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

[alQamar]

@vladek Surely. If you can afford upgrade your gpu but everything else is fine! 7870 should be a good pick for youif you want to run ultra details and armies.

[Wiskie]

Having looked at the newly edited OP, the Very Good tier-build appears to sufficiently meet my needs.

I'm wondering though, not that I don't trust Splenyi's judgement, if there's anything that anyone would change about that build. I know very little of building PCs, but what jumps out at me is that the i3 instead of an i5. Is that sensible or would somebody recommend an i5 instead?

Anything else you would change? Otherwise, I might just go with that. Or is the newegg special deal that alQamar linked in a previous comment significantly better? It's probably going to be one of those two.

[Biggus Splenus]

Ok peeps, I made a fair few changes to the OP

#1 - edited all the description to keep the same amount of depth, but make it shorter and more to the point, to try keep the reader interested.
#2 - made a few build optimisations, especially the cases. I felt like I was bringing better cases in unnecessarily (eg. when the extra cooling wasn't needed).
#3 - more cooling options for the enthusiast levels eg. when overclocking is available
#4 - we now have "Extreme Enthusiast"!! It still features a 4670K (no i7's for these builds, because that's already been proven they are only cost effective for professional use), has been upgraded to a GTX 780 (avoiding dual GPU for now, will add more options for this later though), upgrade mobo to an ASUS Z87-Pro, still the same storage and RAM, a Platinum 600W PSU (Fractal Newton R3), and the case is an NZXT Phantom 630 (the looks aren't for everyone, but the performance is great for the price. any better suggestions?)

[Biggus Splenus]

alQamar is right, you're always better off having an even number of sticks in your PC (unless your board features triple channel, which has been phased out for a while anyway). Because it can sometimes cause massive performance drops and decrease in total useable RAM (both are rare, but possible to happen. 4GB is plenty anyway)

[ggggtotalwarrior]

I'm wondering if I could find a PC or laptop within about $700 that could run Rome II well. If its P, I'm hoping for high-quality graphics, but I'd settle for medium graphics with a laptop, which is my preference.

[Biggus Splenus]

I'm wondering if I could find a PC or laptop within about $700 that could run Rome II well. If its P, I'm hoping for high-quality graphics, but I'd settle for medium graphics with a laptop, which is my preference.

From the OP

Tier - Fair - $630(high graphics, medium-high unit sizes)
May need to take unit size down to medium for a few full-stack army battles
AMD performs better (usually significantly) than Nvidia 90% of the time in this price bracket, but for TW's they are about equal
CPU - Pentium G2120 - $80
GPU - HD 7790 - $150
HSF - CPU Stock - $0
Mobo - ASUS P8B75-V - $105
RAM - 4GB - $45
SSD - None, not essential at this price range - $0
HDD - WD Black 500GB - $75
PSU - Seasonic S12II 520W - $85
Case - LIAN LI PC-K65 - $90

Extra money can be spent on the OS and shipping cost I suppose. If you need a monitor, that'll cost about $140, keyboard and mouse sets are $30. This PC will give MUCH better price/performance than any gaming laptop at that price range, I highly recommend it

Hello,

I was wondering would these specs be decent enough to play Rome 2 on high or even ultra?

BARE IN MIND I RUN EVERY OTHER TOTAL WAR ON ULTRA APART FROM MEDIEVAL, I PLAY MEDIEVAL ON HIGH.

http://gyazo.com/e2cdb3b6930c33cc8028aab73b6e7fd5



http://gyazo.com/e55ff43db6f6291a76f95d301712c800


Thanks!

thread merged ~ Adam

Well you don't have a graphics chip according to that, only the integrated one in the CPU (CPU is good though). So I wouldn't expect you to be playing on anything but low for Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 or Rome 2.

[Spudd]

I play on highest settings for shogun 2, empire, napoleon, rome

[Spudd]

Hello,

I was wondering would these specs be decent enough to play Rome 2 on high or even ultra?

BARE IN MIND I RUN EVERY OTHER TOTAL WAR ON ULTRA APART FROM MEDIEVAL, I PLAY MEDIEVAL ON HIGH.

http://gyazo.com/e2cdb3b6930c33cc8028aab73b6e7fd5



http://gyazo.com/e55ff43db6f6291a76f95d301712c800


Thanks!

thread merged ~ Adam

[AnsarHolyWarrior]

I play on highest settings too so i think its not a problem for me to run it

[Biggus Splenus]

@ Spudd - What's your graphics card then?

