New Computer: Suggestions?

[Rooster90]

Hey guys. In the next 3-6 months I'm likely to see a large influx of money coming my way. I've been thinking about purchasing a new computer this year and want this thing

to be a bit of a dream machine. My end goal is to have it by fall at the latest, ready to run BF3 at max settings with 60+ frames. I know system specs have yet to be released,

and probably won't be released for some time, but it's still running on the Frostbite 2 engine so I imagine the specs will be similar to BC2 with higher CPU and GPU requirements.

I'd also like to be able to run ArmA2 a lot better than it is now.

 

I don't want to drop HUGE dollars on this, but I'm looking to spend around the area of $1500-1700 on it. I've gone to CyberPowerPC.com in the past to build my last computer, but it

seems they're consistently behind the ballgame in terms of the newest, best hardware out there. That, and their customer service and delivery times were excruciating at best. I've

never built a computer on my own, piece-by-piece before, but I might be willing to try it. Or if somebody could point me in the right direction to somebody who does this for a living,

I'd be more than happy to pay them.

 

I already have an idea of cpu's and gpu's and RAM that I've researched on my own, but I want to hear what you all suggest I do at that price-point. I'm sure there's some of you that know

a hell of a lot more than I do about computers as a whole and where to find the best prices. I just have an OK understanding of them.

 

Build away!

[EL_n00biachi]

I dont want to kill your thread but with such a timespan it is unwise to answer,the price for computer components change from day to day and the components themself also.

I would advice you to open a thread like this say...a week befor you know that you're going to buy it for sure.

[NoScream~SPARTA~]

You shouldn't of said DREAM MACHINE or LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

Very simple, budget is around £2000 / $3000 USD, you will build a great base.

Monitors are extra.

 

 

CPU - look for 6 core hyper threading

MEMORY - DDR3 only in triple channel mode (banks of 3 dimms (3/6/9/12)

HARD DRIVE - boot from SSD (Solid state HD) 120GB min (recommend you look at 200GB SSD)

MOTHERBOARD - GIGABYTE/ASUS/EVGA

GPU VIDEO CARD - one choice today (march 2011) NVIDIA 580, do not go SLI.

PSU (power supply) - look at 800w - 1000w with 2x 8 pin GPU connectors.

CASE - Aluminium only (better heat dissipation & lighter) full tower, I like Lian-Li

CPU COOLER - sealed liquid, easy to install, no maintenance, long warranties, small footprint.

AUDIO - Soundblaster HD audio

 

MONITORS, I'd go for 24" with a 16:10 aspect (not the cheaper 16:9 aspects) you can tell they have a general max res of 1920x1200 (as opposed to 16:9 with 1920x1080)

 

System should last you 3-4 years till you want to upgrade again.

 

 

$1500-1700, go back to bed & dream !!! you can't build ROME with dreams.

$1500 in the UK is less than £1000, I paid £430 for my video card alone ($600), half your budget.

Your post is a contradiction of requests/ statements, that's why your going to build a machine that is behind the edge.

 

 

 

Your price point is way too low $1700 top, just does not cut the mustard !!!

Save up, $3000 USD is your target or RUN BF3 on lower settings !!!

Frostbite 2.0 can run on lower settings but if you want 60FPS & max love, 580 GPU or ATI 6970/90.

$1700 will get you second best at most... and a shorter life span before you do it again.

 

Hey guys. In the next 3-6 months I'm likely to see a large influx of money coming my way. I've been thinking about purchasing a new computer this year and want this thing

to be a bit of a dream machine. My end goal is to have it by fall at the latest, ready to run BF3 at max settings with 60+ frames. I know system specs have yet to be released,

and probably won't be released for some time, but it's still running on the Frostbite 2 engine so I imagine the specs will be similar to BC2 with higher CPU and GPU requirements.

I'd also like to be able to run ArmA2 a lot better than it is now.

 

I don't want to drop HUGE dollars on this, but I'm looking to spend around the area of $1500-1700 on it. I've gone to CyberPowerPC.com in the past to build my last computer, but it

seems they're consistently behind the ballgame in terms of the newest, best hardware out there. That, and their customer service and delivery times were excruciating at best. I've

never built a computer on my own, piece-by-piece before, but I might be willing to try it. Or if somebody could point me in the right direction to somebody who does this for a living,

I'd be more than happy to pay them.

