Help with a new graphic card

D

dualin

Registered
Hello, I bought a few days ago rfactor2 beta and the truth is that I really like. Now I'm looking for a good mod for F1 and especially trying to optimize the computer to run well to the fullest. My pc is currently

Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocked to 3.0 GHz, 2 GB of RAM 1333, and an ATI HD 4650. Maybe you put some more memory, but where I have clear is that I have to improve on the graph. And this is where I have a big question. I want to buy the minimum card that allows me to put the full rFactor 2 with a sufficient number of fps. I want to spend as little as possible, might even buy it secondhand. So, I need you to tell me that I left card but just barely. And if it must be Nvidia or Ati. Ah! And I need I can get the sound through HDMI.

Using a 1080p projector and I do not plan to put 3 monitors

Sorry for my poor enlish
?

Regards and many thanks in advance
Dualin
 
dualin, your system is probably about the minimum you would ever want to run rF2. The graphics card will definitely not do full graphics for you with any decent fps, but your CPU is also going to be a bit of a bottleneck for any other card that you might wish to use. There is no sense spending money on a graphics card until you upgrade to a faster CPU. More ram might also help out.

If you want better graphics, but not the best, then you might consider a mid-range HD 7XXX card, or a mid range GTX 6XX card, but you won't even get close to what those cards are capable of until you upgrade the system.
 
Then if I buy a Nvidia GTX 650 for example, I need to change my Q6600 for see the best result of that graphic card, isn´t it??
Which faster cpu must I put in my system as minimal??

Regards
Dualin
 
Your CPU is the bottleneck. rF2 is very CPU bound and your Core 2 Q won't be able to handle this game very well.

I upgraded my Core 2 Duo a year ago because of poor performance in rF2, I was running a GTX460. When I upgraded to a Core i5 2500k, the game started to run a lot better with the same GPU. This past week that GTX 460 started to get flaky and I put my old 8800 GT in my system. rF2 runs almost as well with the 8800 as with the 460.

A GTX 650 won't do you much good, you need a new motherboard/RAM/CPU in order to get the most from rFactor 2.
 
Even a dual core will be ok as long as the Ghz speed is up there as most modern games can't utilize the full power of today's processors. I would get the fastest CPU you can afford regardless of the number of cores. The i5 is a nice option though, and even the 2500K is still a very viable CPU, though the i5 does still cost a bit. Any of the SandyBridge CPU's will do nicely. Remember, speed over number of cores.
 
Just to add a cheaper option to the mix, get an AMD Phenom II X4 965, it runs at 3.4 GHz and is more than sufficient to run rFactor 2. I have one and am GPU bound. Coincidentally I had an Athlon II X4 640 before and upgraded to the Phenom before I purchased rFactor 2, so I cannot tell you for certain if that would be enough, but looking at my CPU usage graph I think it would do the job just as well and be even ~€20 cheaper.

Now there are many people saying that games cannot properly utilize more than two cores, but the above article at tomshardware is the first to say otherwise. I think we are getting where more cores mean more performance. And I think a sophisticated simulation like rFactor 2 can benefit especially, maybe not at the moment, but who´s to say it won´t in the future, it is an evolviong product. And rFactor 2 apparently does utilize more than 2 cores already:
View attachment 6307
That is the CPU usage graph of rFactor 2 in total (scales to 400% due to 4 cores), individual core loads and total CPU load for reference. It was taken while running a quick race at Limerock Park online against 15 AI drivers (running on a separate host). The graphics were set to the lowest possible setting (800x600x32, no AA, no vsync, all rFactor 2 settings at the lowest possible values, 20 visible cars) to minimize the effect the GPU has. The race was started and 1 lap driven, I let some AI past, to see the performance impact on cars in front of me. The frame rate was never under 100 fps. And as you can see from the graph all cores were used about equally. Well, that might as well be Windows migrating the threads just quickly enough between cores, because in total only 50% of CPU resources were used, but I have no way of knowing that, and why would it. On the other hand a running rFactor instance uses somewhere around 11-15 threads. Question is, how independent they are.
However, it goes to show, that my Phenom is more than sufficient, so no need to spend more money on the way more expensive Intel CPUs, which you often need a more expensive mainboard for as well.

Get a mainboard with AM3+ socket, so you can upgrade later, if you want to, just don´t get the current generation of AM3+ processors. Also, AM3 (without "+") mainboards are hard to come by these days anyway. I have checked prices, the Phenom II X4 965 costs from about €80, an AM3+ board from €50. That´s at least €130 in total to get you the platform to put a good graphics card into.

On the graphics card front, I am not sure, but I guess an AMD Radeon HD 7850 could be the sweet spot. But that really is just that, a guess.

