Best performance possible for maxed out Civ 4 games?

[Aeson]

Most (if not all) MBs have some compatibility problems with certain other hardware (very often RAM). It doesn't mean they're "glitchy" necessarily... just that not everything works right together when you have virtually endless possible configurations. Best you can do is research compatibility and hope you aren't a "special case" who gets some bad silicon.

There's also always going to be cycling up and down of FPS even with the best hardware. There's just some frames that are going to take longer to render than others. You can cap FPS, but that doesn't guarantee you'll always make that FPS in the first place. Even a top of the line computer is going to struggle in some cases, and certainly will playing games 2-3 years down the road.

The problems you are talking about though (extended periods of slowdown) are probably due to not having enough RAM (and thus using swap file which will really slow things down), or having other programs periodically running in the background using up system resources.

[Solver]

There's no way your laptop affects the performance of your newly built computer, however. Besides, any decent store should replace your hardware if it's faulty, even I had no problem replacing a defective RAM stick.

Oh, and the only reason to want 60+ frames in your games is your ego. Thanks to synchronization, more FPS may not always be better, and you would almost certainly be unable to notice any difference between different high framerates. Of course, if you have a game drop to 10 FPS from 30, you have a problem. But if you're running a game at 60 FPS and it drops down to 40 for a while, you don't have a problem.

[Sovereign]

Thanks for the heads up, Aeson and Solver. I really hated it when my FPS constantly went up and down, making some games unplayable half of the time. Imagine trying to move around when the screen gets choppy at < 10 FPS. Many times I ended up moving my Civ 4 units to the wrong tiles when I try to scroll around, fell off pits or ended up monster food in Doom 3 and Morrowind when the screen gets choppy, and watch my simulated trains or cities (Trainz and Simcity) teleport all over the place with 10 FPS.

I'd be a happy camper if my new computer has a minium of 30 FPS (I don't mind if I have 40 FPS or 100 FPS as long as 30's the minium) so I don't have to deal with screwed up gameplay due to choppiness.

[Solver]

As a hardcore guy with a whole lot of tolerance towards performance, I've played and enjoyed some games with 15 FPS average, as well as played some games in unsupported video modes

[Sovereign]

I have been curious about something. Are there benefits or disadvantages of choosing ATI over Nvidia? Do some games run a lot better with ATI cards or Nvidia cards? I've heard about Nvidia being more compatible with Civ 4, while ATI is more compatible with Doom 3 and a few other games.

Just wondering before I make my final decision regarding getting the ATI Radeon 4870 X2 card.

[Solver]

It basically comes down to nVidia being good and ATI sucking hard

Objectively looking, they're probably about equal, with the market also being about equally split. Game developers usually have their favorite as well, which is what they cooperate with. iD Software, I think, went with nVidia for Doom3 - stuff like advertising together, bundled deals and such. Valve's marketing for Half-Life 2 was ATI-centric.

You can get problems with both, of course. For example, out-of-the-box Civ4 had a certain major problem that affected only a portion of ATI users, making the game fail, while nVidia users didn't have the issue. Crysis had problems with a couple of specific nVidia cards, not running properly on those.

My personal preference is strongly in nVidia's favour. I haven't had problems with their cards, while I've dealt with crappy ATI drivers and compatibility issues between ATI cards and certain other hardware. Your mileage may vary. Oh, and these days, nVidia usually goes with Intel processors an ATI with AMD (AMD owns ATI now). But above all, check the benchmarks.

[Aeson]

Right now ATI and nVidia both offer good cards at competitive prices, across top end, midrange, and bargain cards. It's a good time to buy, since that's not always the case. Witness a good share of the previous 2 years where ATI had nothing to compete with nVidia's top cards... thus no downward pressure on prices and very little in the way of choice of cards.

[Aeson]

And don't worry about ATI or nVidia with Intel processors. Intel competes with AMD (who own ATI) on processors, but also competes with nVidia when it comes to MB chipsets for Intel processors. So you have nVidia with SLI (AMD) on their MB chipsets, and Intel with Crossfire (ATI) on their's. So you can choose either ATI or nVidia to pair with an Intel processor. (And with just a single card, even SLI or CF support is irrelevant anyways.)

[Sovereign]

So basically, it doesn't matter if I buy an ATI card or a Nvidia card? Meaning ATI Radeon 4870 X2 would be pretty much the same performance-wise as a Nvidia GX 280, right?

Lets take this a step further. Supposing I decide to buy two cards. Two ATI 4870 X2's *or* two Nvidia 280's. Would they still be pretty much the same "doubled up"?

Or is it even possible to have a Nvidia 280 and an ATI 4870 operating together on the same computer, so that I can play games that work better with Nvidia or ATI without loss of performance or bugs (like the whole Civ 4 and ATI thing)?