 

I already have an idea of cpu's and gpu's and RAM that I've researched on my own, but I want to hear what you all suggest I do at that price-point. I'm sure there's some of you that know

a hell of a lot more than I do about computers as a whole and where to find the best prices. I just have an OK understanding of them.

 

Build away!

 

 

checking USA prices

$500 GPU

$300 SSD

$600 CPU

$100 CPU COOLER

$300 MB

$300 MEMORY

$150 PSU

$150 CASE

$200 SUNDRIES

 

$2600 + MONITOR(S)

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

Wow..

 

Viiper has been very direct with his answer.

 

Noobie has his point also. A $3000 budget today could be sensibly lower in 6 months.

 

Then there are aspects related to the Dream Machine concept:

 

Do you really need a Dream Machine or you want a solid performer? I do not believe too much in "dream machines" because the involve the latest and the coolest technology and in this market it translate in very higher prices and not substantial difference in performance to justify the higher price.

 

I usually choose the step below the top-end or I just mix top-end components with some other one step below. The result is still extremely performing, can be overclocked and tweacked and is very comparable to machines costing way more money.

 

A powerful PC is a versatile machine, but you need also to see what is the use you do of it. If you do video conversions, photo editing at professional level or also you will work on big databases and data transferring besides gaming then you also need your PC to be extremely performing and fast for real hard work.

If this is not your scenario, you can trade that huge quantity of horsepower focusing only on what you really need, optimizing your budget.

 

As Viiper said then, we are not talking about a dream machine, we will talk about an Optimized machine able to do what you ask for.

 

I know Viiper like many others is a huge fan of SSDs and technically I know their benefits of course. I just think they are still way too expensive to justify their performance improvement.

 

It is a pure matter of price-performances. If you have a fat budget, get the SSD. If you dont, get 2 very good HDDs, mount them in RAID 0 and you will have plenty of speed you need for a fraction of the price. You will be able to add an SSD later on when possibly price will drop.

 

Focus on a Good last gen Motherboard, don t be cheap on it.

Again, depending on what really do on your machine, you can start with good DDR3 RAM tri-channel on standard 6 GB. Really, 8 or more if you don t use applications milking that RAM, makes no sense. You can add RAM in the future if you need.

There is no game on the actual scenario requiring more than 6 GB RAM, they barely use 4 .. maybe.

 

Get a good processor i7 at least 4c/8t and get an excellent cooler for it. You can overclock the lower models sensibly and get performances very close to the bigger (and more expensive) brothers.

 

Get top-notch Videocard. Don t need to go SLI or CF yet. Either Nvidia or ATI at the moment is just your personal taste. Both perform excellent if you get the latest one.

Note on the side: with ATI you can save a bit and get very good performance. You can get the 6950 Sapphire which is BIOS moddable to become a full 6970 and you have the best deal for your bucks. (I got it, modded and is pure excellent).

 

Also, you need a very good case, plenty of fans and room to put big component comfy and still have airflow inside.

 

About PSU, you can be totally fine starting at 700W going up. All of the new gen components, perform better and consume less. However, due to the minimal difference in prices on the PSU line, don t be cheap on it and look forward. Modular are better and be sure they come ready for the future with PCI 8-pin prongs (just to be sure).

 

Here you go.

 

You are walking toward an Optimized machine. It will fit your budget and will make you pretty happy. Later on, you will be able to swap other components and have your Monster growing old with u

 

See ya

[NoScream~SPARTA~]

So I take it your stepping off the 'DREAM MACHINE' block

 

 

Wow..

Viiper has been very direct with his answer.

 

Agreed, but we have to be realistic in this recession, BF3 60+ FPS DX11 super graphics using all the tricks

ain't going to happen on alot of computers without multicore CPU & Big mamas DX11 all balls GPU.

 

6 months prices may drop on some parts but like life has taught me, they only drop $10 here and there,

the reality is the prices are going up, why?

 

JAPAN, EARTHQUAKE, TSUNAMI, already JAPAN production in electronics & computers is 40% down, meaning the little

Koreans are not getting their supplies of high quality JAPANESE components.... cause & effect.

 

Watch out as prices will rise .....

 

globally prices are trending down before the Japan shit.

http://geeksinformed.blogspot.com/2009/02/current-price-trends-for-computer-parts.html

 

BUT

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-japan-quake-supplychain-idUSTRE72E11Q20110315

http://www.pcworld.com/article/186809/watch_out_pc_prices_are_going_up.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/8382505/Japan-crisis-pushes-up-computer-chip-prices.html

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/chip-prices-jump-japan-disaster-hits-tech-supplies-20110314-215521-745.html

http://handhelds.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=1400139

 

 

Japan makes 20% of the worlds chips (no fishes)

Expect prices to fluctuate 5-20% upwards.