Best regards,
Marcus

P.S.: Hmm, and reading again, your Core2Quad is well within the recommendations (@3.0 GHz). Maybe just try what I did, lower all settings and see what the frame rate looks like then. It could save you a buttload of money.

Edit: corrected the facts and the maths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Marcus, thanks for tour recommendation, I'll try. I've the Q6600 at 3.0 ghz (333x9) but I think that I can put it at 3.2 ghz (400x8) near the and that you say me. My memory isn't ddr2, it's ddr3 at 1333. I'll try all of the possibilities and post it here.

Best regards
Dualin
 
Well Diablo, that is correct in that some games are actually starting to utilize more cores, but most, and I repeat most are not capable of this happening. rF2 for example only runs 2 separate threads, so at most it would use 2 cores.

As for the Phenom II X4's, they are still a very powerful solution for gaming without going to the i5's.
 
.
 

Attachments

  • cpu usage.jpg
    cpu usage.jpg
    153.3 KB · Views: 498
Well, I've done several tests. A friend give me a graphic better than mine, a Nvidia GT630. Indeed not a great plot, but better than mine. Just to put it, without touching anything I've won around 20 fps. He played in 720p with high detail in the circuit, player, opponent and textures, trilinear texture filter, average special effects and shadows, sunshine and raindrops and other reflexes activated off, 16 vehicles, antialiasing level 2. The HDR on and FXAA off. Under these circumstances and with my Ati getting 720p with mod RFF1 and Bahrain 28 fps at the start and then over 40. When switching card with 20 fps more or the same if I go to 1080p resolution. F1 in Monaco with the 60, getting about 14 fps with my Ati at the start and then about 30-35 and the GT630, about 20 fps more or keep if I put the resolution to 1080p. Then I made some OC to 630 (100 MHz) and helped me to win 4-5 fps. This makes me think that one GTX 650 and my q6600 probably get good fps with all full at 1080p.

I have checked more things, we need a card more than 512 MB of RAM, the ATI gave me the msi afterburner always full memory (it's 512 mb) and that is 1GB GT630 has never come to fill, but if has grown to 800 mb occupied.
Another thing I know is that i need more RAM since during the execution of the game only had about 100 mb free. All these data I have taken a couple of apps for the iPhone that I monitor the system and run the game graphics while.
And I did another test, I have a Pentium D820, one of the first dual core, @2.8 GHz, I put the Ati and the same 2 GB of memory and funny thing happened to me, the meter was at about 30-35 fps looked fluid, but was like slow motion, ie fluid but as if the car instead of going to 150 km / h out to 25 km / h. Then I overclocked to 3.15 GHz micro and this effect has disappeared. 2.8 and 3.15 is not right and if (keep in mind that is an old micro-architecture, ie, it is much slower than other modern even less clock speed.

Sorry for my poor english

What you think?

Regards
Dualin
 
Well dualin, you have proven at least 1 of my points that the speed of the CPU makes a difference in the game performance even with a dual core CPU. Also, the vRAM, the ram on the graphics card does make a difference on performance if you don't have enough. With only 512, you have to keep texture resolutions low or you run out of memory. For a single monitor you should have at least 1Gb of vRAM, 2 would be better, though not absolutely required.

From your statement before, you were asking what CPU is best to use with the GTX 650. As I suggested before go with the best you can afford to get, but I would want at least in the 3.4Ghz speed to be sure there is no bottleneck at the CPU. Faster would be better.
 
Dulan, I´d suggest you upgrade your graphics card first and add some extra memory. Your overclocked Q6600 should deliver similar performance to a Q9650 or maybe only a Q9550 due to the smaller cache. I´d say it lies somewhere between those two. Comparing a Q9650 to a Phenom II X4 965 shows very little differences.
And I have to disagree, that rFactor 2 does not scale beyond two cores, it does, provided one does not have a clock frequency monster. I tested with my Phenom II X4 965, rFactor 2 at the lowest resolution and all details set to the lowest settings.
Bottom line, a triple core CPU of that microarchitecture clocked at 2.8 GHz delivers the same performance as a dual core clocked at 3.4 GHz. The same is true for a triple core at 2.2 GHz compared to a dual core at 2.8 GHz.

Depending on how low I clock the processor, I can see up to more than double the performance with 2 cores enabled compared to only one core, so single threaded bechmarks are not what you want to look at! The higher the clock frequency, the lower the performance gains with additional cores. However rFactor 2 does not scale beyond 3 cores.