I want to make the right decision before I plunk down 500 bucks for a graphics card, and not regret it later.

[Solver]

You don't put two different video cards in a PC, let alone two cards from different manufacturers.

Two ATI cards use Crossfire, two nVidia cards use SLI. Which is better? Hard to say. For example, benchmarks show a SLI setup beating Crossfire in Crysis framerates, but the opposite is true for Stalker. SLI is much better at Company of Heroes, while Crossfire wins when running HL2-Ep2.

Basically, both your choices are similar performance wise. I guess you don't care for the deeply technical differences between the two. Both setups give good performance all around, but neither beats the other one hands-down. The ATI 4850 was considerably better than the 9800GTX, but of course the 280 beats anything else out there.

From what I know, there's little difference performance wise between the 280 and the 4870 X2. The 4870 may be a tad faster but it consumes more power and emits more heat. Since you're going to be using two video cards, it's really hard to say. I don't think you'll see any difference, you'll probably experience the same performance no matter which you go for. Again, personally, I'd go for the 280s.

And keep the PSU in mind. If you go dual, 800W is a must, but you'll even want to consider a 1000W supply if running a quad-core. Definitely 1000W if you also end up going with DDR3 memory.

[Kuciwalker]

You don't put two different video cards in a PC, let alone two cards from different manufacturers.

This is incorrect as of the latest NVIDIA drivers. You can use any 2nd GPU as a physics accelerator.

[Solver]

But it would still perform no video processing, if I understand correctly?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes.

[Sovereign]

I have another question for you guys. I'd like a bit more elaboration on the hard drives stuff.

1. Will at least 1 terabyte memory be enough for a while? Considering I have like 50 games and some more upcoming stuff like new games or work-related programs and stuff?

2. Snoopy mentioned something about 9600 RPM drives and 7200 RPM ones. He said that the 9600 RPM drives would help a lot with the "bottlenecks" and the loading times for Civ 4 and other stuff. What kinds of 9600 RPM drives would be best (and highest quality)? Or should I just go with standard 7200 RPM drives and have a 9600 RPM one tucked away somewhere?

I'm trying to figure out a good internal hard memory configuration. I have a pretty good idea for the RAM, video card, power supply, etc. thanks to you guys.

[snoopy369]

1. 1TB memory would be insane. You mean HDD space. 1TB is plenty for now, I'd suggest; and you should never have 50 games installed, rather install the ones you play and uninstall ones you don't play anymore. There are not enough hours in the day to pay 50 games
2. Basically you would look at something like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136296
for your Windows installation (C: drive); and then you install your games and other programs on the D: drive (or whatever drive name the larger HDD gets assigned). Then the virtual memory and system stuff runs faster (on the 10000 RPM drive) and the game stuff that's not usually so speed-intensive is on the slower drive. Also gives you an easier time of backing up (because your speed-intensive drive is the one that needs backing up, if you keep everything non-program based there) and the other stuff (game installs) don't need to be backed up (since you can just reinstall them).

[Asher]

1TB ain't enough for me.

I've got a combined 2.5TB now with my external drives.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Solver
You don't put two different video cards in a PC, let alone two cards from different manufacturers.

Technically not true - it is trivial via google to show that it is possible to run two different ATI cards in crossfire mode - but it's not recommended, especially if they're significantly different (a 3850 and a 3870, for example, works reasonably well, but a 3850 and a x800 probably wouldn't).

That said, it's not a good idea I'd vote for the 4870 myself, but the 280 is certainly a fine choice as well.

[Aeson]

HD space is a personal issue only you can answer. Right now I have ~4GB used... and have never been over 16GB (almost all of that being one game).

[Spaced Cowboy]

LOL, dude trust me, you do not want to build your on PC, unless you have done it before, or have a friend who knows how.

Why? You have no parts to troubleshoot with. It took me 4 motherboards on the last build I had (the current mobo also has an issue, but I was tired of sending it back and just changed to usb inputs instead of ps2). I also (in the troubleshooting effort), send back the video card.

Not trying to brag, but I have an MSEE degree, and I work with wiring, components and such every day.

Let the guys here help you figure out what you want, and then just pick a system builder out of "Maximum PC," or "PC Lamer." You'll get a waranty that way in case you get DOA parts.

Plus you should be able to do a small upgrade in about 2 years to boost performance of the machine.

I've built about 20 machies over the last 5-7 years, and i do not think I'll be building any more. It is now cheaper to buy already built, and no frustrations.

[snoopy369]

I think you're incorrect there, sir. There are significant gains to be made simply in choosing the parts because you learn what parts do and what is 'good' about a particular part. Knowledge is important.

It's also still cheaper to do it yourself, if you don't have a bad part; and even then you get it replaced in-warranty easily enough if you buy from a reputable vendor.