 

See you in 6 months

[Yankee~SPARTA~]

Viper you crack my shit up. Someday before you are old (ha!) I am going to enjoy your sarcasm in person.

[NoScream~SPARTA~]

Viper you crack my shit up. Someday before you are old (ha!) I am going to enjoy your sarcasm in person.

 

+ beers

 

It's just so dam hard to cut corners in PC Building without having problems later or disappointments.

My proverb is simple.

 

If it's worth doing, do it once & do it right, like they say 'measure twice, cut once'

I bet the US are thinking that in Libya....

[Rooster90]

Ok, you guys are right. I contradicted myself a bit. I tend to exaggerate sometimes, I apologize, lol.

 

My standards for a "Dream Machine" are probably a lot lower than most of you guys. That to me just means an upper-midrange computer that is upgradeable over the next couple

of years as hardware becomes more affordable. I bought my current tower for 800 dollars and has lasted me nearly 3 years. The only games that are becoming demanding on my system

(30 frames or less) are Bad Company 2, Dawn of War 2: Retribution, and obviously ArmA 2. It's gotten to a point where I'd basically be rebuilding my computer to meet today's standards

anyways. I figured if I dropped twice as much money on my next tower, it would be worth the investment and last me longer. I'm used to playing all games around 40 frames, it would just

be nice to play some brand new games at full res with 50-60 fps. Anything above 60 frames is pointless anyway, the human eye can't really even tell after that point and my monitor

refreshes at 60hz anyways. (16:10 resolution. 19" 1680x1050)

 

SSD's are not important to me at all. They don't have enough return on investment for me to justify their horribly high prices and low memory space. Maybe in a year or two when they're more

reasonably priced. Getting a 6 or 8 core processor isn't important to me either. Again, great performance, but way too pricey. However, a motherboard with the same slot as some of the i7 980/990

but a slightly lower tier CPU in it would be fine. That would give me the option to upgrade later on when the newest stuff becomes affordable. Most games barely utilize 4 cores anyways.

 

Hopefully that clears the air a bit and gives you more of an understanding of what I'm looking for. The only reason I say within the next 3-6 months is because idk when I'll be receiving my

half of my mom's life insurance money. It could be next month for all I know, but I'm not getting my hopes up until I see it in my account.

[EBE]

ello

 

I was looking at an i5 2500k version (cpu 3.3ghz) (can be oc to 4.ghz or more with the wright motherboard

 

And a motherboard at least ... asus or ... P8P67 ect..(ddr3 1600) (has to be a >P67< these can OC better then H67

something to do with the new (bridge.).. so look in to it

 

Good price quality so it seems ... (me NOOB)

 

scored very good on total cpu's list (benchmark)

i got Q6600 2.4 score was around 2000points

and the i5 was around 6000points was even sometimes better or equal then a

(some) i7 cpu

 

 

futuremusic

 

 

greetz

Edited March 23, 2011 by EBE

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

I think Rooster explained his point a bit better.

 

I also found this table here giving an interesting comparison between 2 major options on the market - i7 920 and i5 2500

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/414/Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_I7-920.html

 

Things you need to see on this table, they can or cannot be important to you:

 

1 - No Hyprethreading on i5

2 - i5 has a smaller size (generally speaking it means a bit of better performances)

3 - i5 has a higher temp threshold. That is what makes i5 a bit more OCable

4 - i5 has better power management (consume less)

5 - i5 has less L3 cache memory

 

Besides that, i5 will use DDR3 on dual channel at probably higher clocks, so the performance difference can be limited.

 

Something you want to consider for the future:

 

MB for these systems are very different. very different sockets. Depending what direction you will take, keep in mind the possible expandibility of your system.

 

Keep also in mind that all of this moves ahead very quickly. Intel is already on the road ahead for a new and better one which will work on LGA 2011 - once again a different socket making all of the rest no compatible for upgrades.

 

With that said, what really makes the difference here is your budget. We are talking of mainstream CPUs anyway with very high performances and wide range of tweakability.

[Donziboy2]

From what I have read most games are better with Hyperthreading turned OFF.

I to have had the itch for a new system for a while, lack of work and starting school have added to my cash lackingness.

