Hardware & Technical Computer Build to run Elite Dangerous

danjo

Banned
i have an older i7 & 8GBDDR3, but i have a GTX760 OC, and elite runs at mostly 60FPS, and sometimes drops to 50-55
 

danjo

Banned
Because A, it is cheaper and B it has future proofing within it... some of the AMD architecture is still not being used yet, and people say this will give the processor more speed in the future...

It is also what most Intel fan boys miss. These little bits, that make AMD better. Also they are much better chips at multitasking...

We are also hoping that Windows 10 will use the processor to the full, which is still not happening with Windows 8...

So simple answer is AMD = future proofing. :D Oh and cheaper... Honestly just check out the videos on youtube. An intel processor, at that price, is not worth an extra 5 fps. And is has been proved, that is all you get. Saving the money on intel, gave me a speed boost, as I was able to setup with an SSD. Major boost. :cool:

im not a fan boy of anything. im a technician ( a real one in paid employment, not a pretend internet one who watches youtube and is expert ).
AMD is faster
INTEL is hardier

OC anything will reduce the life of the product, AMD already is closer to deaths door than Intel chips.

I would pay a bit extra for the Quality, and thats what i tell my customers - the ones who will come back unhappy if their computer dies...
 
im not a fan boy of anything. im a technician ( a real one in paid employment, not a pretend internet one who watches youtube and is expert ).
AMD is faster
INTEL is hardier

OC anything will reduce the life of the product, AMD already is closer to deaths door than Intel chips.

I would pay a bit extra for the Quality, and thats what i tell my customers - the ones who will come back unhappy if their computer dies...

To think my old Q6600 Intel processor has been running aircooled with a nigh on 40% overclock for 6yrs rock solid ;)
 
Here's what I have tried:

Xeon X5450 (basically a Q9650 quadcore) running at 3.00Ghz modded to run in a Asrock G41C-GS mobo, 8 gigs of DDR3 and a R9 270 (not x) graphics card.

The above setup netted me 60fps (vsync is on so dont know max framerates) in space with drops to 40 - 45 fps in stations or a crowd. Very playable.

I am now running a Xeon X5650 (thats 6 cores) Oc'ed to 3.6Ghz and have upped the memory to 12 gigs in an P6X58D-E mobo but still have the same R9 270 graphics card.

Guess what? My frame rate is still 60 fps in space and drops to 45 fps inside spacestations and in crowds.

So as long as you have the CPU/Memory suggested by Frontier, look at your GPU budget FIRST.

And just to clarify: I run Photoshop so the CPU and memory were a BIG boost to my system.
 
Here's what I have tried:

Xeon X5450 (basically a Q9650 quadcore) running at 3.00Ghz modded to run in a Asrock G41C-GS mobo, 8 gigs of DDR3 and a R9 270 (not x) graphics card.

The above setup netted me 60fps (vsync is on so dont know max framerates) in space with drops to 40 - 45 fps in stations or a crowd. Very playable.

I am now running a Xeon X5650 (thats 6 cores) Oc'ed to 3.6Ghz and have upped the memory to 12 gigs in an P6X58D-E mobo but still have the same R9 270 graphics card.

Guess what? My frame rate is still 60 fps in space and drops to 45 fps inside spacestations and in crowds.

So as long as you have the CPU/Memory suggested by Frontier, look at your GPU budget FIRST.

And just to clarify: I run Photoshop so the CPU and memory were a BIG boost to my system.

Have you got frame sync on?
 
Yes, I abbreviated Vertical Sync to just v sync.

So as I stated, I dont know the max frame rate I can achieve. But since my monitor is 60 Hz,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
Just a question, why did you go for a slower Xeon processor?
Slower? hardly,,,,,,


How much did you pay, if it was more then £600, then you could have got a nice 8 core AMD FX 9370 system which is around, 60% faster then your current processor setup...

Total cost was about $320 (Ebay rocks!) or £200. And a FX 9370 CPU is NOT faster than my X5650 at the speed I run it at: 3.67Ghz with all voltages at stock!

