Build a PC for Rome 2 / Hardware Recommendations and Advice Thread

[Duffeldof]

ATM my desktop has:

AMD Athlon II X4 635
Asus EAH Radeon 6850 Direct CU

How far these will take me?
Which one you would upgrade?

Also my laptop has:

NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
Intel Core i5-2410M 2.3GHz
1600x900 screen

Would my laptop run Rome 2 atleast playably (medium or maybe low graphics and 20+ FPS)?

[Biggus Splenus]

@ Tenerife boy - http://www.pccomponentes.com/presupu...do=no;1&so=0;1
That's everything but a case. What type of cases do you like? Is size an issue? Or noise?

I didn't pick a watercooler, but that cooler is the one I personally have, its dead quiet combined with ASUS fan control AI (included in the motherboard). I could have picked any cooler in the world (bought it a few weeks ago), and I chose this one. If you want a watercooler, get a Swiftech h220.

@ duffeldof - your laptop will be able to run Rome 2 just fine, probably on medium/low. I would suggest a CPU upgrade for you desktop, whatever Intel CPU and mobo is on your budget. Remember that a motherboard doesn't give performance, so don't splurge on a fancy one if you don't need it.

@ alQamar - a 7770 and 650 both cost about $110, but the 7770 performs between 30 and 40 percent better. A 650 TI cost about $150, and that price difference might mean a lot to some people. A 7790 also cost the same as a 650 TI, and performs about the same. So I'm making entry level truly entry level. You also have to keep in mind that the CPU is just a Pentium, and a 650TI won't do that CPU and justice, it'll definitely be overkill.

[Red9]

Just to know, do you guys think the HD7970 will be able to max out Rome 2?

[Biggus Splenus]

@ red - yes I do think it will. Do you already own one, or are you planning to buy?

[Tenerife_Boy]

Hello again!! cases are not a problem because I have plenty of space under my table(wich is tall enough to deal with it )
mmmm I think the graphic card is way over from what we need isn't it? I mean 3GB? I don't pretend to spend so amount of money in a new pc..I was thinking about 1000€ more or less, so I think the only issue is the GPU.

Under my point of view, with one of 2 GB would be more than enough to run the rome 2 at highest quality?? as far as they say, they recommend even one graphic card with just 1 GB.

What do you think ???

Also a small question, Windows 8 64 bits or stay in Win 7 64bits as nowadays I've got ???

[AtheistDane]

Hello again!! cases are not a problem because I have plenty of space under my table(wich is tall enough to deal with it )
mmmm I think the graphic card is way over from what we need isn't it? I mean 3GB? I don't pretend to spend so amount of money in a new pc..I was thinking about 1000€ more or less, so I think the only issue is the GPU.

Under my point of view, with one of 2 GB would be more than enough to run the rome 2 at highest quality?? as far as they say, they recommend even one graphic card with just 1 GB.

What do you think ???

Also a small question, Windows 8 64 bits or stay in Win 7 64bits as nowadays I've got ???

Indeed a 780 is overkill. A 770 is much more economical and offers near 780 performance.
Also you don't need an i7 for TW games, you'll be better off with an i5.
Furthermore, a platium power supply is not necessary.

Do you also need a monitor? What about peripherals (mouse, keyboard, speakers)?

Are you going to assemble the parts yourself?

If you already have Windows 7, then don't get Windows 8, there's very little/no benefit.

This would be my suggestion considering your budget (its a bit over budget, but these parts are worth it, you could throw out the SSD, it won't offer any performance gains - it will only lower loading times etc.): http://www.pccomponentes.com/presupu...do=no;1&so=0;1

[Red9]

@splenyi - Already have ^^ Just wanted an expert opinion, I love it. Built a new PC just for Rome, but I was never sure of the GPU. I'm more relaxed now ^^
Thank you and sorry to bother with a stupid question =P

[Biggus Splenus]

Tenerife - sorry about the excessive build, you said money wasn't a problem so I went all out. Ill give you another list tomorrow.

[raven63]

I just want to thank everybody for their tips. I'm still undecided regarding the 770 sli, I'll do more research, and I may wait with a single 770, and purchase another only when (if) I run into something that pushes beyond its limits.

[alQamar]

Good idea raven. What's your built now at the end before you buy would like to have a last review if you don't mind.