Right now at this very moment the i5 2500k and i7 2600k 1155 chips are the uber players, they can OC really high and are putting a cramp into the most expensive 1366 chips. The i7 2600k is 4core 8mb L3 cache 3.4ghz/3.8 turbo and it has hyperthreading, while the i5 2500k is 4core 6mb L3 cache 3.3ghz/3.7turbo and has no hyperthreading. The 2500k is 100$ cheaper.

 

Every few months Toms Hardware does a few pc builds, they do a 500ish, 1k, 2k build. They cant always be compared easily since sometimes part setups very to far in 1 direction (comparing AMD vs Intel chips with different core numbers) but they are handy for comparison.

Toms Hardware $1k system

4.4ghz on air, thats nice.

 

Also a Hexacore for gaming? no

There is no need for 6 slower cores, 4 faster will generally win. There are exceptions but not many.

 

Also Intel has not released there new 2011 superchips, 1155 is mainstream, but the 1366 replacement hasnt shown its face yet. The Sata issue they had with 1155 also slowed momentum for 1155 and its just recently picked up as venders get there revised boards out.

 

For best results seperate your OS from your games.

SSD's may be out of your price range.

Im partial to Raptor drives, 10k Rpm, 150/300/450/600gb variants. Newegg pricing puts the 600gb as cheapest at 42ish cents per gb.

 

 

There are a few important things you should do.

#1 Know your budget.

#2 What parts will you reuse?

#3 Read reviews, not just from review sites but from customer reviews.

[NoScream~SPARTA~]

Also a Hexacore for gaming? no

There is no need for 6 slower cores, 4 faster will generally win. There are exceptions but not many.

 

That's what they said when dual core came out.

 

A simple analogy is: 4 cylinder car engine verses a 6 cylinder, if all cylinders are used then you will see the difference.

Also hyperthreding is in effect dual streaming (like memory dual data rate), if the CPU has capacity then it can deal with more

processes, in other words more multitasking, if you have little on your machine that multi-tasks then hyper threads are pointless.

 

I have loads, from windows 7 64bit to winrar,quick par, newsleecher, anti virus, firewall, java, gadget bar, it's endless for me.

Remember the old days when one core and one application brought a machine to it's knee's (lock ups)........

 

More threads= better machine, that's how the parallel processors work, sharing work, threading a task, only badly written

programs can not multi thread and there are a few, in general none hyperthreading CPU will hit it's upper bottle neck faster as you

open more and more tasks.

 

 

Budgets are always a killer....

[Rooster90]

Well, I'm usually not multitasking on my comp. If I was using this computer for video or music editing I would take that into consideration, but I already have a different computer for that. This computer is basically for straight gaming and web browsing. When I game I pretty much shut every unnecessary process down. At the most I'd have the game, Steam, and FRAPS open (and thats only if I feel like recording what I'm playing) plus all the random Windows processes that need to be running. I have Win 7, but I never run it in Aero. Looks neat, but hogs memory.

 

Again, I'm more worried about a motherboard setup where I'll be able to get a higher performing CPU later on down the line. I really don't know much when it comes to mobo's and what to look for. All I know is that I want a slot that will be able to accommodate the best CPU that's out now (i7 980x/990) and have plenty of room for more RAM. I was looking at probably getting about 6 GB of DDR3 to start. What are some good brands/things I should look for in RAM?

 

And has Intel released any information about their new chipset? If it's a new slot design, I'm assuming older CPU's won't work in them. :/

 

That i5 2500k does look tempting at that price point. I've been hearing a lot about this new "Sandy Bridge" design and haven't a clue what it means. Is there something special I should know about it when building a PC? Are there particular components/motherboards that work better with this new design, or is it just a name that I don't really have to worry about?

 

EDIT: I just looked at the Tom's Hardware $2k "high-end" system. I could knock 230 bucks off of that build (about $1975 is what they used) just by dropping the 2 SSD's they put in there. Idk how much that would effect the overall system, but hey, could still be worth it. I'd still need to purchase Win 7 again in 64-bit (I unfortunately own the 32-bit) but $2k is closer to my original budget than $1k.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Rooster90

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

About the Motherboard:

 

Actually there are 3 major SOCKETS:

1366 working with i7 and tri-channel DDR3 RAM

1156 working with i7 and i5 and dual-channele DDR3 RAM

1155 Sandybridge architecture and dual-channele DDR3 RAM

 

You need to check all of the processors you can use now and in the future based by SOCKET they use. They cannot be used on different sockets. All of these CPUs will not work with the new Socket rumored by Intel.