I have not tried running it higher since its plenty zippy at this speed. Since you referenced Passmark I will say that the FX 9370 is 9602. I am at 9726. Now IF I ran the CPU at its stock 2.66 speed well than it would be quite a bit lower. But even at stock this CPU is in the upper half of the page, not the bottom.

I had the same trouble you have now, a server processor is designed to do a different job, always kept wondering why my Opteron was not giving me the results it should have, and it had more cores then the normal stock around it...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Have a look!
Lets be clear: My post was not to reflect any "trouble" I am having with the system. It is to illustrate how the GPU will make the biggest difference once you get past the recommended CPU/memory specs from Frontier.

you will find Xenons with the same sort of speed as yours, at the bottom of the chart.

Since there are no Xeons listed at my speed I will say again: There are WAAAAAAAY more Cpus behind my 9726 Passmark rating than in front of it.

I had to learn the hard way also. With your graphics card in my rig, I was running around the 80 frames mark in space, and about 60 in heavy stuff, when I could get it to run, Radeon drivers are really poor. Which made me convert to Nvidia, which has not let me down yet. Gives me a little lower fps, but I am ok with that...

I cant speak to why you had problems with your system. I guess I could turn off vertical sync to see how much higher than the 60fps I am locked at would be. And in terms of Radeon driver stability: In my system I have not had a single hiccup since I have had this card. That being said, I am sure you could find plenty of people that will bemoan Nvidia as having driver problems.

But hey, before this post gets too long,,,,,, errr,,,,, too late for that I guess :p I will state one last time that people should not get too hung up on CPU/Memory/whatever specs as long as they have the recommended amount from Frontier. Look at your Video card and consider that as giving you the best bang for your space bucks,,,,,, :D

And lastly: With great GPU power comes great power requirements! Dont forget to check your power supply and make sure it can feed the beast!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
one other thing I forgot to mention: My X5650 has a TDP of 95W. The FX 9370 is at,,,,,,,,,,,,

:eek: 220W :eek:

Now their is a benchmark that the FX 9370 just smokes my X5650 Xeon:

The RPM speed of an electric meter cha-chinging off $$$$$$

:D:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
Just a question, why did you go for a slower Xeon processor? How much did you pay, if it was more then £600, then you could have got a nice 8 core AMD FX 9370 system which is around, 60% faster then your current processor setup...

An OCed Westmere/Gulftown is still faster than virtually any Vishera.

I had the same trouble you have now, a server processor is designed to do a different job, always kept wondering why my Opteron was not giving me the results it should have, and it had more cores then the normal stock around it...

They aren't designed or even built differently, just binned (sorted) differently sometimes.

His Xeon is exactly the same thing as an i7 970, 980, 980X, or 990X, except for stock clock speed and the fully unlocked multiplier in the X SKUs.
 
I'm interested in buying an old dual cpu Xeon system- I do some 3D work plus graphics but I would also like to know what would play ED better, assuming I use an identical GPU:

A dual cpu Xeon (X5650 x2, 12 core, each core 2.66 GHz) with 24/36 Gb ECC RAM (full PC, but would need a new GPU - £630) max 24 threads

or a new I7 4790K based PC with 16Gb RAM (barebones, £564) max 8 threads

(Both score identically on CPU power on Passmark, over 11,000)

Would having a dual CPU setup be better for the multicore future (physical cores v hyperthreading), or is the difference negligible? (Dare I utter the phrase 'future proof', at least for a while?)
 
Last edited:
one other thing I forgot to mention: My X5650 has a TDP of 95W. The FX 9370 is at,,,,,,,,,,,,

:eek: 220W :eek:

Now their is a benchmark that the FX 9370 just smokes my X5650 Xeon:

The RPM speed of an electric meter cha-chinging off $$$$$$

:D:D:D:D

Aren't these all blown away by I7 Haswell's far lower power usage?
 
If that is the case, why are they so low in the high end cpu charts? :D
How do you consider 62nd (out of 471) place low? Their are only a handful of i7 CPU's and the FX 9590 that are slightly ahead of my 9726 Passmark rating? Or put another way: I am in the upper 13th percentile or ahead of 87% of all high end CPU's on that chart.