@Atheistdane I have to disagree strictly on your comment about the i7 "don't need an i7 for TW games. "

That's not true! Unless you are not forced go for an i3 or i5 because of a limited budget an i7 is even highly recommended!
Unlike TW can handle more than 2 cores it can handle very well Hyperthreading since Rome 1.
Not taking an i7 if someone has the buget is a clear disadvantage on the bottleneck we already have on CPU.

Saying an i7 is not worth I can even evident a difference if you insist.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Al-Quamor - What's your actual job?

[alQamar]

I am system administrator for Windows Server and VMware, why you're asking?

[The Wandering Storyteller]

I am system administrator for Windows Server and VMware, why you're asking?

I'll tell you in private message.

[SamueleD]

Here's a thread I've found on the S2 Technical help forums http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rk-help-needed! I'm afraid it is not good news for your idea that HT helps in TW, alQamar, at least not beyond 4 cores/threads.

The test of the OP were extensive, and the fact that in the bit-tech benchmarks comparing an i5-2500K (4 cores no HT) and an i7-2600K (4 cores with HT), both running at 5GHz, the difference is of a mere 1 fps (which basically means no difference) and this in favour of the i5, suggests that spending the extra money (which is around 100$) for an i7 and HT might not be a good idea, if what you are looking for is more performance in TW.

Hyper-Thraeding basically allows for one core to run 2 threads at the same time, does it not? Thus doubling the number of cores "seen" by the OS, but in a game such as TW, that can use not more than 2 parallel threads (or 4 by some accounts), how can that be of any benefit? By looking at those benchmarks and test it does not seem to have any at all!

[alQamar]

I will do a new test publish it again or search for my publication on totalwar.com

- see link below in next the posting

Did they do the cpu or gpu benchmark? We had reasonable reports here that there is no measurable difference between 3.8 and OC @4.5

When they ran the cpu bench they could see a scalable difference. And as the Shogun 2 benchmark us really CRAP as it misses to show huge battles and close ups of battles it is not properly to make this advantages visible.
Again like I said I will do thorough test tomorrow.

There is a diff er between threading and cores. We know that TW cannot utilise more than 2 cores but still it uses more than two threads. When I played Shogun this was good to see.

[SamueleD]

I will do a new test publish it again or search for my publication on totalwar.com

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...upport-clearly
I found this one, which I suppose has been done by you?
It surely is interesting, but, when deciding between i5 and i7 one would like to see a comparison between 4 cores HT and 4 cores no HT, which you did not make.

Did they do the cpu or gpu benchmark?

CPU

[alQamar]

Yes that's my thread I was looking for. Btw you cannot compare an i5 to i7 as they have not same cache sizes.

[SamueleD]

Yes that's my thread I was looking for. Btw you cannot compare an i5 to i7 as they have not same cache sizes.

Yet, that does not seem to make any difference for TW.

[alQamar]

Meanwhile re read my bench.
Also there the difference was about 1fps in the cpu bench with HT against without Hyperthreading.

1 fps at 23 fps is a gain of 4%. That's a lot. And again please note the benchmark lacks scenes that put a real load on the cpu so the impact in a real game in battles and also AI turn times are getting to a significant level. Hopefully you can just believe me
I could give you examples for Civ5 but that's not the topic and reason for discussion. So I stick at TW and there are advantages measurable and some we cannot because a missing scripted scene.

Has anyone of the modders tried if you can replace the benchmark scene with a new replay perhaps?

[SamueleD]

Meanwhile re read my bench. Also there the difference was about 1fps in the cpu bench
1 fps at 23 fps is a gain of 4%. That's a lot. And again the benchmark lacks scenes that put a real load on the cpu so the impact inca real game in battles and also ai turn times are getting to a significant level. Hopefully you can just believe ne

The difference of 1 fps was in favour of an i5 (26 fps vs 25 fps), with less cache and less threads (4 instead of 8), so I don't think that really helps your point.
The CPU bench tests the most CPU intensive part of battles: large melee blobs.
As for AI turn times, well, that is the part where you've got my interest, as it has not yet been tested.

It is not that I'm trying to go against you or anything, it's just that it is hard for me to believe your claims of HT effectiveness in TW beyond 4 threads, when all evidence seems to point in another direction

In your bench you tested 4 cores 8 threads, 2 cores 4 threads, 2 cores 2 threads, 1 core 1 thread. 4 cores 8 threads showed a significant advantage over the others, in a similar way as in these benches http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rk-help-needed but the really interesting comparison, at least for me, would be 4 cores 8 threads vs 4 cores 4 threads, which, in the thread I mentioned, shows no advantage for the 8 threads.