[Spudd]

i use a laptop and i posted the links to my info above

[alQamar]

hi there I just want you to show why we are not propagating AMD CPUs instead of Intel. They are indeed cheaper but this "overall" comparison simply shows they are slower than Intel when it comes to gaming. Also when I see that a new AMD is out for a freaking price and 5.0 GHz (FX-9590) but has a TDP of over 200 Watts I'd better stay with a 88 Watts TDP of Haswell and "only" 4.5 GHz.
Sooner or later you pay the price on your electric bill (more or less) when you pick AMD. This is not a battle really. Just facts they are at the moment technially behind Intel. I used AMD CPU for about 5 years but they never convinced me, but the price. My last AMD was a K6-2 500 MHz, thats away a while. You notice the better balance of price and speed that goes to Intel at the moment.

the links are from a German page, offering all time reliable results.
The figures should be self explaining so no problem that is German actually just move (hoover) your mouse cursor over a CPU that is interesting for you to see the difference in percent

here is the power consumption comparison Intel vs AMD
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...sor-im-test/7/

gaming comparison Intel vs AMD
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...sor-im-test/6/

[SamueleD]

Have they gone out of their mind???!?!? 220W?

[alQamar]

and yet 13% slower than a non overclocked 4770K :=)
respective 8% slower than a non overclocked 3770K
and least 3% slower than a non overclocked 2600K (my current CPU "grandpa")

[SamueleD]

and yet 13% slower than a non overclocked 4770K :=)
respective 8% slower than a non overclocked 3770K
and least 3% slower than a non overclocked 2600K (my current CPU "grandpa")

It draws more than double the power of an Haswell CPU, and yet it lags behind in games, and they haven't even tested it on Shogun 2 http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...iver-5ghz.html
Damn it, AMD needs to do something new, otherwise we'll just be left with Intel as the only option for the foreseeable future, and that is not good for our wallets.

[Metallistic]

and yet 13% slower than a non overclocked 4770K :=)
respective 8% slower than a non overclocked 3770K
and least 3% slower than a non overclocked 2600K (my current CPU "grandpa")

Aye, as I have already mentioned in a previous post of mine, AMD's CPU architecture is severely lacking. The lack of innovations have resulted in sub par performance, higher TDP (as well as temperatures naturally) thus hitting overclocking limits a lot easier. The only thing AMD are pushing are the number of cores, higher clock speeds and lower prices. Hopefully they have more to offer in the future as it is evident that Intel are totally comfortable with cutting corners.

An example of this would be the significant rise in temperatures between the 2nd and 3rd generation of Intel's CPUs. It was due to the lower quality of thermal paste applied between the CPU chip and its heatsink. Not only were temperatures generally higher, but some users experienced severe differences between temperatures of the individual CPU cores.

I seem to be lucky with my Ivy chip, as there are no dramatic differences in core temperatures. But I still consider the CPU to be hotter than usual when I take into account the fact that I have it running @4.2GHz 1.12v and it can still hit like 75C during prime 95 and/or Intel Burn Test. I guess it can also be attributed to the hot summer, but still.

Have not done as much research on Haswell though. Splenyi can perhaps share some experience of his own?

[Biggus Splenus]

Yes I agree. AMD, ditch bulldozer, it's not going anywhere. Although..... I doubt they would have the money to start over. Buying ATI was probably the worst thing they done, because that cost them half their cash, and then they put too much resources into APUs..... although I suppose APUs are good news for the mobile world.

AMD CPUs are still good for a very select amount of programs though, and their 200W TDP is 120W over Intels current, but that's only like having 2 light globes on in your house, so it's nothing to worry about really.

Their GPUs are amazing though, but I think ATI would have done fine without AMD. Nvidia lovers usually look straight over the competition, I'm not sure why.... before my 780, I had a 7970, and that was MUCH better for its time, given what the new drivers can make it do.

I'm extremely keen for the 9000 series, might sell my 780 for one of their new flagship cards Nvidia won't have a new architecture until the middle of next year (good guess, that's what they've been doing for YEARS now). I like how AMD is always the first out with a die shrink now days, puts Nvidia back in their place If only they could do that to Intel too.

[SamueleD]

Let's hope they make some money form the new consoles and invest it in closing the gap with Intel in the CPU market. There are cases where I would pick AMD over Intel, but they are becoming less and less. APUs can be nice and all if you have little money and want to build something tiny that can somewhat play games without a discrete GPU, but, apart from that and laptops, they don't have much use.

[SamueleD]

@Splenyi, now that you have finished your excellent builds, remember to put the recommended settings tweaks for i3 in the OP!

[Biggus Splenus]

I've course SamueleD! I'll need to put you in the credits too, I can't believe you're not in there.

And yeah, all the money AMD will make off consoles won't be going straight into a new console, because they only come every 5 years. Lets hope it gets put into a new CPU, ditch the FX series and get a new one please AMD.

Their APUs would have been great for something like a home theater PC, or like you said, a very low buget, possibly tiny m-itx build that could play some low powered games (some of those popular ones like Torchlight 2, League of Legends). Intel is coming out with some impressive iGPUs now though, and they are getting up there with AMD now. Given Intel's budget is 1,000 times more than AMDs, well, it's only a matter of time till AMD's leadership in iGPUs is taken.