A PC to rule Divide Et Impera!!!

[KeirnAelin]

Well!!! Being a stern history student i love what DEI has done with Rome II. The Pc i have at the moment is relatively suckish.... I can get away with 120 units and settings set to medium. What i am interested in is building a new pc in some 6-7 months that will allow me to basically destroy DEI on Ultra with units cranked to 250ish men per battalion. Now i have a great understanding of pc's (I've worked as a pc repair man and builder) BUT! I need some hard data about your guy's rigs that can run DEI on ultra with a LOT of units on the map. Im guessing a I7 4790K will be involved in there But what i need is your whole pc specs-the settings of your Rome(unlimited video memory off or on), and the fps you get. It would greatly help me in choosing my pc parts.... (still waiting on solid skylake rome results). Thanks to all those who will reply

[KAM 2150]

i7 4790k, 16Gb ram 1600Mhz, Gigabyte Geforce GTX 970 4mb G1 Gaming.

60 FPS, all on max, the same for Witcher 3 or GTA 5 ;P But involving future titles, anything less then GTX 970 is bad investment.

[thomas_r]

i7 4790k, 16Gb ram 1600Mhz, Gigabyte Geforce GTX 970 4mb G1 Gaming.

60 FPS, all on max, the same for Witcher 3 or GTA 5 ;P But involving future titles, anything less then GTX 970 is bad investment.

I'm interested by this thread becauseI want to change my graphic card (My GTX 660 TI is getting old), even the GTX 960 is bad for you ?
I want a 970 of course, but the price is just ...

[GourmetGorilla]

i7 4790k, 16Gb ram 1600Mhz, Gigabyte Geforce GTX 970 4mb G1 Gaming.

60 FPS, all on max, the same for Witcher 3 or GTA 5 ;P But involving future titles, anything less then GTX 970 is bad investment.

Even in large battles? That really surprises me. I have a lot of settings turned down to Ultra, and I still get 20-30FPS in a large battle (with animations still stuttering if I turn all graphics down to low, so it's gotta be the CPU).
i5-2500K @3.3GHz, 3.60Ghz w/ EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Super Clocked ACX 2.0 & 8GBs RAM. Been thinking about a future-proof mobo/CPU upgrade for a long time, but every other game I play runs great on this set-up as it is.

[KAM 2150]

Even in large battles? That really surprises me. I have a lot of settings turned down to Ultra, and I still get 20-30FPS in a large battle (with animations still stuttering if I turn all graphics down to low, so it's gotta be the CPU).
i5-2500K @3.3GHz, 3.60Ghz w/ EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Super Clocked ACX 2.0 & 8GBs RAM. Been thinking about a future-proof mobo/CPU upgrade for a long time, but every other game I play runs great on this set-up as it is.

Probably because my i7 under stress goes up to 4.4Ghz and GTX 970 G1 gaming has almost 10% more power then other 970 cards except Strix version I also run GEM with all eye candies and it lowers my FPS to maybe 45-55. Regular Rome 2 with DeI and during video recording goes down to 50-55 but that is totally normal ;D Otherwise only some units in DeI produce small drop but nothing that I would even notice wirhiut FPS display.

[Arakorn]

Probably because my i7 under stress goes up to 4.4Ghz and GTX 970 G1 gaming has almost 10% more power then other 970 cards except Strix version I also run GEM with all eye candies and it lowers my FPS to maybe 45-55. Regular Rome 2 with DeI and during video recording goes down to 50-55 but that is totally normal ;D Otherwise only some units in DeI produce small drop but nothing that I would even notice wirhiut FPS display.

I'm guessing you're running 1920x1080? I have an overclocked MSI GTX 970 and I'm not sure (the Steam FPS counter is placed bad against the UI), but I guess with max unit sizes and close to max settings (some of them turned a notch down, some max, a few two notches down) I run around 40 fps.

Do you really benefit from an i7 though? Can TW actually utilize 8 cores? Overclocked i5-4690k for me.