 

Choosing the right MB for the right CPU, look for goodies like the most recent SATA 6 extensions and USB 3.

If you will go on dual-channel DDR3 try to have the highest RAM clock compatibility. Faster clock will minimize the dual-channel (minimal) loss of performance.

 

About RAM: (difficult answer)

 

If you go dual-channel try to get the highest clock you can accordingly with the MB capabilities

If you got tri-channel I think a 1600 would be fine

Stick with very well known brand and read the user reviewes

 

I am not a RAM Guru, however check latencies and clock speed and then.. pray

 

About Sandybridge:

 

In just few words is a new architecture. most important is the Video management HD directly on the CPU. You don t care about this because you will be using a discrete (and way more powerful) videocard.

As a new architecture has a smaller die, meaning improved performances, better power managemment and higher temperature threshold (good for pushing OC)

[Rooster90]

Thanks Batwing, very concise answer!

 

Now for the million dollar question: If it were you, what would you choose? If you were making a ~$2k computer, which would you think is best? I've heard good things about OC-ing Sandy Bridge CPU's, but does Intel even have plans to continue making new cards with that architecture/socket? It would feel kind of pointless to buy a mobo that can accommodate that socket type and have no option to upgrade in the future.

[Donziboy2]

Most people who burn 2k on a gaming pc arent worried about upgrade ability cause they most likely bought the fastest cpu for there socket and even if a revised chip comes out it wont be much faster later on.

Ontop of that, they usually upgrade after a year to the next new uber cpu/mobo.

 

Intel is kinda annoying when it comes to socket types. Atm you can buy 775/1155/1156/1366 socket cpu's. 775 was replaced by 1156 and 1366, 1156 and 1366 will be replaced by the 1155 and there other 2011 socket.

 

Ive also read that the new 2011 uber socket will be out in Q3 this year, one interesting thing is it uses Quad Channel DDR3. They will have 4/6/8 core chips for it.

So if you really wanna blow your wad so to speak wait till Q3. Im sure Intel will happily take all the money you wanna give them.

 

You could always give some money to me Im a little short on my gam.. college fund.

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

lololol..

That is the question that defeat the marketing rules my friend.

 

Everything you get today has to become obsolete tomorrow, otherwise there would be no interest in buying new products.

 

Intel is pushing the concept adopting this questionable line of several different Sockets in quite a short time span.

 

Sure, we talk of different architectures and improved chips.. do they really need to have a new socket all the time.. lol.. I am not an engineer but that sounds weird to me.

 

With that said, you know.. I really have no idea how to answer your question.

 

Mostly I never thought to invest 2 grands all together for a PC for the same reason I explain above. Why spending all of that money for an investment lasting less than 1 year.

If I am spending a lot of money just to pursue the latest and the best, is just a lost war. Tomorrow there will be something better than what i got today.

 

What "I would do" right or wrong in terms, would be going with the step below top-notch. Ensuring the technology is proved solid and reliable (latest chips always suffer of some adjustment "on the road").

 

Other thing is, try to get the most I can out of my money. Meaning if I can choose between 4 cores and/or 4 cores AND 8 threads, why should I choose for less? There are so mmany options and proces out there, I want to get what i can without bleeding away.

Maybe you don t use it, but what if you would like to?

 

What I can say man, I am so happy actually with my i7 920 OCed at 3.7, 6 GB DDR3 RAm, ATI HD6950 (modded to 6970) 2 HDD in RAID 0 as a core system.

 

When i got this I came from a dualcore. it made a huge difference. It was also the only option available. i7 920 was the little brother of a big family, with a lot of potential to exploit. Sure, other bigger i7s can maybe be better, but the ratio price/performances never convinced me.

 

Today.. choice is difficult. There are 3 CPU families out there, doing almost the same stuff. All of them are really good. All of them are doomed by Sockets becoming obsolete in short time, so limited upgradability anyway.

 

Cant help man.. can t really help.. is up to your gut

[Donziboy2]

Seems like every time I read and post on a computer upgrade post it gives me the upgrade itch.

i5 2500k $225

ASUS P8P67 WS REVOLUTION $260

G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB (2 x 4GB) 1600 $150

Windows 7 Home premium $100

 

 

 

Total so far $735

I could go 2600k and add $100 more to that and back down to a sub $200 board when there are more choices. would need an OS drive, and a new HSF...... second job.................

