. The two $300 CPUs will cost the same or less than the 3 year-old 6-8 core CPU, and new $300 CPU will outperform it. In those few years, the new CPU could have 6 or more cores for the same $300 price point. That’s what happened with the i7 line. The 47xxK, 6700K, and 7700K were 4 core, 8 thread procs, and all priced around the $350 price point when they were introduced. Now Intel has released the 8700K, which has 6 cores and 12 threads, for the same price point as the 7700K that was released in early 2017. (Sucks for anyone how bought the 7700K.) There’s also the i5-8400, which is a 6-core, 6-thread proc for only $250 that outperforms the 7700K. That means the same amount of money will buy you better hardware in the future — that’s how it works. So over-spending today on 6-8 cores makes no sense whatsoever.

Ultimately, gamers should buy the best PC hardware that they can afford. But they shouldn’t be advised or pressured from ANYONE to buy over-expensive hardware that they don’t need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Boildown said:

Oh yeah, all this assumes Intel, not AMD.  AMD doesn't have the best gaming CPUs, not even their Ryzen 5s.  I best the new 4C i3s beat the Ryzen 5 in gaming, measured both when cores are even and when cost is even.

22 hours ago, Basard said:

Boildown, I never said in my post that AMD were the best CPU hands down, I don't get where you're going with that statement?

My post was presented on data from various legit sources that indicate why a 4 core CPU is outdated, (being that 100% CPU loads means it's bottled necked). This can be seen in a lot of benchmarks for newer games now including Star Citizen where you have people reporting this to the issue council.

Seriously?  I never claimed you said anything at all.  I was writing a disclaimer for my own post where I generically talked about 4C/8T CPUs and I realized at the end some people might misinterpret that as including AMD CPUs, and I wanted to make it crystal clear I am only talking about Intel CPUs and that AMD's have turned out to be inferior for gaming on a core for core basis. 

My AMD note had nothing to do with what you wrote. Not everything I write is a rebuttal to what people posted before it.

 

Now that that's cleared up, I primarily agree with Reavern.  Its not worth buying a massively-cored CPU now based on CIG's intuition that their game, later, will be able to use all the cores and threads.  I do agree that a 4C/4T CPU is on the bargain side of the price-performance curve, and that particularly in light of the latest generation of Intel CPUs having more cores for less money, getting a 4C/8T or 6C/6T CPU is more likely the sweet spot.  Beyond that I think is a waste of money until proven otherwise.  Maybe you'll get 5% more performance, but 1) often you won't, and 2) often you'll get worse performance due to lower clockspeed, and most importantly 3) you'll pay hundreds of dollars more.  Instead the better plan is to buy a reasonably priced CPU now and wait and see when Star Citizen is at least in Beta if its worth doing a real upgrade then.

Buy 1 share of TSLA with the money you save and in 2 years, sell that sucker and get your real upgrade.  If it turns out there's an actual advantage in doing so, of course.


Edit: On yeah I almost forgot.  What's the deal with those benchmarks?  They look GPU bound to me, which invalidates them probably.

Ahh nope here's the reason:
 

Quote

The Intel Core i9-7900X is a $962.89 shipped 10-core, 20-thread processor that is overkill for PUBG, but we used it and disabled active cores to simulate different core counts. In stock form we were getting around 143 FPS at 1920×1080 and 142 at 2560×1440. If we disabled Intel Hyper-Threading this remained the case at 8-cores and 6-cores, but once we hit 4-cores (quad-core) performance dropped down to 117 FPS at 1080P and 110 FPS at 1440P. If we went down to 2-cores (dual-core) the performance dropped down to 89 FPS at 1080P and 86 FPS at 1440P. Enabling Intel Hyper-Threading technology on the dual-core processor got performance roughly on par with a true quad-core part and the quad-core part with Intel Hyper-Threading was right there with the 6-core and above parts. So, to get the most from PUBG with a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti you’ll want to be running a true quad-core processor with threading enabled.

So their testing has one flaw: It removes the clockspeed penalty for high core counts.  Which actually makes it a better test of what they were testing (strictly core count), just less applicable to the real world.  In the real world, the 6, 8, and 10 core CPUs would have progressively worse results as clockspeed went down.  Assuming of course that the 4 cores are the highest clocked CPUs, that might be the 6C in the latest edition, I don't recall.

Edited by Boildown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 1:05 PM, Basard said:

Ram 16gigs+ (32gigs if possible) 3.0 is capable of chewing a heavy 12.5 - 15.5 gigs of volatile ram; (partly due to optimization needed on the higher side of the memory limits shown, aka memory leakage). This will only go up as we get closer to launch of the Beta, and 16gigs is soon becoming the limiting factor not too far off. As we'll start seeing more assets and features being introduced into the game, which will reduce memory bandwidth. Don't forget alot of back ground process's use up ram aswell, so having to close down web browser tabs and other programs might be a common annoyance for people opperating with 16gigs.

Really 16 gigs?  My computer sits at 10-11 gigs in use at any given time, I'd think 32gb+ would be a must.