Makes me wonder if we are looking at the same chart? :rolleyes:

I'm interested in buying an old dual cpu Xeon system- I do some 3D work plus graphics but I would also like to know what would play ED better, assuming I use an identical GPU:

A dual cpu Xeon (X5650 x2, 12 core, each core 2.66 GHz) with 24/36 Gb ECC RAM (full PC, but would need a new GPU - £630) max 24 threads

or a new I7 4790K based PC with 16Gb RAM (barebones, £564) max 8 threads

(Both score identically on CPU power on Passmark, over 11,000)

Would having a dual CPU setup be better for the multicore future (physical cores v hyperthreading), or is the difference negligible? (Dare I utter the phrase 'future proof', at least for a while?)

From what I have tried (I do run Photoshop CS5) their is a VERY noticeable difference going from 4 cores to 6 cores. Also bear in mind I have upped my memory from 8 to 12 megs. And Photoshop is a VERY power hungry program when it comes to CPU and memory resources. I have not tried video rendering but I am sure that would have a noticeable "real world" difference.

But running Elite dangerous (at least for now, in beta) I have capped my performance going by frame rates alone. The game does not load much faster (if at all) between the 3 (X5450, i7 980 and the X5650) Cpu's I have tried. Frame rates in game play are between 60 in open space and 45 in crowds or space stations. And bear in mind that is with vertical sync enabled. Since my monitor runs at 60hz I could care less about higher frame rates and I really dislike screen tearing. If I disable vertical sync I can hit close to 200 fps in space, but again, whats the point if I have to deal with screen tearing? To my eyes I cant tell the difference once I go above the vertical sync limit. Put it this way: If you could blink your eye faster, so what? :smilie:

Then again it does make me grin when I open task manager and see 12 threads displayed. I am giggling at the thought of how your proposed dual X5650 would look with 24 threads,,,,,,,, :p:p:

Aren't these all blown away by I7 Haswell's far lower power usage?
Not in the desktop class. An i7-4790K Haswell comes in at 84 tdp. For sure that's better than my 95 tdp. But it is not in the same "blown away" category as 95 vs 220 tdp.
Now if you start looking at the mobile or laptop category of i7 Haswells, yes, they have REALLY low TDP's. But we are talking a whole different class of processors.

At the end of the day, I am very happy with my purchase when you consider I got the mobo, CPU and memory for what a modern day "high end" CPU would have cost all by itself brand new.

In the spirit of this threads title I will make a general claim: Once you have the modern day equivalent of CPU and memory requirements spec'ed by Frontier the only noticeable difference you will see between machines will be measured by the graphics card.

Ignore the claims of fanboys. They cant see past their AMD or Intel logos anyway and never bother to post specific details or facts.

And forget trying to future proof your machine. Those damn software guys are always going to find a way to program something that will choke the life out of your shiny new hardware in less than a year,,,,,,,,,,,

GUARANTEED :D
 
I've been flying around quite happily since Beta launched but today I noticed that the stars had vanished (temporarily). Raised a ticket only to find out that my 3 year old machine is antiquated and not up to spec :(

AMD Athlon(tm) II X2 220 Processor (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
3Gb DDR3
1 Tb SATA drive

Do I go for a new set-up, or wait for the final release and see if it's still playable?

Decisions, decisions.... :rolleyes:
 
Just built myself a little system and seems to be working a treat. Felt it was time to retire the "gaming" laptop and get something a little better.

AMD 3+ 4350 Black Edition 4Ghz Octocore CPU
Asrock 990FX Killer Mobo
8 GB of Kingston Hyper 1886 RAM
M.2 Crucial 120GB SSD for Windows 8.1
Seagate 1TB 7200rpm 64MB 3.5" HDD
XFX R2 290 Dual Dissipation 4096MB GDDR5
Corsair C60 Closed Loop Water Cooling
750W PSU
Lite-on 24x DVD/CD

Only had a chance to give it a quick blast but so far its not dropped below 60 FPS locked. Looking to replace my tired old Acer P223w with either an Eyefinity setup or one really nice big un' :D

Looking for the option to unlock the 60FPS ceiling.. If anyone knows... :)
 
Back
Top Bottom