Anyway, unless you spend a lot of money on a new board and an Intel i5, I think you would be disappointed with the performace gains of a CPU upgrade. So, you´d have to spend way more than €150 to really see a difference, an i3 3220 won´t cut it in my opinion, so say that´s €200 before you can even think of a graphics card which would have to cost an additional €200 to match. And I think the current generation of AM3+ CPUs (Bulldozer/Piledriver) is just not up to the task compared to Intel´s Sandy/Ivy Bridge processors.

And again, rFactor 2 is still in a somewhat early stage, so there might still be some performance optimizations coming. So I´d recommend you concentrate your efforts on a new graphics card.


Cheers,
Marcus
 
I never said to upgrade to a 3220 from a i7-920, I was meaning if that is all the budget you had.

FX8150 vs i3-3220 LOOK at the numbers ? now you show me anything that contradicts it.
I have TESTED a i3-3220 vs FX4100 myself.

I have run FX4100 and a i3-3220 with same graphics card testing and the Intel had better lower framerates which is what matters in lower end gaming.

I am not debating what he should buy just stating my experiences.

A i3 3220 won´t cut it in my opinion
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a i3-3220 with good motherboard , memory and GPU.
If you on a budget you have to start somewhere...... later you drop a i5 or i7 in it.


BELOW: (FX8150 vs i3-3220 )
So I guess if a 3220 won't cut it neither will a 8150 hey .........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Durge, have you even read the OP? He has a Q6600 overclocked to 3.0 GHz, which brings it close to a Q9650, so there is little to be gained by the options you mentioned. Granted my suggestion of a Phenom II X4 was a little premature as well, so shame on me.

Also, dulan said he wanted to spend as little as possible. As I said, if he were to spend about €150 for board and CPU (i3-3220 and a cheap socket 1155 board), he could very well be disappointed by what little performance he gains to his current setup, and would still need a new graphics card of at least the same price range.
So, why not just try if a decent graphics card upgrade is all he needs. Granted the frame rate would be higher with a faster CPU, but as long as it is enough to enable the eyecandy and still have good FPS, why not save about €200 (or spend half of that on an even better GPU). If he then finds, he desires more, the option to upgrade the CPU along with a mainboard would still be open, so nothing would be really lost.

Contras to your statements:
An i3-3220 gains little or even loses performance compared to an i7-920 in (heavily) mutlithreaded benchmarks, which matter more, since rFactor 2 is multithreaded and within constraints does scale to 3 cores. An i3 only has 2 cores plus hyperthreading. (how you came up with an i7-920 is beyond me, since that is not the CPU of the OP).
An i3-3220 and FX-4100 might be close to each other performance- and pricewise, but the FX-4100 has a 70% higher rated TDP (95W FX/55W i3), but both won´t deliver much more performance than a Q9650, at least in my opinion, dulan would be disappointed, if he saw performance gain (if any at all) against upgrade costs.
And putting an FX-8150 up against a poor little i3-3220, which costs roughly half of what the FX puts you back, come on. That is the very reason why I wouldn´t suggest an FX CPU of the Piledriver or Bulldozer architecture. They produce way more heat and don´t deliver that much of performance, also performance per money does not look very good. Normally AMD was an option for budget oriented gamers, who were satisfied with just a little bit less performance than an Intel CPU at a prices that overcompensated that. That seems to have changed, so I as a devoted AMD user, would not buy their current CPUs. Intel just did the better job in this round and I applaud them for that. The only that I have in favour of AMD right now is, their sockets live longer and are backwards compatible.

Cheers,
Marcus
 
Hi, Thanks to all for your recommendations. I think that the best solution is buy a decent graphic card and try. Maybe will be enought for me. If not, that graphic card can be used with the new motherboard and an intel i5. Now I'm between two graphics card. A new GTX 650 for 80€ or one GTX 470 used (the MSI twin frozr II) for 85€. The 470's is better card, but the 650's is a new one. I'm in doubt. What do you think????

Best regards
Dualin
 
Diablo said:
D
And putting an FX-8150 up against a poor little i3-3220, which costs roughly half of what the FX puts you back

Cheers,
Marcus
Click to expand...



I never said it was as fast in rF2 as a i-920.

I said FOR MOST SIMS single threaded is faster.

I assume he will play more then rF2 he did not say only rF2.

I never compared a FX8150, just showed the i3 does same maximum framerate in some games.

Friend has a i3-2100 with a GTX560-Ti and it runs sweet does not bottleneck in rF2 unless you try to do stupid things. ;)

tjc runs rF2 and pCARS with a +XP6000 and GTX470 I don't hear him complaining either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Effectively, I haven't said what kind of games I'm going to play. Only Rf2, and maybe another racing simulator. I only play sim racing games. I've the Xbox360 and the only games that I play with it are forza4 and F1.

Regards
Dualin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top