 

On 12/10/2017 at 3:26 PM, Reavern said:

I built a gaming rig "for Star Citizen" 3 years ago... :rolleyes: It might be another 3 years before Star Citizen's retail release.

I agree with what others have said: Don't buy a gaming rig just for Star Citizen. If you play other PC games that require a powerful gaming rig, then it's worthwhile to buy a new gaming rig. But if it's only for Star Citizen, WAIT!

Heh, same here already on my 2nd "Star Citizen Computer" and about to go for a 3rd :) 

 

On 12/10/2017 at 1:05 PM, Basard said:

(Which is why their gaming performance is pants over Nvidia).

Wasn't following on this either, curious what you meant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Gremlich
      I get these notifications in the email - lots of great deals to be found for RAM, SSDs, etc
      Newegg and Microcenter, sometimes PNY, mostly Newegg, though, 
      really! get moar stuff, NO REALLY!!
       
      buy buy buy!! good deals on SSDs, DDR4 RAM, next gen Intel CPUs
      And if you want help kitting out a computer, use pcpartpicker
      If you want help building a computer, there are loads of videos on newegg and youtube (for instance 
      just go to Youtube and search for "build a gaming computer" and you'll get lots of options to view.)
       
    • By Painmiester
      Since nivida and asus  they anouced the BFGD 65 " 
      waiting on the price.....range .
      Hoping it's 1600 2200 usd only.
    • By Gremlich
      That what it sounds like --> AMD All But Relinquishes High-End Desktop Graphics In 2018

    • By Donut
      Just received a K95 Platinum keyboard from Amazon today, and figured I would write a short comparison review verses each keyboard if anyone else was considering getting either one.
       
       
      Logitech G910 Orion Spark
      Pros:
      - Amazing feeling when actuating the key
      - LED's are bright and uniform across the board
      - Feels like good quality, sturdy keyboard that will last a long time
      Cons:
      - The key caps cut shape takes some getting used to. Shouldn't have to spend another $30-$40 for normal keycaps, should be included.
      - The keys are too close together, and often have words that lookjn klikew thjisa
      - The LED RGB software is basic and leaves the user feeling bland. It's too simple, and you can't combine profile's or do whatever you like with the RGB. Some parts of the keyboard such as the M1-MR keys don't change colors, and your media keys are also a static baby blue color. Also, the colors aren't exactly right. The red is like a very dark orange and the white isn't a true white, it definitely has a noticeable blue.
      - The wrist rest leaves you wanting more, it's too sloped for comfortable typing and there is no option for a cushioned attachable pad
      The Logitech G910 Orion Spark is a decent keyboard for gaming, but the constant backspacing and having to type on the less than ideal wrist rest is not ideal for a keyboard trying to be the "top dog". I do have to say that while it does have those faults, it's an amazing feeling to actually type on. I just don't believe enough R&D went into this product, and I cannot recommend this to someone wanting an end all keyboard for gaming and general everyday use.
      Rate it 7/10. While it does have its faults, it is still a great looking keyboard and the keys do feel great to type on, but falls short on ergonomics, software and presentation. 
      Let me just add that while trying to uninstall the most recent Logitech software, I started to immediately experience BSOD crashes and it said error "LGBusEnum.sys". Upon some research, it's a known issue even through several recent versions of the software. The only way to fix it is to go back to an earlier version of Windows before installing and do a System Restore, then go into Device Manager and disable Logitech Gaming Virtual Bus Enumerator. 

      Corsair K95 Platinum (Gunmetal Grey)
      Pros:
      - Extremely fast and light key presses
      - LED's are bright and also feature three illumination modes on the keyboard itself
      - Feels heavy due to the aluminum finish, don't expect this keyboard to start sliding on you.
      - The overall finish is excellent and I do recommend the Gunmetal Grey over the black finish
      - Comes with an extra set of "Gaming" keys, and they texture feels nice without a cheap  rubbery feel like competitors gaming keys
      - USB pass-through. I honestly thought I'd never use it but I'm using it now and wish I had started way back when
      - The fold out legs offer very good rubberized grip where some competitors don't offer any grip at all, and the height raised feels great
      - The included wrist rest, unlike the G910, is completely removable and you can flip the magnetic mat ontop for a smooth or textured finished (personally prefer the texture)
      - Braided USB cord
       
      Cons: 
      - None, except the keys are very light to press, and the typing keys vs the Enter, Backspace etc feel different but still an amazing experience typing. If you don't like light actuated keys this is not the keyboard for you.
      The Corsair K95 Platinum is an overall great experience. Everything from the packaging and presentation, the way the keys feel while typing, the included wrist rest, and extra gaming keys. I have to say that I highly recommend this product over the Logitech G910 Orion Spark and also the Spectrum, different being the Spectrum offers traditional keys and slightly different wrist rest. 
      Everything from software, packaging, gaming and general typing makes this keyboard the top dog of keyboards based on my experience so far. 
      Rate it 9/10, only because this is a $200 keyboard and a lot of people cannot afford peripherals this expensive. If they lowered the price to perhaps $150-$175 there would be a larger user base.
       

×