 

Sadly im stuck between an e8500 duel core at 4ghz on an aging 775 mobo and the fact that i can burn 350 on a quad or twice that on a board/cpu/ram/os....... Guess im stuck waiting till my money tree starts to bloom again.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Donziboy2

[Rooster90]

Batwing:

 

No, I understand where you're coming from. I ask the tough questions to others because I already have a pretty good idea of what I want already, I just want to hear others' opinions too. I try and make the most informed decision possible, especially on an investment as big as this. i know chasing after the biggest and best is futile, especially in the age of technology we live in now. But I want to make this a proud and sound investment. I too look for the same price/performance ratio. I won't spend an extra 100-200 dollars for an increase in performance that I wouldn't even notice. I'm coming from an old dual core, 32 bit OS, 4 GB of RAM (can only access 3.25 of it), a 450GB HDD, and an Nvidia GTS 250. So yeah, just about any of the suggestions made here will make a world of difference to me. My main concern is just running BF3 And ArmA 2 at higher graphics levels (preferably the highest) at the highest rez my monitor can put out at decent framerates. If that can be achieved, I'll probably be more than happy with my new computer.

[Donziboy2]

Just what resolution is your monitor?

 

And most likely BF3 will have high frame rates then Arma 2 lol.

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

Ok, so let s see this.

 

As you already highlighted on a previoous post, you know human eyes cannot "see" above about 30 fps. In fact, all of the wonderful action movies we watch, Avatar included, are shot around the 29 - 30 fps threshold.

 

Then we have the average 60 Hz refresh rate on the majority of monitors, meaning they can handle Max 60 fps. Above that, is very possible you get "Tearing" which is that effect when you push a massive amount of FPS above the limit and panning left to right you see very unpleasent horizontal lines.

 

So, why pushing performances over the top? I personally push the performances NOT for the max FPS possible, but for the lower max FPS possible. I also use V-Sync, which limits the output and provide steady performance avoiding tearing.

 

So, what i look for is the better video quality ensuring performance will never drop below 30 - 35, which is where my eyes will notice a difference.

 

So, these are my settings in Arma

 

And this is just a shot I took on Falluja map in very heavy urban envirnment filled with objects

 

and remember that i m using V-Sync and that s why you see the FPS digit capped at 31. it will not go above to avoid tearing, but it will not go below 30 either, doesn t matter what.

 

What will be on BF3? I have no idea. I do expect good results from this mmachine. I already told you above what system i have, so this should be a starting point for u.

[Rooster90]

@Donzi: Already mentioned my rez in a previous post, but it is 1680x1050. I'm debating getting a new monitor too, since I'm actually getting around DOUBLE the money I thought I was from life insurance. But that is still in the air. If I did it would be no less than 19" (current size) but no more than 24". Don't have enough desk space for a big monitor, or two for that matter.

 

@Batwing: I've tried using Vsync before and it seems to create even more framerate problems than it fixes. At least on my current machine it does. :/ But I definitely see your point, and that is something I aim for. Like I mentioned earlier, if I can be running BF3 with all or most of the fancy bells and whistles turned on and still get around 50 fps, I'll be sitting pretty. No need for ridiculous machines that get 100+ fps, lol. No point after 60.

 

To also correct you on your film point, I shall clarify the standards (for American TV/film at least). Film is typically shot at about 24 fps. (25 in Europe, due to different electrical/frequency standards). The only time more frames are used are for some action sequences, usually at 60 fps to 120 fps. This gives the film a more "fast-paced" feel, and is also useful for slow-mo sequences, in which that 60-120 fps is stretched to a regular 24 fps, giving a "slow-mo" effect. TV, however, is filmed and broadcasted at 30 fps.

[Donziboy2]

Samsung 24" Monitor $370

That looks to be a decent 24" monitor.

 

Biggest killer for FPS in arma2 is the server, not the client. If you have high Ping then your fps will suffer.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Donziboy2

[Rooster90]

Really? That monitor looks pretty "meh" to me, lol. I bought my current one for like, 800 about 7 years ago and it's still going strong. That one has no back-lit LED, no HDMI, 5ms response time, and terrible washing issues with the bad viewing angles on that monitor. Pretty bloated price for what you're getting.

 

 

This seems to be a better deal (to me at least). Only downside is the 16:9 ratio instead of 16:10.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001414

[Halli~SPARTA~]

That's the monitor I have and no problems at all.

 

I bought the Black friday deal from Newegg under $200.00 good to see it is still a great deal. (no downside as far as aspect ratio)