[Baldos]

i7 4790k, 16Gb ram 1600Mhz, Gigabyte Geforce GTX 970 4mb G1 Gaming.

60 FPS, all on max, the same for Witcher 3 or GTA 5 ;P But involving future titles, anything less then GTX 970 is bad investment.

I agree the GTX 970 is key!

I had a GTX 770 on this rig:

GeForce GTX 770 2048MB GDDR5
I5-3570K (water cooled and overclocked to 4.0GHz)
ASUS P8 Z77-V Pro MB
8 GB Ram at 1866
1920 x1080
Windows 7 Pro & Direct x 11
512 GB SSD Samsung 840 Pro + 1 TB drive

This was the benchmark: UserBenchmarks: Desktop 87%, Gaming 66%, Workstation 53%

I upgraded the rig to a GTX 970 and got this result: UserBenchmarks: Desktop 90%, Gaming 90%, Workstation 56%

I am able to play TW games almost maxed out on graphics with the upgrade to the GTX 970

[ra2z]

2 titan 7990 radeon hd 36 ram

[KAM 2150]

Originally I wanted GTX 960 but it has low memory and already is not able to run new games on very high-ultra details. It will simply get old very fast while 970 should last for next 3-4 years of good playing. I used GTX 560 for past 3 years.

[thomas_r]

Originally I wanted GTX 960 but it has low memory and already is not able to run new games on very high-ultra details. It will simply get old very fast while 970 should last for next 3-4 years of good playing. I used GTX 560 for past 3 years.

I saw that there is GTX 960 with 4 GO of video memory (Still I think the 970 is better anyway).

Ah yes indeed, it should be strange for you to have a very very good rig now.
With you new computer, do you get lag in Novigrad ? Since you got everything on Ultra (Here im talking of witcher 3 of course )

[KAM 2150]

Steady FPS all the time, but I dont use hairworks as it often looks pretty fake ;P

For 960 with 3.5gb memory (4gb is for laptops as far as I know since they always get more memory, my friend bought tjat one last week) price difference with top 970 is not that high.

[thomas_r]

Steady FPS all the time, but I dont use hairworks as it often looks pretty fake ;P

Lucky you ... But yeah Hairwork is pretty bad.

And for finish, Triss for the win

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I'm actually running Rome II on an AMD FX-6100 with 8 gigs of RAM and an MSI HD 7700 card.

I run ultra everything (except sky which i never look at anyways) and I get at least steady 45 fps just fine.

I only start having slowdowns when there are more than 18,000 units in battle.

I never understood the clamour to get the latest and greatest cards and parts when you can tweak old machines to run most current games just fine.

Infact I've usually kept most of my parts as is on older computers than this one for up to 6 years.

[Augustusng]

With the Total War games, your CPU is almost more important than your GPU, since these games just need a ton of processing power to show all the troops and do all the calculations in battles.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

With the Total War games, your CPU is almost more important than your GPU, since these games just need a ton of processing power to show all the troops and do all the calculations in battles.

I'd say that's accurate. Although since DeI adds so many high res textures, a better graphics card than you would max vanilla Rome II out would be advised.

I do plan on upgrading my card here soon as it is getting fairly old now, but for the moment it comfortably runs DeI for me.

[KAM 2150]

Ivan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMsGl_XxTk

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Ivan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMsGl_XxTk

I'd rather tweak my existing hardware to its fullest potential, and get similar results, then spend a grand upgrading everything.

It's just waste otherwise.

[zonks40]

It would probably be best to post this in 6-7 months when you are actually going to buy the stuff.

[KAM 2150]

I guess so Still it has very powerful clock on its own, hence it can run the game much better. Plus my RAM might also help with some stuff. Attila is the other case, due to bad optimization of certain models, for example my FPS go down to 24 if I zoom at Byzantine cataphracts, while overal FPS are much worse then in any other new game. GTA 5, Witcher 3, Far Cry 4, not a single lag in those games, nor in Rome 2.

[skartakh]

ähm sorry,of course i meant 4.434 × 1.871.